XPost: alt.folklore.computers, alt.unix.geeks   
   From: OFeem1987@teleworm.us   
      
   Carlos E.R. wrote this post by blinking in Morse code:   
      
   > On 2026-01-07 23:49, rbowman wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-01-06 19:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>> It is possible that current C compilers signal many more problems that   
   >>> back then, but not runtime errors.   
      
   Gcc will tag things that could cause a run-time error, such as   
   parameters that don't match the specifiers in a printf() call.   
      
   >> gcc has become pickier. That isn't always a welcome thing when working   
   >> with legacy code and requires a search of the compiler options to get it   
   >> to shut up about such horrible heresies as assuming a function returns an   
   >> int.   
      
   I periodically also build projects using clang. Clang and gcc each   
   catch some problems that the other does not catch.   
      
   > If the code were mine, I would correct the code. Even back then, I did   
   > not take the assumption that a function would return an integer :-D   
   >   
   > I wrote explicit prototypes in the header file. :-)   
   >   
   > If the code is not mine, I would use the compiler options instead.   
   > Unless I got paid to maintain that code, then I would correct the code.   
      
   Don't fix what ain't broke, you might break it [1] :-D   
      
   [1] I'm speaking from experience.   
      
   --   
   You can observe a lot just by watching.  -- Yogi Berra   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)