>>>BTW, I realized that there may be an easier way to do such validation in GCC >>>- write information about each function prototype (found where function is >>>implemented) and each function call to object files (e.g. as debug data or >>>in other format), and use it to perform validation in linker. What do you >>>think about this? >> >>That sounds more realistic (and would be useful to people using C, not >>your suggested C-with-mangling) but I it's still many weeks of work by >>many people, so you don't have to spend a month fixing your code. Even >>if it happened, it wouldn't be available in released versions of GCC >>and the linker for months, so it is not going to help you find "some >>temporary solution to use now". > >I know that you have to stick with your release plans, so this is not >something to expect soon. I understand this. What I am looking for are >things which I could use now; I thought there may be something in gcc >already to help me with my work now, so I asked here. > >I also look for long term solutions which could be helpful for me and >for others, so I asked more questions. Sorry if I annoyed you. > >Thank you for your answer. I will wait for some more feedback on my >last proposal about adding and using this extra info, and log and >enhancement. Maybe you could get more results by using a static code analyzer which does basically the same as the compiler (without actually compiling) e.g. print a lot of errors and warnings that might show you the problematic places in the code. We've found pclint very helpful but of course there are also other programs. bye Fabi
