Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

C Question

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-19 2:02

Im going to be taking Intro to C in the fall so I have decided to read up on the textbook and learn how to program before the semester starts. I'm having a little problem, here's the trouble maker:
    potr1 = &goodarray[0];

    potr2 = &goodarray;

for some reason potr2 gets assigned the value of the &goodarray[0]instead of the &goodarray itself.. I have verified this by printfing both of them and they come up the same number. Im using DevC++ and Im pretty sure I just need to find a better compiler, but am I doing something wrong?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-19 2:40

>>1
What are you trying to do exactly? What datatype  are those variables?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-19 2:54


char a[10];

a     // char[10]
&a    // char (*)[10]
a[0]  // char
&a[0] // char *

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-19 4:16

&goodarray[0], &goodarray and goodarray all return the address of the first element. You can't assign a whole array to a primitive in C.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-19 4:30

Faggot. Nigger. Stack pointer monadic overflow.

Name: tip 2011-07-19 4:31

The name of an array evaluates to a pointer to the first element of the array, as >>3,4 pointed out.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-19 5:13

Lets just stop pretending and casting bullshit and use void pointers all the time.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-19 5:52

>>7
That will very negatively affect performance.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 1:56

>>4
OP here, I feel retarded. Thanks for the info.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 2:09

If pointers are so important, than why does Steve Jobs nine developers mindshare cloud computing?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 8:37

Late? Blackout Tuskegee! Psychophysical myofibril ultra cockcrow complicate...

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 8:58

Stuck sibyl Morocco chordata Oldenburg? Woods Bingham fiberboard schemata segment upbring longish tonsillitis?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 9:01

Peel! Chaw stationary occlude... Petunia anchorite villein tincture Hiram NBC pantomimic Roseland goniometer...

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 9:15

Indefinable waterproof withe slew expelling do indispose! Incorrect tetravalent Minneapolis indentation loose...

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 17:15

>>7
Ripple. Kirkland ablution tackle spangle! Sheet sportswrite pliable sheaf prevention produce Denton Washburn grout.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 17:17

Odious ferocious.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 17:31

Incorruptible puddly. Methanol spheric Jura.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 17:32

>>9
Sincere inverse stigma grantor redundant!

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 17:33

▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓████▓▓██████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██████▓▓████▓▓▓▓
██████████████████████▓▓██████████████████████▓▓██████████████████████▓▓██████████████████████▓▓
██▓▓██████████████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██████████████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██████████████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██████████████▓▓██▓▓
██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 17:57

▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓████▓▓██████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██████▓▓████▓▓▓▓
██████████████████████▓▓██████████████████████▓▓██████████████████████▓▓██████████████████████▓▓
██▓▓██████████████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██████████████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██████████████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██████████████▓▓██▓▓
██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 18:12

cat("This thread has peacefully ended. Thankyou.");

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 18:42

>>8
wut...

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-20 19:08

>>6
The name of an array evaluates to a pointer to the first element of the array, as >>3,4 pointed out.

That's a big no you dumbass. The person that gave the response never said that. You just incorrectly assumed it. For further clarification, please refer to section 5.3 in the second edition of "The C Programming Language" by K & R.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 22:23

>>19, >>20

This is intellectual property of Taito, Inc.  Please remove this copyrighted content immediately.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 22:43

>>23
Um, what are you even saying?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 22:58

>>23
That >>6 doesn't understand the relationship between a pointer and an array in C.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 23:11

arrays and pointers differ in size

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-20 23:32

Im going to be taking it up the ass in the fall so I have decided to read up on the textbook and learn how to anus-spread before the semester starts. I'm having a little problem, here's the trouble maker:
    finger1 = &anus[0];

    finger2 = &anus;

for some reason finger2 gets inserted with the value of the &anus[0]instead of the &anus itself.. I have verified this by inserting both of them and they come up the same rectal wall. Im using AstroGlide++ and Im pretty sure I just need to find a better partner, but am I doing something wrong?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 0:02

>>26
How's that?  Please explain how
The name of an array evaluates to a pointer to the first element of the array
is not true.

