From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
References:  <13500536.post@talk.nabble.com> <13524102.post@talk.nabble.com> <005c01c81c79$d7545d30$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <fgcqid$nj5$1@ger.gmane.org> <008501c81c9f$ffd4c0d0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Subject: RE: can't read sequential files
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:38:08 -0000
Message-ID: <009101c81ca5$95db06c0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <008501c81c9f$ffd4c0d0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.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/