Ergo :
1- You didn't read my .sig
2- You think since I post from a .edu account I am a prof.
3- He who assumes makes an.....
Actually I am a computer contractor that gets brought in to produce
high quality code with very tough deadlines.
>write(), interfaces aren't going to change, folks. They predated gcc,
>and they will likely outlast gcc. Saying that it's the fault of those
>who invented the entire Unix system call interface doesn't help things.
>
1. True the interface isn't likely to change.
2. The argument of the compiler/cast I was stating the root cause is
the design of the function read. This does not mean that I think
the original designers even did it wrong. I am mearly stating this
is the location of the problem.
>The fact of the matter is, by having the compiler issue these warnings,
>it makes folks much more likely to ignore *all* compiler warnings, since
>so many of them will be false positives.
>
> - Ted
And these will be the same people that end up blameing the compiler
for the bugs in their code.(Yes I have seen this.) The dilligent
programer will clean up the cast bugs, write a script to ignore them,
or just prentend their not there. They will, however not ignore all of
the compiler warnings.
After using a bunch of compilers in various languages I still find
that a compiler that gives me too many warnings better than one that
dosen't produce enough warnings.
/----------------------------\ Current Contractor: Oxford International
| Leslie F. Donaldson | Current Customer : Entergy Inc.
| Computer Contractor | Skills: Unix/OS9/VMS/Linux/SUN-OS/C/C++/assembly
| Have Computer will travel. | Curr : http://www.cs.rose-hulman.edu/~donaldlf
\----------------------------/ Current Email : donaldlf@cs.rose-hulman.edu
Goth Code V1.1: GoCS$$ TYg(T6,T9) B11Bk!^1 C6b-- P0(1,7) M+ a24 n--- b++:+
H6'11" g m---- w+ r+++ D--~!% h+ s10 k+++ R-- Ssw LusCA++