On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
Would (&(e)-1) solve that?
No, because that's an invalid expression: it normally has undefined
behavior, and 'lint' is within its rights to warn about it.
Invalid seems like a strong word. You mean that some lint implementations
warn about pointer arithmetic on locals and params?
Why can't we simply rewrite the code so that it doesn't declare
unused variables?
Is that computable in general? I had made the assumption that there are
cases where it's dependent upon user code. However, in a quick glance
over the code, I didn't notice a case where it is.
Assuming this code rewrite will work, do you think it'll make it into the
next release? If it won't make it in, perhaps the static global would be
a reasonable temporary solution... so I can pass structs as parser
parameters.
Joel
_______________________________________________
Help-bison@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
