Dear Chris,
Your recurse statment should read :
return (toot (x, x * y));
instead of just :
toot (x, x * y);
Regards,
Raymond
Chris Rode wrote:
> I'm honestly not trying to resurrect some gcc 2.96 flame war or anything
> here, but I'm not a very seasoned C programmer, and I've run across an
> inconsistancy between Red Hat's version of gcc, and gcc 2.95.4 on a Debian
> system. Consider the following uninspired, pointless piece of code:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> float toot(int, float);
>
> main() {
> int a = 4;
> float b = 5;
> float result = 0;
>
> result = toot(a, b);
> printf("%f\n", result);
> }
>
> float toot(int x, float y) {
> if (y == 20) {
> return y;
> } else {
> toot(x, x*y);
> }
> }
>
> Compiled with Red Hat's gcc 2.96, I get "nan" (however, If I take out
> the recursive call, and just return x*y, I get 20.000000).
>
> Compiled with Debian's 2.95.4, I get 20.000000.
>
> Can anybody explain to me (a) why, and (b) if there's something inherently
> wrong about what I'm doing that would cause this to fail on a Red Hat
> system? I know the code is pointless, but it's an extremely dumbed down
> version of a more complex problem exhibiting the exact same behavior.
>
> Thanks in advance for any insights that can be provided. Like I said, I'm
> not trying to restart an old flame war, or anything -- I'm just a newbie
> to C, who is honestly curious about what is going on under the covers to
> cause the inconsistency.
>
> --Chris.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-devel-list mailing list
> Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
