Well, fueled by MK27's relentless optimism I decided it's time to drop the skepticism and add my own thing here. One thing I see here everyday and is driving me nutz, although not a mistake per say is the casting of malloc().
Another thing, which is not necessarily related to C is the confusion between an IDE and a compiler. Most people will come and say... "ohh I compilez my codez with Eclipse and needz helpz cuz deadline iz tomorrow!".
1. Get rid of gets(). Never ever ever use it again. Replace it with fgets() and use that instead.
2. Get rid of void main and replace it with int main(void) and return 0 at the end of the function.
3. Get rid of conio.h and other antiquated DOS crap headers.
4. Don't cast the return value of malloc, even if you always always always make sure that stdlib.h is included.
It's not really an error to cast mallocs return type, it's just unnecessary in C.
Last edited by Subsonics; 06-02-2010 at 10:05 AM.
claudiu you must'nt have any hair left, because casting malloc seems to be the dominant style in alot of code I, at least, need to analyse.
Hell, I even do it, so nobody looks askance at my code.
The confidence to not cast your mallocs, must be the sign of an advanced coder, I reckon.
Of course people say, "oh, it's just to make my code clearer", oh yeah, right .. the logic being "if I cast my mallocs, I can claim to write clear code, the rest can remain unclear"
As the poster above mentioned casting malloc in C is not a problem of confidence. It is totally useless. In fact, it can even prove dangerous if you don't include stdlib because then the function will be assumed to return an int. If ints and pointers are of different sizes on your machine, you may be in for a run-time surprise. The code you are looking at is probably compiled with a C++ compiler. I feel like most people compiling with gcc or other C compilers cast malloc BECAUSE they don't really understand the reason why they don't need to cast it.Originally Posted by stabu
1. Get rid of gets(). Never ever ever use it again. Replace it with fgets() and use that instead.
2. Get rid of void main and replace it with int main(void) and return 0 at the end of the function.
3. Get rid of conio.h and other antiquated DOS crap headers.
4. Don't cast the return value of malloc, even if you always always always make sure that stdlib.h is included.
I still remember one post.
" I compile this codel from online tutorial and my compiler gives error.
1.
The problem is most newbies don't know it's only supported in C99.Code:for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) { ... }
The worst thing is most will manage to write code that will compile.
2.
But I find that gcc (if enable warning) will give warning.Code:if( 0 < n < 10 ) {
1. compile with gcc -Wall foo.c
bar.c:100: error: ‘for’ loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
bar.c:100: note: use option -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 to compile your code
2. gcc -Wall foo.c
bar.c:106: warning: comparisons like ‘X<=Y<=Z’ do not have their mathematical meaning
1. it's a misteaks!1. While it may be your preference, the former method is less accident prone, and is easier to maintain (ie: you don't have to ever change it). If you go back and substitute foo_t for bar_t, you have to chase down all of your malloc calls, and change them too. If you use the first method, you don't have to.
2. Neither of those methods work for arrays declared outside the current scope.
2. YES