Since you referred me to 5.3 in K&R2, I will quote it for you:
Since the name of an array is a synonym for the location of the initial element, the assignment pa=&a[0] can also be written as

pa = a;

ERGO YOUR WRONG BICTH and IHBT by a tripfag :(

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 1:28

>>29
And what happens if I have the following array you stupid shit..


#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
  char foo[10];
  return 0;
}

Would foo evaluate to a pointer to the first element of this array? Now shut up you stupid shit.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 1:32

>>29
pa = a;

Also you stupid shit, pa if of type int * as opposed to something like say int[10].

Name: tourettes syndrome 2011-07-21 1:43

>>30,31
Would foo evaluate to a pointer to the first element of this array?
Um... Why, yes, it would.

Am I alone in thinking this guy is insane?  Holy moley.

I'm not sure what your deal is, besides being autismal as fuck, so I will just leave you with this: http://codepad.org/z3aQna6H

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 2:03

>29-32
The name of an array evaluates to a pointer to the first element of the array
Technically, the name of the array evaluates to pointer to an array which has the same value as the pointer to its first element. It has the same value but it's of a different type. In this case foo == &foo but sizeof(foo) != sizeof(&foo). Matters when doing memcpys and shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 2:27

Yes, C is misdesigned.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 7:27

>>27
arrays and pointers differ in size
char a[sizeof (char *)];

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 8:31

the name of an array
You all are just full of BS.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 11:04

>>32
No. My compiler shows an array of 10 chars the foo case.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 11:06

>>36
The array and the name of the array elments are two different things.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 11:18

"this thing" and "this thing" are 2 different things

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 11:19

>>38
Do you suffer from mental retardation?

This whole shit about ``the name of an array'' is _still_ irrelevant to this discussion in particular, and, furthermore, to _any_ C-related discussion in general.
Get over it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 11:21

>>40
I do not suffer from mental retardation. I enjoy it.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 11:21

>>40
It is pretty relevant because one is a modifiable lvalue and the other one isn't.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 11:27

>>42
I'm just saying that ``the name of an array'' shyte is a flawed notion retards use to distract themselves from their broken mental model of C.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 11:38

>>43

I really hope that you aren't the same person that said the following..

>>30,31

Would foo evaluate to a pointer to the first element of this > array?

Um... Why, yes, it would.

If you did, you are totally clueless about C. When I run something like the following through gdb

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void) {
  char *p;
  char foo[10];
  p = &foo[0];

  return 0;
}


I get 'foo' as

type = char [10]


but 'p' as

type = char *

In other other words, one is an array of 10 char objects and the other is a pointer.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 11:44

>>44
I really hope that you aren't the same person that said the following..
I'm not.

In other other words, one is an array of 10 char objects and the other is a pointer.
Guess what: No shit, Sherlock. Just look up their fucking declarations, cause that's how (explicit) statically typed languages work...

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 12:31

The pointer to the first object in an array and a pointer to the array itself is the same value in C (and in most languages I think).  In fact, there's no real distinction between writing to an array and writing to a memory address that's probably being used by a high level process in that exact moment. 

And yes, if that fills your heart with dread, you should be scared.  Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 13:07

>>46
No, because one points to an array which an unmodifiable lvalue, and the other points to an array element.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 13:13

>>46

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void) {
    char a[10];

    char *p = &a[0];    // a pointer to the first object in an array
    char (*q)[10] = &a; // a pointer to the array itself

    printf("%zu\n", sizeof *p);
    printf("%zu\n", sizeof *q);

    return 0;
}


It's not the fucking same "value", ``faggot''!!!
Now back to the imageboards, please.


IHBT

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 14:14

>>48

char (*q)[10] = &a; // a pointer to the array itself

That's wrong. &a points to the first object in the array named 'a'.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 15:11

>>49
This is getting boring, dude. I've pointed out your stupidity several times now and it _still_ didn't shut you up. I suggest you d/l a copy of the C std and study it for the next, say, 5 years. Maybe it dawns on you, but prolly it won't.

