C equivalent of BASIC's STRING$(80,"char")

I am looking for the equivalent in C of BASIC's STRING$(80,"char") ie printing out a string of 80 same characters aaaaaaaa...etc

I found the following code in Rosetta Code, but it comes up with an error
"invalid conversion from 'void*' to 'char*' [-fpermissive].

I have no idea what this means. Can someone enlighten me please?

Code:

---

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
 
char * char_repeat( int n, char c ) {
  char * dest = malloc(n+1);
  memset(dest, c, n);
  dest[n] = '\0';
  return dest;
}
 
int main() {
  char * result = char_repeat(5, '*');
  puts(result);
  free(result);
  return 0;
}

---

It means that you are compiling as C++ instead of C.

C++ will complain about the malloc returning void* but being assigned to a char*. You need a cast to shut it up: (char*)malloc(n + 1)

C allows you to assign a void* to another pointer type without a cast, so if you were compiling as C it wouldn't complain.

@john.c
My previous post doesn't seem to have got through.
Thanks very much for showing where I was going wrong. I thought I was compiling in C using GCC, but clearly I was compiling in g++. I've tried it out in Pelles C and it works fine.

GCC is perfectly capable of compiling C code, providing you tell it that you are compiling C.

Using the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC): Invoking G++
You need to be somewhat careful about what you call your source files.
GCC will think .C files are C++ source files, and .c files are C source files.

Say RNBW, I'm kind of bi-lingual, or tri-lingual, or whatever, as I've coded in all kinds of versions of basics, C, and C++ for like 30 years. If you really like basic like string handling, you shouldn't be messing with C. I know this question is in the C forum, but C++ String Classes are the way to go. And by saying that I don't want to denigrate C in any way. Truth be told, I'm more of a C coder than a C++ coder myself, but I'm just telling you the way it is. String handling in C is essentially nothing more than allocating memory and using specialized memory move operations to move bytes around from one place to another, which bytes just happen to be terminated by a null character. In a sematic sense, they aren't 'strings' - just bytes you are moving from one place to another.

Another aspect of this issue, relating specifically to versions of basic, is that the designers of the C++ String Class in the C++ Standard Library didn't create a String Class with much resemblence to basic's string handling. They could have created it any way they wanted to, but what they eventually settled on looks very alien to a basic coder learning C++. In my case, when I was first teaching myself C++ many years ago, I used the creation of my own String Class tailored after Basic like String handling as a learning exercise for myself. As a matter of fact, the very operation you first mentioned is in my String Class. I'm just suggesting this as a possible learning exercise for you. Its very, very doable!

@freddie
I have a BASIC programming background. I am trying to expand my programming knowledge now that I have retired and have a little more time. I am looking at C, C++ and Free Pascal at the moment. I don't want to get into arguments about which is the best programming route to take. That is an endless and futile argument.

I have coded the program in C++ and now want to do it in C. I will then do it in Free Pascal.

The point was that I just wanted to print a row of "=" on the screen. It is a doddle to do it in BASIC and C++. Not so easy in C, although @Repeater produced a simple bit of code, which I will gratefully use.

I am still a beginner at C and C++, but I'm learning all the time and I'm grateful for all the help I can get from tutorials, books and forums.

@Salem
You've hit on my mistake.
I assumed that GCC would automatically pick on a C or C++ program from its .c or .cpp extension. I realise now that this is not the case and will make sure I don't fall into that trap again.
Thank you for your explanation.

Stop putting @username if you don't want to keep being moderated.
This isn't tw*****

Quote:

---

Stop putting @username if you don't want to keep being moderated.

---

Thanks for the advice. I didn't realise that would happen.