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$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <008501c81c9f$ffd4c0d0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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/