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

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

[CodeCritique] Criticize my Linked List

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 20:33

I have implemented linked lists in C as a learning exercise.  I'm a noob ass so tell me how my implementation sucks and I will fix it.  I didn't have a particular use-case in mind when I wrote it.

Header:
// llist.h
#ifndef LLIST_H_
#define LLIST_H_

struct LList;
typedef struct LList LList;

struct LLNode;
typedef struct LLNode LLNode;

struct LList {
    LLNode *front, *back;
};

struct LLNode {
    void *data;
    LLNode *next;
};

LList* llist_new(LList **self);
void llist_add(LList *self, void *v);
void llist_remove(LList *self, LLNode *node);
void llist_insert(LLNode *node, void *v);
void llist_destroy(LList *self);

#endif

C file:
// llist.c
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

#include "llist.h"

// Initialize a new, empty LList, in dynamically allocated memory.
LList *llist_new(LList **self) {
    *self = malloc(sizeof (LList));
    if (self == NULL) { return NULL; }

    (*self)->front = NULL;
    (*self)->back = NULL;

    return *self;
}


// Append a value to the LList.  Creates a new node.
void llist_add(LList *self, void *v) {
    LLNode *node = malloc(sizeof (LLNode));
    assert(node != NULL);

    node->data = v;
    node->next = NULL;

    // Put this node at the back of the list.
    if (self->front != NULL) {
        self->back->next = node;
        self->back = node;
    } else {
        self->back = node;
        self->front = node;
    }
}


// Iterate over the LList to locate a node, and then remove it from the list.
void llist_remove(LList *self, LLNode *node) {
    LLNode *iter_node = self->front;
    LLNode *prev_node = NULL;

    while (iter_node != NULL) {
        if (iter_node == node) {
            if (prev_node != NULL) { prev_node->next = iter_node->next; }
            else { self->front = NULL; }
            free(iter_node);
            return;
        }
        prev_node = iter_node;
        iter_node = iter_node->next;
    }

}


// Insert a value after a particular node.
void llist_insert(LLNode *node, void *v) {
    LLNode *next = node->next;
    LLNode *new_node = malloc(sizeof (LLNode));
   
    new_node->data = v;
    new_node->next = next;
   
    node->next = new_node;
}


void llist_destroy(LList *self) {
    LLNode *iter_node = self->front;

    while (iter_node != NULL) {
        LLNode *next = iter_node->next;
        free(iter_node);
        iter_node = next;
    }

    free(self);
}

Testcase:
// llist_test.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

#include "llist.h"

#ifdef _WIN32
char *strdup(char *s);
#endif

int main(void) {
    LList *phone_nums;
    LLNode *iter;

    if (llist_new(&phone_nums) == NULL) { printf("Out of memory."); exit(1); }
    llist_add(phone_nums, strdup("123-4567")); // Yes, I should free() these later...
    llist_add(phone_nums, strdup("890-1234"));
    llist_add(phone_nums, strdup("567-8901"));
    llist_add(phone_nums, strdup("234-5678"));
       
        LLNode *temp = NULL;
    iter = phone_nums->front;
    while (iter) {
        printf("%s\n", (char*)iter->data);
        if (!strcmp("890-1234", (char*)iter->data)) { temp = iter; }
        iter = iter->next;
    }
    puts("");
   
    llist_insert(temp, strdup("BEEP BOOP"));
   
    iter = phone_nums->front;
    while (iter) {
        printf("%s\n", (char*)iter->data);
        if (!strcmp("567-8901", (char*)iter->data)) { temp = iter; }
        iter = iter->next;
    }
    puts("");
   
    llist_remove(phone_nums, temp);
   
    iter = phone_nums->front;
    while (iter) {
        printf("%s\n", (char*)iter->data);
        if (!strcmp("567-8901", (char*)iter->data)) { temp = iter; }
        iter = iter->next;
    }
   
   
    llist_destroy(phone_nums);
    return 0;
}

#ifdef _WIN32
char *strdup(char *s) {
        char *p = malloc(strlen(s) + 1);
        strcpy(p, s);
        return p;
}
#endif

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 20:38

CRITIQUE MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 20:42

if it aint Lisp, it's crap.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 20:44

>>3

THIS

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 20:44

>>3

+1

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 20:46

>>3-5 same fucking lithpfaggot
fuck off and die you fucking shitpushing faggot

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 20:50

x == NULL -> !x
x != NULL -> x

I prefer to keep structs explicit, so I'd write struct llnode *x etc.

