Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Jarno A Wuolijoki, post: 1695899"]
Not really. Strings are usually handled through functions and we're 
not including the important stuff to get complaints. (though in this 
respect gcc is sometimes one of the "smart compilers" with its built in 
checking for variadic functions)

Ok. Just that the bug's on another line, here we just see the results;)

Ouch. I completely unrealized the intent there..

You're approaching the bubble sort:

sizeof abuse, off by 2 error had it worked, unsigned gotcha, 
z vs zz, extra ;, dangerous comparision, sequence point problem on 
swap, zeroing data when &__a==&__b, invasion of implementation 
namespace, possible trap when performing binary stuff on chars 
and modification of a string literal.

Nah. It just shows why you shouldn't write bad code in the first place. 
Mistakes invite more mistakes. It was a genuine;)

Subtle.. I don't like the doublecheck for eof though. Checking first 
for eof and then for errors makes it look better thought out.

So it's
"hideous practice that lets you shoot your own foot quietly"
against
"terrible misunderstanding of how the language works" ;)

I like !strcmp(strfmt, "foo")==0 too (for having actually seen it), but 
maybe it's too obvious..
[/QUOTE]

Verification