Eljay,
Make sure you put in
c[0]=konfig[i];
c[1] = '\0';
l=atoi(c);
Thanks for that comment!
I was hoping that char c[2]="" clears c for me.
Maybe. Did you have all the warnings turned on?
by means of -Wall ? yes, they were turned on
But even with warnings turned on, C gives you plenty of rope to hang
yourself. (C++ gives you even more rope. So you can hang yourself, all
your friends, family, co-workers, and still have enough rope left over to do
the rigging of a small schooner.)
hehehhee thats a remarkable comment :))) guess thats why so many
people switch to other languages!
Which one is "wrong" depends on whether foo expects a pointer to a character
(in which case they're all "right"), or foo expects a pointer to a character
array that is terminated with a nul character (in which case the first one
is incorrect in that it violates the API contract... but the compiler does
not know that).
hmm
it seems that more aggressive optimisation triggers code bugs, maybe it
could be used for bug finding itself ?
I would probably not know there is a bug in my code (because it worked as
expected for me) unless I used O3.
I agree. The sole consolation is "job security". :-P
phew, thanks God i'm not a programmer! :P
Cheers!
B