And NULL can be written as just 0.

llist_new() also has a weird invocation. I'd just write it as

struct LList *llist_new() {
 struct LList *l = malloc(sizeof(struct LList));
 if(l) {
  l->front = 0;
  l->back = 0;
 }
 return l;
}

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:12

you forgot the garbage collector.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:17

>>8
free(iter_node);
!

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:24


(define cons (lambda (car cdr) (lambda (k) (k car cdr))))
(define car (lambda (c) (c (lambda (x _) x))))
(define cdr (lambda (c) (c (lambda (_ x) x))))
(define uncons (lambda (c) (c values)))
Was it that difficult?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:26

>>10
That appears to be a language that is not C, sir.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:33

>>7
And NULLcan be written as just 0
Don't you realize how monumentally retarded this is?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:36

>>12
Nope.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:42

>>12
NULL is 0 at least in the source code.
Read this:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/c-faq/c-1.html

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:42

>>11
The implementation of closures is left as an exercise for the reader.

>>12-13
(void*)0 is guaranteed to be NULL, but 0 is not.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:44

>>13
Then you're a fucking moron, holy shit, please don't have children but if you do please put them up for adoption as it is probably against the Geneva convention to have someone as retarded as you raise children you're dumber than the African Americans who shoot each other over gang colors in South Central holy shit are you fucking kidding me how can you not realize something that simple why don't you write out every sizeof as well then holy shit in fact why don't you just expand every macro while programming let me guess you're the type who writes 1 instead of sizeof(char) just because it says it's always 1 in the standard well I got news for you mister you are a fucking dickhead please never write code or post again, actually please kill yourself we don't need more fast food burger flippers posting on this board go play with some fucking barbie dolls you fucking mental midget go suck a fat cock you fucking bitch seriously FUCK OFF FAGGOT.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 21:45

>>6
The autism is really flaring up in this one today.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 22:09

>>17
Don't you mean >>16?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 22:13

>>16
you'd have a point if NULL was typed, but it's just a #define.

0x might be changing this. Not sure. Couldn't give 2 shits about C++ anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 22:15

>>16
I do consider char to be 8 bits because my code runs on sane platforms -- for everything else I use uintXX_t due to compiler differences.

I don't consider 0 == NULL to be a large problem since you can just not map a page at virtual address 0 so that dereferencing null will cause a segfault.

now go fuck yourself you fucking faggot

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 22:23

>>19
u mena C1X (this is not C++)

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 22:28

>>18
No, I really do mean >>6

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-19 23:50

>>20
That's why your code will not work 10 years from now. Fucking kill yourself.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 1:37

>>20
You think it's cool to needlessly obfuscate your code with stuff most people know? If you're going to obfuscate at least do it right instead of some half-assed faggotry.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 6:58

obfuscate
stuff most people know
Choose one.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 10:08

Update

LList *llist_new(void) {
    LList *self = malloc(sizeof (LList));
    if (self == NULL) {
                return NULL;
        }

    self->front = NULL;
    self->back = NULL;

    return self;
}

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 10:18

Awesome code. Great size. Looks concise. Efficient. Elegant. Keep us all posted on your continued progress with any new code factoring or compiler optimization. Show us what you got man. Wanna see how freakin' expressive, efficient, concise and elegant you can get. Thanks for the motivation.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 10:48

>>25
That's the point, he's only obfuscating it for people who hardly know any programming and it makes him look like a fucking retard to everyone else.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 11:53

This is a queue. Not a list.

