On Mar 22, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:51:08PM +0100, Havard Eidnes wrote: >> IMHO, as long as lint is capable of helping us spot actual >> problems, adding a few of these sorts of constrcucts seems like a >> small price to pay. > > It doesn't. From what I see, the signal to noise ratio of lint is > completely inacceptable and for that very reason, uglifying the code > with questionable constructs is not acceptable. Even worse, changing > code for undefined/misdefined behavior of K&R (!) is simply wrong. > ISO C90 is now 22 years old. Traditional C is irrelevant.
When was the last time that NetBSD could be compiled with a K&R compiler? 1995? Warner