Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers

wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund) writes:
> ...
> everything lint does can be built into the compiler (assuming all
> files are compiled together). But then the compiler with all
> checking options on is lint under a different name.


Not quite; you then have a bloated compiler and a bloated linter. I want
a compiler that screams, and a separate tool (ie, in a different
executable from the compiler) for checking interfaces, which is only
needed when an interface changes. Putting other consistency checks in
lint and taking them out of the compiler is fine with me too, since it is
just an extension of the philosophy (edit-compile-run until you get a core
dump, and then lint :-).


- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
[My experience suggests that producing the single pass lint info causes
negligible bloat since it's all based on type and parse tree info that the
compiler has anyway. -John]
--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.