Name: lolwrong 2011-08-20 14:29

>>29
void llist_insert(LLNode *node, void *v);

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 16:11

>>26
You don't need two returns.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 16:21

>>31
I want to be sure.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 18:33

>>31
Ok.  Show me how you would do it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-20 21:07

>>33
Not >>31, but

LList *llist_new(void) {
    LList *self = malloc(sizeof (LList));
    if (self) {
        self->front = self->back = NULL;
    }
    return self;
}

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 2:06

>>34
Yes, but this version is less explicit about what can be returned. self is ambiguous in this implementation; you'd have to do the extra work of seeing and understanding that it was malloc'd and could fail, and what the consequences of that failure mean. The other version makes an explicit distinction -- either you're getting a(n) LList object, or you're getting NULL, just by glancing.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 8:15

>>35
If self is 0 you automatically fall through and return it.

Otherwise you go through the rest of the init.

It's obvious to anyone who's done a sufficient amount of C programming and much simpler.

You are just a retard.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 8:31

why do you need no zero out the members? just do:
LList *llist_new(void) {
    return malloc(sizeof (LList));
}

also, that's the common malloc idiom:
T *p = malloc(NMEMB * sizeof *p);

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 8:38

>>37
s/no/to/

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 8:46

>>31,35
Explicitly returning NULL is a superior way of checking the malloc return code. What if you malloc n things, are you going to nest n if tests? Holy shit you don't know even know basic error checking, you're a fucking retard, please get the fuck out and never come back, you post shit all the time, you give horrible advice and you're an absolute shit programmer.

You will never be a good programmer, just leave.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 11:47

>>37
lol @ lousy C programmer

You need to set the members because the pointer you get from malloc is not guaranteed to point to a bunch of 0 bytes.

See: http://codepad.org/Iiod5BIM

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner 2011-08-21 12:26

That append is hella complicated. I would have done something like the following...

Node *append_my_anus(Node *llist, Node *malloced_list) {
    Node *p;

    if (listp = NULL)
        return malloced_list;
    for (p = listp; p->next != NULL; p = p->next)
        ;
    p->next = malloced_list
    return llist;
}

This code runs in linear time though.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 12:29

>>37
What >>40 said. Perhaps you were looking for calloc? Probably not; just zero the members out.

>>35
self is not ambiguous. It's either a good pointer or NULL, just like the return of malloc. The fact you can tell the difference more easily just by glancing doesn't matter since you usually won't be (or at the very least shouldn't be) ``just glancing'' at a linked list constructor. It's not like it's complicated or anything like that.

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner 2011-08-21 12:34

>>42
What >>40 said. Perhaps you were looking for calloc? Probably not; just zero the members out.

Zero what out? The bytes or the bit pattern? I hate to tell you this chief, but ANSI/ISO C makes a distinction between the two. And an experienced C programmer would be able to tell you the rationale behind such apparent nonsense.

It's either a good pointer or NULL, just like the return of malloc.

Technically malloc() doesn't return the pointer. But I don't think you're ready for that level of C yet -(.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 13:38

>>43
Technically malloc() doesn't return the pointer.
IHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 13:41

try this instead:


LList *llist_new() {
    LList *llist;

    llist = malloc(sizeof(LList));

    if (llist) {
        llist->front = 0;
        llist->back = 0;
    }

    return llist;
}

LList *phone_nums;

if ((phone_nums = llist_new()) == NULL) {
    printf("Out of memory."); exit(1);
}

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 13:45

>>45
llist = malloc(sizeof(LList));

This line of code will go down like your mom if the sign changes.

printf("Out of memory."); exit(1);

And this error message may not been seen if the underlying device is something other than a terminal.

But I'm sure a "programming professional" like yourself knows about stuff like this.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 13:48

>>44
No you idiot. The pointer in malloc is local variable. It goes out of scope when malloc returns. What gets returned instead is what the pointer was pointing at. Cripes. Haven't you ever written a single line of C code? Haven't you ever actually taken the taken the time to read the ANSI/ISO C standard? Haven't you even taken the time to think instead of accusing people of trolling you?