Also, learn how to use code tags, for fuck's sake. Can't even take you serious.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 15:34

>>50
You don't know what you are talking about you stupid hourly worker. Unlike you, I actually do this kind of stuff for a living. Now get lost you fucking minimum wage bitch.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 15:38

>>51
So you're telling me, that you're writing broken C for a living? Exciting!

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 15:45

>>52
No, but I have helped implement working conforming C compilers.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 15:49

>>53
I highly doubt that.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 15:56

>>54
I want to get back to the following...

char (*q)[10] = &a; // a pointer to the array itself


Something like char (*q)[10] is a pointer to char[10]. In other words, it doesn't point to the array itself. The fact that you keep insisting that this is the array itself makes you that much dumber.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 15:58

>>54
Okay, I work Kodak Gallery on Hollis Street here in emeryville. You are more than welcome to come up here and say that to my face you stupid hourly worker bitch.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 16:00

>>52
You could say the same for most C programmers.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 16:03

>>55
Once again, for the mentally challenged:

char a[10];
char (*q)[10] = &a;

a  // "the" array
q  // a pointer to "the" array
*q // "the" array (again)

Name: kodak_gallery_programer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 16:06

>>58
Yes, that's correct, but this..

char (*q)[10]

is a pointer to char[10].

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 16:09

>>59
So?

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 16:09

And more to the point..

char *q is not the same thing as char (*q)[10].

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 16:10

>>60
The point is that you have a pointer to the *array element* char[10] and not a pointer to the array itself.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 16:11

>>61
I've never said so. But you have.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 16:14

>>63
You said

char (*q)[10] = &a; // a pointer to the array itself

Which is incorrect because

char (*q)[10]

is a pointer to char[10].

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 16:16

>>62
the array itself.
The fuck does this even mean?

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 16:17

>>65
Well, roughly speaking, according to ANSI/ISO C, an array is an unmodifiable lvalue.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 16:24

>>66
Uhm, so what? This has nothing to do with this discussion, at all.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 16:27

>>67
I was just rebutting someone who clearly doesn't deal with this kind of stuff for a living. Presumably the person doesn't have the mental capacity to do anything beyond general labor jobs.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 16:44

>>66
Anyways. Your misconceptions seem to come from the failure to realize that there basically are 3 "contexts" in which expressions are evaluated in C:
(1) object context
(2) value context
(3) void context

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 16:59

>>69
Huh? I'm not the one that made the following idiotic statement...

char (*q)[10] = &a; // a pointer to the array itself

Besides you fucking mental midget, the object context and the value context bear no real relation to what we are talking about. The fact that you think it might makes you that much dumber

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 17:03

>>69

Equally as dumb is

Anyways. Your misconceptions seem to come from the failure to realize that there basically are 3 "contexts" in which expressions are evaluated

First off, there are only two contexts defined by the standard. The fact that you thin there might be three makes you a fucking dumb nigger. On top of that, those evaluations hold for expressions, expressions statements, and statements.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 17:07

>>70
Right - you're the one who made the following statement:
&a points to the first object in the array named 'a'.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Unlike yours, my statement is perfectly fine and correct.
And what really bears no relation to the discussion at hand is the fact that expressions with array type are unmodifiable lvalues, BTW.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 17:08

>>71
Which is why I used "s. An eleven y/o would have noticed.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 17:12

>>72
&a points to the first object in the array named 'a'.

&a doesn't point to the array itself.

And what really bears no relation to the discussion at hand is the fact that expressions with array type are unmodifiable lvalues, BTW

Yes it does because you I'm not convinced that you know the difference between an *array* and the *array element* in C.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 17:14

>>74
&a doesn't point to the array itself.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but it does. That's not an opinion; that's a fact.

Get. Over. It.

Name: kodak_gallery_progammer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 17:18

>>75
Sorry to bust your bubble, but it does. That's not an opinion; that's a fact.


Are you sure? I just did ptype &a in gdb and I got

type = char (*)[10]

Or in other words, a pointer to char[10]. Nowhere does gdb say that this a pointer to the array itself.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 17:24

>>76

$ cat > proof.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main(void) {
    char a[10] = { 0 };
    char (*p)[10] = &a;

    (*p)[0] = 'x';
    printf("%c\n", a[0]);

    return 0;
}
$ gcc -o proof proof.c && ./proof
x


nuff said

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 17:27

>>77
char (*p)[10] = &a;

This is a pointer to char[10].

