X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	"Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<13500536 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <13524102 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <005c01c81c79$d7545d30$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <fgcqid$nj5$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <008501c81c9f$ffd4c0d0$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
Subject:	RE: can't read sequential files
Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:38:08 -0000
Message-ID:	<009101c81ca5$95db06c0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To:	<008501c81c9f$ffd4c0d0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

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/

- Raw text -