I bet not. Now shut up and go help another customer you nowhere bitch. It's pretty obvious that you don't have the mental capacity to do anything more than that in life.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 13:58

>>46

>sign changes
>other than a terminal.

3/10.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:04

>>48
How? What happens if this is run on a *nix box? And what happens if the underlying device is something like a pipe or a socket? The code will block in its call to read() because the device is, by default, fully buffered.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:06

>>48
Also, the sign change comments could from a bug that happened in some production level C code at work. But I doubt you would know something like this because you probably have never worked as a computer programmer for a major US firm. Now shut up and try to learn something you mental midget.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:07

*comments came from*

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:12

>>45
The likelihood if printf succeeding when you've just ran out of memory is very small also you're going to screw up everything that isn't a terminal, use fprintf to stderr instead.

Also use EXIT_FAILURE instead of 1.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:18

>>52
Or if your some language purist that believes in bullshit like Lisp, then do something like the following

(void)fprintf(stderr, "Out of memory\n");

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:23

#include <stdlib.h>

#include <ooc/lang/OutOfMemoryError.h>

int main(void) {
  int * p = malloc(1024 * sizeof(int));

  if (p == NULL)
    throw(new(OutOfMemoryError(),
              "main: malloc failed."));

  /* Work with p */

  free(p);

  exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner 2011-08-21 14:28

>>54
The discussion revolved around C and not C++. I know it might be the same thing to a neanderthal like yourself. But really, it isn't.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:31

>>55
That is ANSI-C.

Also the races with the greatest amount of neanderthal DNA are Whites and Asians who are the most successful, intelligent and industrious races so thank you for the compliment.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:37

>>56
Really? I have a copy of the C90/99 standard right in front of me. Can you please cite the passasge or passages that support such extensions? Because, for whatever reasons, I can't seem locate it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:44

>>50
kodak_gallery_programmer detected.  Why did you lose the tripcode?

>>55
It's OOC, not C++.  But you are right, this is about C.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:52

>>57
What extensions are you referring to? What you see there are some function calls, I'm sure there is something about creating and calling functions in the standard (you fucking moron).

>>58
No, it's C.

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-21 14:56

>>59
#include <ooc/lang/OutOfMemoryError.h>

This is a nonstandard C header you fucking idiot. It's a language extension because the function gets introduced into the code after the program completes its translation unit. Again, you haven't cited the actual C90/C99 passage that supports something like this.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 14:58

>>58
I lost got rid of the headers because some brilliant mind decided to filter me out based on my tripcode. Also, I stand correct about it not being C++. I just saw the throw() function and assumed right away that the code was some kind of strange C++ dialect

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner 2011-08-21 15:04

>>59
It's not standard C you annoying little stupid fucker. Standard C is meant to be portable. Ie, I take a piece of code, and it should compile cleanly on a Linux Machine, a Windows Machine, and a Mac. This code isn't portable. I would have to install your system specific files in order to make it work.

Name: 37 2011-08-21 15:56

>>40
IHBT

so you're one of those zero-everything-out-before-use--just-in-case-faggots. I pity you

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 16:03

>>63
wow you're a huge fag. go get your face raped.

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-21 16:06

>>63
so you're one of those zero-everything-out-before-use--just-in-case-faggots. I pity you

I'm guessing because he wants to have the bit pattern zero. I hate to break it to you, but 0 bytes and a bit pattern of 0 can be two different things. Failure to make a distinction between the two can lead to some pretty ugly bugs in production level C code.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 16:11

Technically malloc() doesn't return the pointer
That's maybe the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Damn trolls. Damn /prog/

Name: i_have_a_raging_pointer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-21 16:19

>>66
How do you minimum wage bitch? Inside of malloc() there is a pointer. This variable has local scope. However, what it points to has doesn't. When malloc() returns, the local pointer variable goes out of scope. However, the object that it points to doesn't. For further information, please refer to the sample malloc() implementation on page 187 in the second edition of the book "The C Programming Language" by K & R.

