lclint-interest message 195

From 100566.1506@csi.com Wed Feb 25 12:24:02 1998
X-Authentication-Warning: opto4l.default.com: 100566.1506 owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:01:03 +0100 (CET)
From: Hermann Kleier <100566.1506@csi.com>
X-Sender: 100566.1506@opto4l.default.com
Reply-To: Hermann Kleier <100566.1506@csi.com>
To: David Evans 
Cc: Hermann Kleier ,
        lclint-interest ,
        Hermann Kleier 
Subject: re: signal function interface
In-Reply-To: <9802212331.AA10981@larch.lcs.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Dave,

On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, David Evans wrote:

  1 > typedef int func1 (int);
  2 > typedef int (*func2) (int);
  3 > 
  4 > int tf (int (p1)(int), int (*p2) (int), func1, func1 *, func2);
  5 > 
  6 > int f1 (int);
  7 > 
  8 > int f (void)
  9 > {
 10 >   func1 fa;
 11 >   func2 fb;
 12 >   func1 *fap;
 13 > 
 14 >   fa (2);
 15 >   fb (3);
 16 >   fap (3);
 17 > 
 18 >   return tf (f1, f1, f1, f1, f1);
 19 > }

Why not? I dislike the C-standard which makes no difference between VARIABLES 
OF THE TYPES `func1' `func1 *', and `func2'.  This applies to the variables
`fa', `fb', and `fap' as well as for the parameters in the function prototype of
`tf'.  This makes it even possible to rewrite line 14 as `(*fa) (2);'.

IMHO compilers must compile the code.  I feel that the message of LcLint 2.3i

>   h.c:16,3: Call to non-function (type func1 *): fap
>      Types are incompatible. (-type will suppress message)

is pedantic (and misleading), but I feel that rewriting line 16 to read

  (*fap) (3);

improves the readability.  The message should read `Implicit function
pointer conversion supplied'.  LcLint should report the same problem on line 15
too.

In contradiction to LcLint, Flexelint 7.5 did not report that `fa' in line 13
has not been initialized. I feel that `fa' is an undefined variable there and
NOT an external function.  Is this a bug in FlexeLint?

Hermann