Re: %destructor feedback

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:

> > Would (&(e)-1) solve that?
>
> No, because that's an invalid expression: it normally has undefined
> behavior, and 'lint' is within its rights to warn about it.

Invalid seems like a strong word. You mean that some lint implementations 
warn about pointer arithmetic on locals and params?

> Why can't we simply rewrite the code so that it doesn't declare
> unused variables?

Is that computable in general?  I had made the assumption that there are 
cases where it's dependent upon user code.  However, in a quick glance 
over the code, I didn't notice a case where it is.

Assuming this code rewrite will work, do you think it'll make it into the 
next release?  If it won't make it in, perhaps the static global would be 
a reasonable temporary solution... so I can pass structs as parser 
parameters.

Joel