Now STFU and learn something from someone who works at a major US firm as a computer programer.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 16:20

>>66
*How so you minimum wage bitch?"

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 16:42

I fucking hate you faggots.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 16:55

0 bytes and a bit pattern of 0 can be two different things
List one or more platforms where this is the case, and I will remember to stay away from them.

Same with null pointers being not all 0s.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 17:03

>>70
Immediately after I posted that I thought someone might think of floating-point formats but then I checked IEEE754 and 0 is indeed the pattern with all zeros.

The people who design these things tend to be sane, and I don't care if my code doesn't work on some fucked-up platform where things are not.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 17:07

>>67
I don't care about malloc's local variables, why should I. It's a function and it works. It allocates me memory. It returns a pointer to memory.

Please go out from the internet.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 17:09

what it points to has doesn't

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-21 17:40

>>72
It returns a pointer to memory
Well saying that it returns a pointer is just plain retarded and it is also indicative of the fact you've never actually ever written any kind of production level C code for any firm.

Homer, it's one thing to google and memorize shit. It's an entirely different thing to actually do it. You might want to consider that sometime before you make another uneducated statement you minimum wage bitch.

Now go off and help another customer you mental midget.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 17:44

>>74
Well saying that it returns a pointer
lolz.  Reminds me of the last C thread where kodak_gallery_programmer got owned.  Too lazy to dig it up.  But if you hadn't figured it out yet: disregard everything he says.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 17:46

>>74
WHAT HAPPENS IF I SCREAM TO YOUR FACE AND DON'T GIVE A HINT OF WHERE THE ERROR IS?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 17:49

>>75
Oh aren't we cool. We can lolz on the internet. I bet a lot of potential employers must be impressed by your internet slang. I mean, I would be. Anyone that uses lolz clearly must be a brilliant engineer!

Now tell us again why you aren't doing something related to programming for a living.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 18:45

>>60,62
So if I ``inline'' the header and it is all ANSI-C will you then forgive me oh great one? Or isn't extern a part of the standard any longer?

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-21 19:26

>>78
So if I ``inline'' the header and it is all ANSI-C will you then forgive me oh great one? Or isn't extern a part of the standard any longer?


Huh? Are you saying/implying that using 'extern' will result in an 'inline'? BTW, my whole beef was that while the code was written in C, it wasn't C (in the strictest sense). You see?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 19:30

With that, I'm going back to writing some code. Someone let me know whe amateur hour is over.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 19:30

*when*

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 19:37

>>79
BTW, my whole beef was that while the code was written in C, it wasn't C (in the strictest sense).
I hate you, Zhivago, I truly do.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 21:03

>>82
Why flatter him by comparing him to Zhivago?  This guy is an idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 21:26

>>79
No, I was asking that if I explicitly copy and paste the header file into the source file and that the header file is valid ANSI-C if then you might accept the entire file as C?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 21:30

>>83
Why because I actuall know what I'm talking about you mental midget? Maybe you should actually take a look at the ANSI/ISO C standard instead of trying to argue with someone who does this shit for a living. Now shut up and go clean another toilet.

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-21 21:35

>>84
No matter how you do it, nonstandard C functions are nonstandard C functions.  I would say look at how some of the more popular pieces of open source software handles nonstandard C functions. But I'm afraid that you, along with the other hoshead that is calling me an idiot, wouldn't be able to tell what the programmers do in cases like this.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 21:48

>>84-86
I don't code for the C virtual machine as defined in the standard, I code for real architectures. You know what that is? I bet you don't. I bet you're going to explode in a fabulous autistic homosexual rage when I tell you that C is portable assembly. But enough of this, off you go now, your skills in pure C are needed at cash register 6.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 21:52

>>86
So I can't link with functions I have written in other C files? Is that really outside the standard?

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-21 21:54

>>87
I don't code for the C virtual machine as defined in the standard

I think you mean the C abstract machine their chief.

