really you are still arguing with me about this? really?
it is all within the first three post, post 1, everything, post 2 the accusation that actually came from you,
post 3 me clarifying it to you
AFTER it was seg faulting, key word after the fact .that you and others keep insisting was and is the cause of it seg faulting, when if you go back and look at my code I posed it its entirety, it is hiding up in listdir the same type of printf. that was there BEFORE the fact, that I did not catch. you and others got caught up in what you said was the cause of it, even after I clearly pointed out that there is no way that that printf you say is causing it could be the cause of it and the reason why. yet you still are insisting that it is. even after I pointed that fact out.
who is not really paying attention to details here?
call in main
placed in there after it was seg faulting then pointing that fact out to you when you pointed to it being the reason.Code:> printf("after malloc %s %s\n", path,*names);
You only just allocated names, and now you're trying to dereference it.
call in listdir
that was there prior to me placing the printf's in main. that was coming up NULL after malloc took place. because it was still empty.Code:char ** listdir(const char *name, char *names, int indent)
{printf("listdir %s, %s, %d\n", name,*names,indent);