X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: Tim Nicholson Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: error under DOS , symify output Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:15:01 +0000 (UTC) Organization: BT Openworld Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <4041F822 DOT 2050603 AT acm DOT org> <20040229095149 DOT 09990 DOT 00000563 AT mb-m17 DOT aol DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-128-153-22.in-addr.btopenworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: titan.btinternet.com 1078082101 29779 81.128.153.22 (29 Feb 2004 19:15:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-complaints AT lists DOT btinternet DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:15:01 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <20040229095149.09990.00000563@mb-m17.aol.com> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk Yes, that should solve it, but like Hans-Bernhard Broeker, I found it almost impossible to follow the logic of your code. That is not to say that it is wrong, it is just the style of 'C' that you have adopted is horrendous, it reminds me of Commodore Basic ;-) IMHO, placing all the instructions on one line just makes the code harder to read and therefore much harder to debug. You may also consider structuring your code in such away as to avoid the use of labels and the goto statement; again, a well-structured program is much easier to follow and debug, it is also much easier to expand as you do not need to keep track of all of the labels! Of course, the compiler doesn't give a damn either way, but you will find that the output of symify is more meaningful if a given source line only refers to one statement. Tim Sterten wrote: >>Which makes a lot of sense since you did not have an argument for >>argv[2] right? > > > I'd like to have the option for a 2nd argument, > i.e. the program should run with 1 or 2 arguments. > Well, I can check argc and jump over > that line > > qwe=0;if(argc>1)qwe=argv[2][0];