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. Joerg
