🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4khl1h$stq@solutions.solon.com>, kgold@watson.ibm.com (K Goldman) writes:

|> My compiler seems to check function prototypes if they exist, but
|> is just as happy to not have them.  Therefore . . .

|> Is there an automated way to insure that I have included all the
|> header files that I need in my source code?

You don't say which compiler you use, but if you use GCC you can
enable -Wmissing-prototypes, -Wstrict-prototypes,
-Wmissing-declarations, and/or -Wimplicit, depending on what you want
to check for.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                      "And now for something
schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de              completely different"

K Goldman (kgold@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: Is there an automated way to insure that I have included all the
: header files that I need in my source code?

If possible, tell your compiler to check for this.

For example, the -v option for SPARCcompiler 3.0 gives messages similar to:

"temp.c", line 3: warning: implicitly declaring function to return int: help()

--
The preceding is my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of my
employer.

schwab@lamothe.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Andreas Schwab) writes:
|> kgold@watson.ibm.com (K Goldman) writes:
|> 
|> |> My compiler seems to check function prototypes if they exist, but
|> |> is just as happy to not have them.  Therefore . . .
|> 
|> |> Is there an automated way to insure that I have included all the
|> |> header files that I need in my source code?
|> 
|> You don't say which compiler you use, but if you use GCC you can
|> enable -Wmissing-prototypes, -Wstrict-prototypes,
|> -Wmissing-declarations, and/or -Wimplicit, depending on what you want
|> to check for.
|> 

Sorry.  It's xlc, which is the ANSI version of cc, on an IBM RS/6000
running AIX 3.2.5.

I _did_ read the manual, and the man page, and the on-line help,
and there doesn't seem to be a switch to check for prototypes.

-- 
Ken Goldman   kgold@watson.ibm.com   914-784-7396

In <4kll8t$o4r@solutions.solon.com> kgold@watson.ibm.com (K Goldman) writes:

>schwab@lamothe.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Andreas Schwab) writes:
>|> kgold@watson.ibm.com (K Goldman) writes:
>|> 
>|> |> My compiler seems to check function prototypes if they exist, but
>|> |> is just as happy to not have them.  Therefore . . .
>|> 
>|> |> Is there an automated way to insure that I have included all the
>|> |> header files that I need in my source code?
>|> 
>|> You don't say which compiler you use, but if you use GCC you can
>|> enable -Wmissing-prototypes, -Wstrict-prototypes,
>|> -Wmissing-declarations, and/or -Wimplicit, depending on what you want
>|> to check for.
>|> 
>
>Sorry.  It's xlc, which is the ANSI version of cc, on an IBM RS/6000
>running AIX 3.2.5.
>
>I _did_ read the manual, and the man page, and the on-line help,
>and there doesn't seem to be a switch to check for prototypes.

Two possibilities:

1. Upgrade to AIX 4.1 and the current version of xlc, which does what you
   need:

    sp054:~/tmp 9> cat test.c
    void foo(void)
    {
	bogus();
    }
    sp054:~/tmp 10> xlc -qinfo -c test.c
    "test.c", line 3.5: 1506-304 (I) No function prototype given for 'bogus'.

2. Use gcc, which is freeware:

    sp054:~/tmp 11> gcc -Wall -c test.c
    test.c: In function `foo':
    test.c:3: warning: implicit declaration of function `bogus'

Given your email address, the first alternative might be free for you,
as well.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: danpop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article <4khl1h$stq@solutions.solon.com>,
kgold@watson.ibm.com (K Goldman) writes:

|> Is there an automated way to insure that I have included all the
|> header files that I need in my source code?

Since C++ mandates that functions be properly prototyped, one thing
you might want to try is to run your code through a C++ compiler.

Konrad Schwarz