Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #3261 > unrolled thread

puzzling error

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 08:44 -0400
    Re: puzzling error Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-05 13:56 +0100
      Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:11 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 09:26 -0700
          Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 13:26 -0400
          Re: puzzling error Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-05-05 11:34 -0700
          Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 14:52 -0400
          Re: puzzling error Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2011-05-05 13:39 -0700
            Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 13:54 -0700
          Re: puzzling error Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-05 20:38 +0000
            Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 14:11 -0700
            Re: puzzling error Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 23:40 +0000
        Re: puzzling error Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 13:55 -0400
          Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 14:04 -0400
            Re: puzzling error Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-09 13:26 -0400
          Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 11:31 -0700
      Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 09:06 -0700
        Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:30 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 13:40 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-05 21:32 +0100
      Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 13:34 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-05 21:38 +0100
          Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-06 02:39 -0400
            Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 23:40 -0700
    Re: puzzling error Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-05-05 13:01 +0000
      Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:05 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 16:23 +0000
      Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 09:08 -0700
    Re: puzzling error Marc Boyer <Marc.Boyer@cert.onera.fr.invalid> - 2011-05-05 13:02 +0000
      Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:34 -0400
        Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:35 -0400
        Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:40 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 14:08 -0400
          Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 11:35 -0700
            Re: puzzling error Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 18:54 +0000
              OT: man strfry (was Re: puzzling error) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-09 13:33 -0400
                Re: man strfry (was Re: puzzling error) "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-11 14:30 -0400
      Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 13:13 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 14:13 -0400
          Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 14:27 -0400
            Re: puzzling error "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-05-07 09:59 +0200
              Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-07 11:20 -0700
    Re: puzzling error August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-05-05 15:58 +0200
    Re: puzzling error "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2011-05-05 10:38 -0500
      Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:03 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-05-05 13:19 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 13:34 -0400
          Re: puzzling error "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2011-05-05 12:54 -0500
          Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 14:08 -0400
      Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:06 -0400
      Re: puzzling error Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 09:11 -0700
        Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:36 -0400
      Re: puzzling error Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 13:33 -0400
    Re: puzzling error Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 16:01 +0000
      Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:09 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 16:19 +0000
          Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:28 -0400
            Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 12:42 -0400
              Re: puzzling error "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-05-05 13:16 -0400
        Re: puzzling error Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-05 13:41 -0400

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#3405

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Kenneth Brody wrote:
>
>> On gcc (and many other compilers, though the Standard is mute on the
>> subject of command line flags to a compiler), the "-D_GNU_SOURCE"
>> flag on the command line is equivalent of putting this at the top of
>> the source file:
>>     #define _GNU_SOURCE
>>
>> You say you tried the #define in the source file.  Did you put it
>> above the #include <string.h> line?  These two versions are _not_
>> equivalent:
>>     #define _GNU_SOURCE
>>     #include <stdio.h>
>>     #include <string.h>
>> and
>>     #include <stdio.h>
>>     #include <string.h>
>>     #define _GNU_SOURCE
>
>    No I put the define in the middle of the two include directives.

If that didn't help, this would indicate that stdio.h includes string.h, and 
the 'include header guard' of string.h prevents it's content from being seen 
the 2nd time thru.
The '-D_GNU_SOURCE' is equivalent to a #define at the start of your source

Bye, Jojo 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3436

"Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> writes:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> Kenneth Brody wrote:
>>
>>> On gcc (and many other compilers, though the Standard is mute on the
>>> subject of command line flags to a compiler), the "-D_GNU_SOURCE"
>>> flag on the command line is equivalent of putting this at the top of
>>> the source file:
>>>     #define _GNU_SOURCE
>>>
>>> You say you tried the #define in the source file.  Did you put it
>>> above the #include <string.h> line?  These two versions are _not_
>>> equivalent:
>>>     #define _GNU_SOURCE
>>>     #include <stdio.h>
>>>     #include <string.h>
>>> and
>>>     #include <stdio.h>
>>>     #include <string.h>
>>>     #define _GNU_SOURCE
>>
>>    No I put the define in the middle of the two include directives.
>
> If that didn't help, this would indicate that stdio.h includes string.h, and 
> the 'include header guard' of string.h prevents it's content from being seen 
> the 2nd time thru.
> The '-D_GNU_SOURCE' is equivalent to a #define at the start of your source

I don't think a conforming stdio.h *can* include string.h.

I suggest that guessing about the consequences of what *might*
be in Bill's source file is a waste of time.  If he wants help,
he can post the source (rather than vaguely describing it).

