From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Using cgets (a !FAQ) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 10:44:19 +0200 Organization: NetVision Israel Lines: 24 Message-ID: <390AA0E3.63EDE80A@is.elta.co.il> References: <01bfafc6$387a7c80$da06017e AT gr-356146> <39086612 DOT 15C4E78A AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <01bfb151$551a0860$da06017e AT gr-356146> NNTP-Posting-Host: ras1-p56.rvt.netvision.net.il Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 956994247 200 62.0.172.58 (29 Apr 2000 07:44:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Apr 2000 07:44:07 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,ru,hebrew To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Joel Hunsberger wrote: > Now, the interesting part is that the implicit conversion "taking place" is > only > reported when the compiler switch -pedantic is ON. Without it, compilation > was silent and apparently succesful. However, when cgets receives a -1 as > the > buffer length, the stack gets corrupted... Data back from cgets is (in > fact) > okay (although the stack is corrupted) so the next return goes off in the > weeds. Welcome to C programming ;-). The C language is traditionally permissive to what could be dangerous practice on the part of the programmer, so it assumes the programmer generally knows what he/she is doing. Using -pedantic prints lots of warnings about perfectly valid C code, that's why it is OFF by default. > "> Do you mean to say that it was not known to you... " > > Are you really that surprised? No, I was just trying to understand what is it that you'd like the docs to say more explicitly.