phil@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Phil Sohn) (05/07/88)
the mac? phil@ems.media.mit.edu
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (06/07/88)
Copied from comp.lang.c article: >I've said it before (usually in Pascal-vs-C discussions): a C compiler >consists of two parts, traditionally called cc and lint. A vendor who doesn't >supply a lint equivalent is only selling half a C compiler. > >Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint I *thought* there was something missing! ********************************************************************* *Earle R. Horton, H.B. 8000, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 * *********************************************************************
pollock@usfvax2.EDU (Wayne Pollock) (06/18/88)
In article <8808@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: >Copied from comp.lang.c article: >>I've said it before (usually in Pascal-vs-C discussions): a C compiler >>consists of two parts, traditionally called cc and lint. A vendor who doesn't >>supply a lint equivalent is only selling half a C compiler. >> >>Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint > >I *thought* there was something missing! You are so right. The compiler was originally split into two parts so small changes could be made while tuning a program quickly (without all the checking), and to make the checking portion smaller (which is all that is needed in the first few iterations of edit-test). I would rather have a full version of lint than a symbolic debugger! Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist) pollock@usfvax2.usf.edu Usenet: ...!{ihnp4, cbatt}!codas!usfvax2!pollock GEnie: W.POLLOCK