scanning and printing a string

I use DevC++ as my compiler.

I used the following two codes:

Code:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
    char *p,c;
    gets(p);
    printf("%s", p);
    getch();
}

and the second code as

Code:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
    char *p,c;
    p = (char *)malloc(0);
    gets(p);
    printf("%s", p);
    getch();
}

the first code runs into a segmentation fault while the second one runs perfectly fine. What is the reason ? isnt doing malloc(0) same as not using the malloc() statement ?

In first code snippet, you are using(writing) to un-initialized pointer. un-initialized does not mean it's pointing to NULL!
for 2nd case, malloc(0) will return NULL. and of course gets() will deference that pointer resulting seg fault.
Edit: I might be falling asleep. 2nd code runs fine? anyway you shouldn't be relying on that anyway. Try to check value of p after malloc(0).
2nd Edit: laserlight is more correct regarding malloc(0).

This is what the 1999 edition of the C standard has to say about malloc(0):

Originally Posted by C99 Clause 7.20.3

If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is implementation defined: either a null pointer is returned, or the behavior is as if the size were some nonzero value, except that the returned pointer shall not be used to access an object.

Both your code samples exhibit undefined behaviour.

thanks a lot (and for that quick reply)

So the second code works (due to compiler ?) but it may not work for all compilers. Am I correct ?

Originally Posted by Prestige

So the second code works (due to compiler ?) but it may not work for all compilers. Am I correct ?

In a way, yes. However, it is not even guaranteed to work on whatever compiler you used (undefined behaviour, not just implementation defined behaviour, comes into play).

Oh, and stop the use of the gets function as it is inherently vulnerable to buffer overflow (though that is a moot point in this case where you either don't have a buffer, or you have a zero size buffer).