X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: References: <13500536 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <13524102 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <005c01c81c79$d7545d30$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> Subject: RE: can't read sequential files Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:58:09 -0000 Message-ID: <008501c81c9f$ffd4c0d0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 15:15, 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. 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/