Re: K&R2 , exercise 7.6

[Barry Schwarz]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:47:30 +0500, arnuld <NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:31:18 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>
>>  *buf = 0;
>>  char *buf = NULL;
>>  char *buf = "";
>> 
>> are all different enough to be unlikely alternatives to each other.
>
>*buff = 0;
>
>puts a zero at the place pointed by pointer.
>
>char *buffer = NULL;
>char *buffer = 0;
>
>
>different in what context ?  Both are same as of value they contain:
>
>
>
>#include <stdio.h>
>
>
>int main(void) {
>
>  char *buffer  = 0;
>  char *buffer2 = NULL;
>
>    printf("%s\n%s\n", buffer, buffer2);

Obviously you wanted to do something else rather than invoke undefined
behavior here.  Did you mean to use %p instead of %s?  If so, it would
be a good to acquire the habit of casting the pointers to void* (even
though a char* would work without the cast).

>
>  return 0;
>}
>
>============ OUTPUT ===============
>/home/arnuld/programs/C $ gcc -ansi -pedantic -Wall -Wextra test.c 
>/home/arnuld/programs/C $ ./a.out 
>(null)
>(null)
>/home/arnuld/programs/C $ 
>
>
>
>
>> Arnuld's choice to prefer *buf = '\0'; to my *buf = 0; is fine and
>> needs no correction.
>
> :)


Remove del for email