Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers

hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Fri, 19 Jun 1992 16:09:54 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers arnold@cc.gatech.edu (1992-06-18)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1992-06-18)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers hays@ssd.intel.com (1992-06-18)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers kendall@centerline.com (1992-06-19)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers wicklund@intellistor.com (1992-06-18)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers dds@doc.imperial.ac.uk (Diomidis Spinellis) (1992-06-19)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (1992-06-19)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers igor!voltaire!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (1992-06-19)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers dww@inf.fu-berlin.de (1992-06-20)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1992-06-21)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers mjr@decuac.DEC.COM (1992-06-22)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers prener@watson.ibm.com (1992-06-22)
Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers derek@knosof.uucp (1992-06-22)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Keywords: lint, performance
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
References: <19920609091040SEB1525@MVS.draper.com> 92-06-089
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 16:09:54 GMT

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]
--


Post a followup to this message

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