On 01 November 2007 15:58, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 01 November 2007 15:15, Lewis Hyatt wrote:
>
>
>>>> if (fp==NULL)
>>>> {
>>>> printf("error, NULL pointer!\n");
>>>> return(1);
>>>> }
>
>> I think what the OP is saying is that if he adds the check for null,
>> then his code works normally, including the file read operation, (ie,
>> the pointer is not null), but if he removes the check, then he gets a
>> segfault.
>
>
> Please observe that the "check for NULL" also includes a return statement
> that bypasses the rest of the code .... including in particular the file
> read operation.
Hang on, I misread you, my eye skipped over the bit where you suggest that
adding the check somehow makes the preceding fopen call succeed instead of
fail. However I still don't think that's what the OP was saying, unless the
subject line of this thread is terribly wrong, I think you just read a bit too
much into OP's phrase "everything worked"; I think that just means "program
ran to completion /without/ a segfault".
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
