checking man page includes and prototypes?

[Tom Rhodes]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:15:39 -0700
Rich Morin <rdm at cfcl.com> wrote:

> I'm doing a lot of editing of section 2 and 3 man pages,
> concentrating on the includes and prototypes.  Although
> I'm trying to be careful, it's quite likely that some
> errors will slip past me.  So, I'm casting about for a
> way to do an automated sanity check.  Here's one idea:
> 
>   For each man page
>     For each prototype
>       Construct a C test file.
>       Compile the test file.
>       Look for nastygrams, etc.
> 
> For example, the sysconf(3) SYNOPSIS contains the lines:
> 
>   #include <unistd.h>
> 
>   long
>   sysconf(int name);
> 
> I can turn this into the file test.c:
> 
>   #include <unistd.h>
> 
>   main() {
> 
>     int name;
>     sysconf(name);
>   }
> 
> Compiling this (e.g., "cc test.c") finishes silently.
> So far, so good...
> 
> 
> Editing "sysconf" into "sysconfx" produces a promising
> nastygram:
> 
>   /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols:
>   _sysconfx
>   collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> 
> 
> However, editing "int name;" into "float name;' does
> NOT cause a nastygram.  So, it appears that prototype
> checking is not being done.  The gcc(1) man page gave
> me the idea of trying
> 
>   gcc -pedantic -ansi test.c
> 
> but this didn't make any visible difference.  I see a
> bazillion other options, including a bunch of "-W..."
> goodies, but I'd rather not try them all at random.  I
> tried "gcc -pedantic -ansi -Wstrict-prototypes test.c",
> but it only complained about my "main" statement (?):
> 
>   test.c:3: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype
> 
> 
> Any suggestions (general or specific) on how I might be
> able to cajole gcc (or whatever) into helping me?
> 
> -r
> 
> P.S.  The "obvious" strategy of inspecting the header file(s)
>       breaks down under closer examination.  The declaration
>       may be located in an include file which is referenced
>       indirectly, #defines or #ifdefs may be involved, etc.
> 
>       So, for a general, automated solution, I'd like to rely
>       on the compiler (etc) to tell me whether the usage is
>       complete and correct.

Have you tried using cc with -Wall?

Lemmie sleep some and I might come up with something else.

-- 
Tom Rhodes