"CERRWARN" ignored for "lintcheck" target ? ... / was: Re: Next/opt/SUNWspro/bin/lint party ... / was: Re: [osol-code] Re: [Fwd:[ksh93-integration-discuss] ksh93-integration pre-reviewround"two" (webrev2007-05-14)]

[Roland Mainz]

Peter Memishian wrote:
> 
>  > > As for ksh93, we'd have to invent the procedure.
>  > > I certainly hope that making the code lint-clean would be viewed
>  > > favorably by the community and that pushing such changes upstream
>  > > would be straightforward.  Ditto for bug fixes (or have you fixed
>  > > the last bug in ksh93? :-)  Won't happen for a while, at least.
>  >
>  > Slightly offtopic: Is there a reason why "lintcheck" doesn't include the
>  > values from CERRWARN ? The tree uses "CERRWARN +=
>  > -erroff=E_UNRECOGNIZED_PRAGMA_IGNORED" in some places but it seems that
>  > this option is not used in the "lint" call... ;-(
> 
> I don't think there's a good reason (though I'm not aware of any
> documentation that states the "erroff" namespaces are fully compatible).

I forgot one detail in my last reply...
... I guess the namespaces are identical - the code comes from the same
people and (AFAIK) shares some larger chunk of source code... I would be
suprised if there are larger differences...
... otherwise we could add something like "LINTCERRWARN" and turn lines
like
-- snip --
CERRWARN += -erroff=E_CONST_PROMOTED_UNSIGNED_LONG
CERRWARN += -erroff=E_INTEGER_OVERFLOW_DETECTED
-- snip --
to something like
-- snip --
CERRWARN LINTCERRWARN += -erroff=E_CONST_PROMOTED_UNSIGNED_LONG
CERRWARN LINTCERRWARN += -erroff=E_INTEGER_OVERFLOW_DETECTED
CERRWARN              +=
-erroff=E_LINT_DOES_NOT_SUPPORT_THIS_ERROFF_OPTION
-- snip --
(disclaimer: untested).

----

Bye,
Roland

-- 
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 7950090
 (;O/ \/ \O;)