There might (on certain systems) be things in <stdio.h> that are
affected by _GNU_SOURCE.  If you're going to #define _GNU_SOURCE,
you should do so at the very top of the source file, before any
#include directives.  If you're not doing that, and you're having
problems, moving the #define to the top of the file should be the
first thing you try.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3268

On 2011-05-05 14:44, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>      I am not quite sure what is going on here but this is my tested and
> compiled code. As written below at compile time I get this warning.
>
> p.c: In function `main':
> p.c:9: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast
>
> I don't see the int in this code.
>
> #include<stdio.h>
> #include<string.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
>      char p[] = "hello to all";
>      char *a;
>      printf("%s\n", p);
>      printf("%s\n", a = strfry(p)); //error on this line.
>      return 0;
> }
>
> strfry() is a GNU extension. It takes a char* as is sole argument and
> returns a char*.  Now if I change that char p[] to a char *p I get a
> segmentation fault. What's up with that?

The clang compiler will give you a bit more information (even without 
warnings enabled):

$ clang test.c
test.c:9:24: warning: implicit declaration of function 'strfry' is 
invalid in
       C99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
     printf("%s\n", a = strfry(p)); //error on this line.
                        ^
test.c:9:22: warning: incompatible integer to pointer conversion 
assigning to
       'char *' from 'int'
     printf("%s\n", a = strfry(p)); //error on this line.
                      ^ ~~~~~~~~~
2 warnings generated.


/August

-- 
The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own 
skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids 
clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3271

"Bill Cunningham" wrote:

>    I am not quite sure what is going on here but this is my tested and 
> compiled code. As written below at compile time I get this warning.
>
> p.c: In function `main':
> p.c:9: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast
>
> I don't see the int in this code.
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
>    char p[] = "hello to all";
>    char *a;
>    printf("%s\n", p);
>    printf("%s\n", a = strfry(p)); //error on this line.
>    return 0;
> }
>
> strfry() is a GNU extension. It takes a char* as is sole argument and 
> returns a char*.  Now if I change that char p[] to a char *p I get a 
> segmentation fault. What's up with that?

Do you think you have now mastered C and want to take on Unix as a 
challenge?  Or what?

This is the wrong newsgroup for Unix based questions. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3274

osmium wrote:

> Do you think you have now mastered C and want to take on Unix as a
> challenge?  Or what?
>
> This is the wrong newsgroup for Unix based questions.

    This is a GNU function. GNUs Not Unix.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3296

On 5/5/2011 12:03, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> osmium wrote:
>
>> Do you think you have now mastered C and want to take on Unix as a
>> challenge?  Or what?
>>
>> This is the wrong newsgroup for Unix based questions.
>
>      This is a GNU function. GNUs Not Unix.
>
> Bill
>
>
Perfect Bill. Keep it up.

-- 
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3300

On 5/5/2011 12:03 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> osmium wrote:
>
>> Do you think you have now mastered C and want to take on Unix as a
>> challenge?  Or what?
>>
>> This is the wrong newsgroup for Unix based questions.
>
>      This is a GNU function. GNUs Not Unix.

How is it that someone with the subtle knowledge of "GNU's Not Unix" is 
unable to comprehend such basic C concepts after all these years?

-- 
Kenneth Brody

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3303

"Kenneth Brody" wrote:

> On 5/5/2011 12:03 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>> osmium wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think you have now mastered C and want to take on Unix as a
>>> challenge?  Or what?
>>>
>>> This is the wrong newsgroup for Unix based questions.
>>
>>      This is a GNU function. GNUs Not Unix.
>
> How is it that someone with the subtle knowledge of "GNU's Not Unix" is 
> unable to comprehend such basic C concepts after all these years?

Perhaps that's why bumper stickers are so popular?  Short, pithy things 
stick.  The other answers indicate Bill is, indeed, a troll, as many say. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3307

Kenneth Brody wrote:

> How is it that someone with the subtle knowledge of "GNU's Not Unix"
> is unable to comprehend such basic C concepts after all these years?

    Sometimes I think I am a little underestimated. I get excited and post 
too soon sometimes. It's also hard for me to communicate. Try holding a 
conversation with me I would probably have to ask you what we were just 
talking about.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3276

osmium wrote:

> Do you think you have now mastered C and want to take on Unix as a
> challenge?  Or what?
>
> This is the wrong newsgroup for Unix based questions.

    My we *must* have something to complain about. I have my POSIX interests 
but I'll leave that for comp.unix.programmer.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3282

"osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
[...]
>> strfry() is a GNU extension. It takes a char* as is sole argument and 
>> returns a char*.  Now if I change that char p[] to a char *p I get a 
>> segmentation fault. What's up with that?
>
> Do you think you have now mastered C and want to take on Unix as a 
> challenge?  Or what?
>
> This is the wrong newsgroup for Unix based questions. 

strfry is not a Unix function; it's unique to the GNU C library (and
remember, GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix").

strfry() is GNU-specific, but the issue isn't; you'd have the same
problem with any non-standard function.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3291

Keith Thompson wrote:
> strfry() is GNU-specific, but the issue isn't; you'd have the same
> problem with any non-standard function.

    Some people Keith *must pick* and find *something* wrong.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3298

On 5/5/2011 11:38 AM, osmium wrote:
> "Bill Cunningham" wrote:
>
>>     I am not quite sure what is going on here but this is my tested and
>> compiled code. As written below at compile time I get this warning.
>>
>> p.c: In function `main':
>> p.c:9: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast
>>
>> I don't see the int in this code.
>>
>> #include<stdio.h>
>> #include<string.h>
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>>     char p[] = "hello to all";
>>     char *a;
>>     printf("%s\n", p);
>>     printf("%s\n", a = strfry(p)); //error on this line.
>>     return 0;
>> }
>>
>> strfry() is a GNU extension. It takes a char* as is sole argument and
>> returns a char*.  Now if I change that char p[] to a char *p I get a
>> segmentation fault. What's up with that?
>
> Do you think you have now mastered C and want to take on Unix as a
> challenge?  Or what?
>
> This is the wrong newsgroup for Unix based questions.

Well, in this case, his first question can be answered in a "pure C" 
context.  Since the GNU-specific strfry() function isn't defined in string.h 
(at least not without mode GNU-specific incantations), his "makes pointer 
from int" error can be explained by the implicit-int declaration.

His second question, if he had bothered to give the additional tidbit that 
GNU's strfry() modifies the string passed to it, then it again becomes 
topical here in clc.

-- 
Kenneth Brody

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3273

On 2011-05-05, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
> strfry() is a GNU extension. It takes a char* as is sole argument and 
> returns a char*.  Now if I change that char p[] to a char *p I get a 
> segmentation fault. What's up with that?

RTFM, RTFF.

-- 
The perfected state of a spam server is a smoking crater.
- The Crater Corollary to Rule #4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3277

Angel wrote:

> RTFM, RTFF.

    I don't know what RTFF means.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3283

On 2011-05-05, Bill Cunningham <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> Angel wrote:
>
>> RTFM, RTFF.
>
>     I don't know what RTFF means.

Same as RTFM, but s/Manual/FAQ/

Really, the man page of strfry() tells you exactly how to use it, but
you still screwed it up, and the comp.lang.c FAQ tells exactly what the
difference is between p[] = "abc"; and *p = "abc";. (Hint: The first one
is an array, the second a pointer.)

It's polite to check the documentation for an answer first before asking
your question here. Avoids making you look stupid as well. I'm fairly new
in this group, but I couldn't help notice some of the regulars being annoyed
with you, and I'm starting to see why.


-- 
The perfected state of a spam server is a smoking crater.
- The Crater Corollary to Rule #4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3285

Angel wrote:

> Same as RTFM, but s/Manual/FAQ/
>
> Really, the man page of strfry() tells you exactly how to use it, but
> you still screwed it up, and the comp.lang.c FAQ tells exactly what
> the difference is between p[] = "abc"; and *p = "abc";. (Hint: The
> first one
> is an array, the second a pointer.)
>
> It's polite to check the documentation for an answer first before
> asking your question here. Avoids making you look stupid as well. I'm
> fairly new in this group, but I couldn't help notice some of the
> regulars being annoyed with you, and I'm starting to see why.

    Well I don't know about the FAQ but before I posted I read and re-read 
man pages so before you accuse me of not doing it I did it and saw nothing 
about defining any macro.
    New to clc. clc is a pretty dramatic group and someone has to be picked 
on. But I'm a big boy and when I have a problem I'll post. Of course I'll be 
accused of al kinds of shit but I don't care. There is a killfile. But 
that's too simple.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3293

Bill Cunningham wrote:

>    Well I don't know about the FAQ but before I posted I read and
> re-read man pages so before you accuse me of not doing it I did it
> and saw nothing about defining any macro.
>    New to clc. clc is a pretty dramatic group and someone has to be
> picked on. But I'm a big boy and when I have a problem I'll post. Of
> course I'll be accused of al kinds of shit but I don't care. There is
> a killfile. But that's too simple.

    Ok I see it now. I'm not used to looking for defines. I will keep a look 
out now. Sorry my bad.

Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3295

Bill Cunningham wrote:

>    Ok I see it now. I'm not used to looking for defines. I will keep
> a look out now. Sorry my bad.

    But it's still not mentioned on the man page on my machine. But it 
mentioned on the online man page.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3302

On 5/5/2011 12:09 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Angel wrote:
>
>> RTFM, RTFF.
>
>      I don't know what RTFF means.

RTF(FAQ)

-- 
Kenneth Brody

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web