I code for real architectures

Programming the lego mindset robot doesn't count as a *real architecture*.

You know what that is? I bet you don't
OMFG, look at that code that does a simple file lock! There are over 5 include guards! And each include guard has a different way to handle the lock for each type of *nix variant!

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 22:01

>>89
*I think you mean the C abstract machine their chief*.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 22:07

>>1
Improvements:
OMG ENTERPRISE
Insert and add should return a ``correct or incorrect operation'' exit value, as new does.
Add an interface for getting elements by number of element. If you don't do this you are going to BREAK ENCAPSULATION and this is considered bad practice and forces the programmer, i.e. you to do things like

iter = phone_nums->front;
    while (iter) {
        printf("%s\n", (char*)iter->data);
        if (!strcmp("567-8901", (char*)iter->data)) { temp = iter; }
        iter = iter->next;
    }

The list is fine, It should work correctly.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 22:07

All of you, go back to reddit, I'm begging you.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 22:08

>>91
Or implement an iterator, it shouldn't be difficult.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 22:08

>>92
It is you that comes from ``reddit'', ``faggot''.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 23:14

>>91
Ok, thanks.  How are these?

// these go in llist.c
LLNode* llist_top(LList *self) {
        assert(self != NULL);
        return self->front;
}


LLNode *llist_next(LLNode *node) {
        assert(node != NULL);
        return node->next;
}

So now I can do that kind of thing without breaking encapsulation:
        LLNode *cur_item = llist_top(phone_nums);
        while (cur_item != NULL) {
                printf("%s\n", (char*)cur_item->data);
                cur_item = llist_next(cur_item);
        }

Anything wrong with it now?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-21 23:24

>>89
Alright fucktard, go play in the traffic. Now.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 1:16

>>95

Assertions are for debugging, not production.  They should be compiled out with -DNDEBUG=1.  You need to actually test your values.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 2:34

>>97
Ok.  I guess I will just
if (self == NULL) {
    exit(1);
}
then.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 2:38

>C virtual machine
>Inline assembler in every library
I lol'd

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 2:56

>>98
Yes, it's awesome when programs just abort with no messages and arbitrary exit codes in the middle of running.

    if(self == NULL)
    {
        perror("malloc");    /* in stdio.h */
        exit(1);
    }

You could also #include <errno.h> and exit with that code (but note that the perror call may modify the value, so you'd have to store it in a temp first.)

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 3:51

Can all you fucking idiots take this shit back to Reddit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 4:30

Yeah, this thread is too off-topic!  /prog/ is for talking about bonerlang, PAHKEEMANZ and JEWS!

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 5:20

>>102
The thread may be somewhat /prog/, but it really is reddit-quality.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 7:38

I would recommend to stuff the [url=http://paste.pocoo.org/show/462370/]pointers to nodes in the elements of the list itself[/url], as in the Linux kernel (the FreeBSD, which is using macros is also interesting but probably less optimized).

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 7:45

>>104
Shit, I suck at BBcode: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/462374/

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 8:38

>>105
offsetof is not standard C.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 10:02

>>106

Yes it is.

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-22 12:09

>>106
Yes it is you minimum wage bitch. The first mention of 'offsetof' can be found under item 18, section 6.7.2.1 Stucture and union specifiers in the ISO/IEC 9899 standard.

Now shut up and go serve another customer you fucking moron.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 13:14

>>108
minimum wage bitch
Yawn.  You have been saying this every other post for months.  Think of some new shit YOU BROKEN-RECORD BITCH.

Name: i_have_a_raging_boner !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2011-08-22 13:33

>>108
And you've been making the same ignorant/uneducated statements for the past few years. Either get with the program or take up something that is a tad bit easier. Like working a cash register at Target.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-22 15:02

It's funny that the absolute worst threads on /prog/ are the ones where someone wants to talk about programming.

Name: n3n7i 2011-08-22 21:45

...Get with the /prog ? ^^

/prog has none =)
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -