Re: supporting traditional `lint' in cpplib

[Zack Weinberg <zack at rabi dot columbia dot edu>]

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:53:11 -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
>> Now, is this a useful feature?  It seems to me that gcc's warnings do
>> most of what lint used to do.  Furthermore, I don't believe there is a
>> readily available free lint.
>
>Exactly.  That is why cpp turns things like /*NOTREACHED*/ into #pragmas,
>so cc1 can emit better warnings.  I.e. the idea is that
>gcc -lint should be a superset of lint.  There is no need for a
>separate lint.  But it is still useful for gcc to handle *lint comments*.
[...]
>lint style comments are both traditional, more portable
>- and arguably more readable.

Ok, fair enough.  cc1 doesn't understand those pragmas right now, but
they'd be straightforward to add.

Next questions:

Is the set of markers recognized by cccp exhaustive?  Conversely,
would it be ok to take any comment of the form /* [A-Z0-9]+ */ as a
lint comment, and let cc1 sort it out?
Are lint comments always the only thing on a line?

zw