(*p)[0] = 'x';

You assign 'x] to char[0].

printf("%c\n", a[0]);

You print the first *array element* of a.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 17:29

>>78
One could basically say, that I've altered the array _itself_.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 17:33

>>79
One could basically say, that I've altered the array _itself_.


No. You're still confusing an *array* with the *array element* in C. In this case, you are manipulating the *array element* which is part of the *array*. However, at no point and time do you actually manipulate the actual array itself.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 17:41

I can't believe we have a tripfag this stupid hanging around.

Hey if I have int x[10];, what does x evaluate to?

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 17:46

>>81
This is int [10].

Now if you are going to say this is a pointer, that is incorrect, because &x is

int (*)[10]

Or pointer to int[10].

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 17:51

>>82
More to the point, something like int[10] is an array of 10 integer objects.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 18:29

>>82
x evaluates to a pointer to its first element, ``faggot''.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 18:46

>>84
No it doesn't. It evaluates to an array of 10 integer elements.

In contrast, if I had something like

char (*q)[10] = &a;

Then &a[0] would *point* to the first element because q is a pointer to char[10].

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 18:56

>>85
do you even know what "to evaluate" means?

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 19:01

>>86
In strict computer science terms? Or in your retarded blue collar worker terms? Either way, the evaluation only bears relevance when something like &a gets evaluated to a number at runtime. As opposed to say, compile time.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 19:06

>>86
And if you really think the evaluation of statement

int a[10];

has any impact on your misinformed notions about the relationship between an array elmetn and a pointer in C, then you really are that fucking stupid.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 20:05

>>88
int a[10]; is not a statement, it's a declaration.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 20:13

>>85
No it doesn't. It evaluates to an array of 10 integer elements.
There are no array-typed values, friend.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-07-21 20:24

>>89
I looked it up in ANSI/ISO C 89/99. It's a statement because the expression ends with a semicolon.

>>90
But there are an array of objects that has some type T.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 20:41

>>91
I looked it up in ANSI/ISO C 89/99. It's a statement because the expression ends with a semicolon.
Quote it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 21:00

>>92
Page 132, section 6.8.3

The syntax allows for the expression to end with a semi-colon.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 21:12

C sucks

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-21 22:09

SICP is mush-brained drivel by a pseudo-intellectual cockpouch. It's right up there with TAOCP and K&R as things that idiots read to make people think they're smart.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-22 3:34

So, this is why the imageboard scum hates so much ``tripfags''. Interesting, they've got a point.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 0:39

>>95
i loled

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 0:50

>>95
It's right up there with TAOCP and K&R
You forgot Thinking Forth.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 0:53

>>98
and The Mythical Man-Month is definetely a book, "idiots" read.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:55

>>99
everyone knows that the best way to make software is by hiring more enterprise-quality programmers from India until it is finished.

Name: Argus !!14eWW2o34yaxKWG 2011-07-23 9:00


int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
     char array[10] = "fuck you!"; //a simple character array
     char *p_one, *p_two;              //two character pointers
    
     p_one = &array;      //(array)
     p_two = &array[2];   //(array+2)

     printf("%s\n", array);  //not useful to the discussion
     return 0;               //slower than void return.
}


>>1
yep, arrays are fancy addressing systems, your mistake is that you believe that the array is a pointer itself, and has some location in memory.  The fact is, however, that an array IS simply an address. therefore the statement:
potr2 = &goodarray;
Is simply you trying to get the address of an address.  Your compiler gave you a break by not raping you in the eye and telling you to kill yourself; but you were still being retarded.  The part that gets me is that you were so blindly confident that an array was a pointer that you started this thread.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:20

>>101
const char * argv[]
>const
>IHBT

p_one = &array;
That's just plain wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:22

p_one = &array;
Not OPTIMIZED!
p_one = array;

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List