On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:39 AM, David wrote:

> It will segfault as it tries to print random memory.

With gcc, it gives a compile warning first, even without -Wall.

Hopefully the code challenges will reach the point where you can't figure t=
hem out just by feeding the code provided to a compiler (a compiler than co=
mpetes with the sponsor!)

I'm not particularly happy that there are so many other issues with this co=
de, beyond the answer that they seem to want.

 gcc -Wall foo.c
foo.c: In function 'main':
foo.c:9: warning: format '%s' expects type 'char *', but argument 3 has typ=
e 'int'
foo.c:9: warning: format '%s' expects type 'char *', but argument 3 has typ=
e 'int'
foo.c:5: warning: unused variable 'ch'
foo.c:11: warning: control reaches end of non-void function

Which is without Peter's quite valid "The code must check each argv[i], inc=
luding argv[0], for NULL" complaint.

> many simple-minded small-system C compilers generate more efficient code =
for ++i than for i++


Hmm.  I haven't run into that so much.  In fact, the other way around; the =
original PDP11 had post-increment and pre-decrement addressing modes (altho=
ugh, that was for pointers, rather than loop counters=85)  It's a valid thi=
ng to watch out for, though.

BillW


--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.