/prog/ - What will this C code do?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:24

void main(){

int x=1;

printf("%d\n",x=2);

}

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:37

>>1
return a Void

Thread Over

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:54

It will print 1 or gently hax your anus.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:54

prints out 2 and returns void

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 9:20

>>1
main return type not int
9-sqrt(3)/10.0
GTFO
will print 2

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 11:13

ONE WORD THE FORCED SEQUENCING OF THE POINT THREAD OVER

Name: Kaz 2012-01-19 12:35

Your void main is a system-specific way of writing the startup function which may or may not work. The C language requires (hosted) implementations to support int main(void) and int main(int, char **). Also, the printf function must be declared before being used. This is because it is variadic. Implicit declarations are not required to be compatible with variadic functions, so this may or may not work. If you fix these problems, then the program outputs 2 (in a reliable way that should work everywhere). The expression x=2 yields the new value of x. The printf function operates on the value produced by the argument expression, not on the object x. (I.e. the new value of x is stable before the function is called, due to a sequence point that happens before a function call, but that is irrelevant since printf does not know anything about x.)

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:40

>>7
Oh shit main. Are you the same Kaz whose C expection handling code that got used in wireshark?! Because based on how you write, I'm don't think you're posing as him.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:43

>>7
Yeah, I think you are the same person! Wow, I've gone back and forth with you on another programming forum. You're a programming god.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:46

>>7

Finally someone sane and logical has come to /prog/. Hopefully you can destroy joblesskodak and frozenvoid for us

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:49

>>10
>>9
>>8
give him a blowjob then

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:49

>>10
I would really listen to what this guy has to say because he really is *all that*.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:50

>>11
No, but the guy has done more in 2 years that what you will ever accomplish in your entire life.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:08

>>13
Are you

'

>implying

that he has a future as a comoputer programmer!?
Run little piggy, before /prog/ takes away your future!

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:12

>>14
I've talked with kaz on comp.lang.c. Unlike you, this guy is very far from being a mental midget.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:16

>>15
Not a mental midget to kodak.
Guy must be the second coming of Dennis Ritchie & McCarthy
>>7
Put actual email in the email field, must be crazy or trolling.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:43

easy guide to detecting faggots:
1. utter "sizeof(char) is always 8 on proper architectures"
2. see if they cringe
3. (optionally) if they do, punch them in the groins

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:45

>>17
Now tell us again why you can't get a programming job.

Name: 17 2012-01-19 13:48

self-fix:
1. utter "((char)1<<8 + (char)1<<7) == 1<<7 on all proper architectures"

also kodak is a faggot

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:49

>>17
"sizeof(char) is always 8 on proper architectures"
1/10
Yes 1 is a hint.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:53

>>19
8-bit is shit.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:53

>>20
8 is ambiguous. Man, I tell ya, your written communication is almost as bad as your programming skills. So again, you're stupid. And yet again, you have no possible future as a computer programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:56

I bet kodak is the kind of faggot who respects strict aliasing everywhere.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:58

>>20
Also, once again, you need to learn how to read. Look at how ANSI/ISO C9899 defines char. Do you see 8 anywhere? Does the standard imply 8? Exactly. Now shut your pie hole you mental midget.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:00

>>24
I don't, but on all proper (ie non-shit) architectures it will be 8 bits. Fuck your microcontrollers, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:00

>>24
Me thinks the standard guarantees sizeof(char) is 1, hence you failed to get the hint.
Hugs & kisses.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:02

>>23
That kind of reminds me of a firm that I interviewed with right after undergrad school. The managers not only asked me to solve the programming problems, but solve them in such a way that it would have to pass a compiler with all of the warnings enabled.

Name: kodak_galler_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:04

>>26
It defines it as 1 (byte). Nowhere does it say anything about it being 8 bits. There is a reason for being so subtle. In some respects, it's kind of like how '%' in java isn't modulo. The difference is subtle, but important.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:07

>>27



warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast

Yup, silly compiler, I know what I doing! Bend to my will!

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:07

>>25
In other words, you expect the shit to only run on your mothers PC. Nice job chief. You're below average.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:10

>>28
What he's saying is that sizeof(char) is always 1, which defeats your little "[code]sizeof(char)[/code
is always 8 on proper architectures" impression.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:11

Who is Kaz? What did he do...please fill me in

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:13

>>32
he fucked yo ass

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:15

>>25,27
C is not meant to be a general-purpose algorithmic language. People trying to use it as such is the reason why we have so much shit software today and so many security flaws. Just look at GNOME or the Linux kernel. I'm not saying C++ is any better, of course, it just amplifies C's problem by piling layers and layers of shit on top of it.

So please, use C as what it was meant to be; a portable assembly language.

>>25
Enjoy your unreliability and lack of GC. I truly hope you get stuck designing GUIs in C for the rest of your shitty life.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:15

>>32
The last post I saw from his on comp.lang.c was the source code to emulating the whole try/catch thing. He went on to say something to the effect that this code eventually made its way into wirehark. I also remember him talking about working on some kind of embedded linux thing.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:19

>>34
Just look at GNOME or the Linux kernel.

I smell bullshit. The reason why GNOME is crap is because the homos on that project decided to do an entire code rewrite instead of fixing the existing bugs. This is because, as you probably don't know, it's just far easier to rewrite the crap and "get it right this time".

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:23

>>36
Here's what's really funny about shit like GNOME. It used to be that part of the code base was stable and secure. Then a new group of wankers came in and just rewrote it. This is because, and I quote the one engineer "The code looks ugly, and besides, I really don't understand what it does".

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:36

>>25

'

>2012

>using 8-bit bytes for obsolete 8-bit character sets

WE UNICODE NOW

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:45

>>38

'

>2012

>using unicode

ANSI master race here, suck my dick mental midget toilet scrubber. You will never amount to anything in your life and I have to keep coming on /prog/ and making fun of you mental midgets to keep my unstable self-esteem from hitting rock bottom.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 17:00

>>36

`

>implying

`we'll get it right this time' ever works
atleast they have sexier sugar coated code now, so maybe someone moar capable will be able to understand their bullshit without reading 10000+ pages of homo bs

What will this C code do?

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:24

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:37

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:54

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:54

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 9:20

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 11:13

7 Name: Kaz 2012-01-19 12:35

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:40

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:43

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:46

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:49

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:49

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:50

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:08

15 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:12

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:16

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:43

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:45

19 Name: 17 2012-01-19 13:48

20 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:49

21 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:53

22 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:53

23 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:56

24 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:58

25 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:00

26 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:00

27 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:02

28 Name: kodak_galler_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:04

29 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:07

30 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:07

31 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:10

32 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:11

33 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:13

34 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:15

35 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:15

36 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:19

37 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:23

38 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:36

39 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:45

40 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 17:00

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:24

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:37

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:54

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 8:54

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 9:20

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 11:13

Name: Kaz 2012-01-19 12:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:40

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:43

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:46

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:49

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:49

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 12:50

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:08

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:12

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:16

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:43

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:45

Name: 17 2012-01-19 13:48

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:49

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:53

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:53

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 13:56

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 13:58

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:00

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:00

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:02

Name: kodak_galler_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:04

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:07

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:07

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:10

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:11

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:13

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:15

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:15

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:19

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-19 14:23

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:36

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 14:45

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-19 17:00