for(;0;) printf("hello");

[Ancient_Hacker]

Re: for(;0;) printf("he llo");


Spidey wrote:

for(;0;)
printf("hello") ;
>
even the condition s wrong i get a hello printed on the screen
y s this happening

this could happen if some malicious person went into your stdio.h file
(which you probably included but didnt show) and they added a line
something like: #define for(x).

Either that or the compiler is incorrectly optimizing the code and
somehow falling thru the code the first time.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: for(;0;) printf("he llo");


In article <1157905584.803 527.231760@m79g 2000cwm.googleg roups.com>, "Spiros Bousbouras" <spibou@gmail.c omwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:
>

Richard Heathfield <invalid@invali d.invalidwrites :
[...]

Gv th mn a bnn!

Give the man a bunny?

>
Banana !

And here I was sure it was "bunion".

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@ microfocus.com

[jmcgill]

Re: for(;0;) printf(&quot;he llo&quot;);

Chris Dollin wrote:

jmcgill wrote:
>

>Brackets are not only proper syntax, they are also a good idea. They
>are anything but "clutter."

>
Opinions differ.
>
They're certainly proper syntax. Sometimes they are also necessary.
Appendectomies are also sometimes necessary.

Putting braces around statements does not cause you to lose your appendix.

[bart.kowalski@gmail.com]

Re: for(;0;) printf(&quot;he llo&quot;);

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jmcgill said:
>

Simon Biber wrote:

for(;0;)
printf("hello") ;

Would it kill you to use curly braces?

>
Since a parallel reply responds negatively to your suggestion, I thought you
might welcome some support for your position.
>
Strange as it may seem, not everyone is an expert C programmer. A
maintenance guy in a hurry, confronted with this code:
>
for(image = 0; image < numimages - 1; image++)
for(y = 0; y < height; y++)
for(x = 0; x < width; x++)
if(img[image].pixel[y][x] & ALPHA)
img[image].pixel[y][x] =
alpha_blend(img[image].pixel[y][x],
img[image + 1].pixel[y][x],
img[image].alpha);
>
could be forgiven for adding a statement immediately under the alpha_blend
call, on the (incorrect) assumption that it would form part of the inner
loop - and he is especially likely to make this mistake if he has, say, a
Python background.
>
If the code were like this:
>
for(image = 0; image < numimages - 1; image++)
{
for(y = 0; y < height; y++)
{
for(x = 0; x < width; x++)
{
if(img[image].pixel[y][x] & ALPHA)
{
img[image].pixel[y][x] =
alpha_blend(img[image].pixel[y][x],
img[image + 1].pixel[y][x],
img[image].alpha);
>
}
}
}
}
>
that mistake would be much more difficult to make.
>
In my opinion, it's a good habit to get into. Obviously, some people's
mileage varies.

Agreed. But I would also like to add that in code like this:

/* ... */
}
}
}
}
}
}

Comments to indicate which block is being closed wouldn't hurt.

Regards,
Bart.

[Chris Dollin]

Re: for(;0;) printf(&quot;he llo&quot;);

jmcgill wrote:

Chris Dollin wrote:

>jmcgill wrote:
>>

>>Brackets are not only proper syntax, they are also a good idea. They
>>are anything but "clutter."

>>
>Opinions differ.
>>
>They're certainly proper syntax. Sometimes they are also necessary.
>Appendectomi es are also sometimes necessary.

>
Putting braces around statements does not cause you to lose your appendix.

Well, that's a relief.

Urm ... and?

--
Chris "don't know where mine is" Dollin
Meaning precedes definition.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: for(;0;) printf(&quot;he llo&quot;);

bart.kowalski@g mail.com said:

<snip>

But I would also like to add that in code like this:
>
/* ... */
}
}
}
}
}
}
>
Comments to indicate which block is being closed wouldn't hurt.

Fair comment. I guess there are still a few people left who don't use vim.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999

http://www.cpax.org.uk

email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Registered User]

Re: for(;0;) printf(&quot;he llo&quot;);


Spidey wrote:

for(;0;)
printf("hello") ;
>
even the condition s wrong i get a hello printed on the screen
y s this happening

Simon Biber wrote:

Turbo C is known to be buggy.

Yeah, this is what happens in Turbo C 3.0, although it does warn about
"unreachabl e code".