17-09-2013, 01:43 PM
You're welcome!
Please post back how you get on with Gimpel. As I recall from the history of the languages development, the concept of array types was added some what belatedly (during standardisation) and as a consequence it had to retain backwards compatibility, which is why it has mostly gone unnoticed. Also, in those earlier pre-standardisation versions of C, taking the address (& operator) of something that was an address, such as a function identier or an array identifier was undefined, but generally accepted as being benign and resulted in the identifiers address. This I believe is what PC Lint is trying to tell you. (May be.) But this is inconsistent with Standard C for array types and they should reconsider their check (which may still be fair for function and non-array object identifiers).
Dave B.
Please post back how you get on with Gimpel. As I recall from the history of the languages development, the concept of array types was added some what belatedly (during standardisation) and as a consequence it had to retain backwards compatibility, which is why it has mostly gone unnoticed. Also, in those earlier pre-standardisation versions of C, taking the address (& operator) of something that was an address, such as a function identier or an array identifier was undefined, but generally accepted as being benign and resulted in the identifiers address. This I believe is what PC Lint is trying to tell you. (May be.) But this is inconsistent with Standard C for array types and they should reconsider their check (which may still be fair for function and non-array object identifiers).
Dave B.
<t></t>