X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:09:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Stea Greene X-Sender: insomnia AT degobah Reply-To: Stea Greene To: tBeastium Mailing List , Vincent Diepeveen Subject: Re: weird things of gcc In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980711232836.0097a3f0@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Marc Lehmann Status: RO Content-Length: 1451 Lines: 45 On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > Hello, > > Forgive me my criticism, but after setting up linux i now try to compile > diep for unix, and i get some weird results trying to compile with the > standard gcc in redhat 5.1 (gcc --version gives: 2.7.2.3 ): > > first of all, why doesn't gcc have a predefined function like msvc++ have > called: > max() and min()? > (Assuming I am thinking about your max() and min() functions correctly): Well, actually, it does. GCC has an even better implimentation of these than vc++. The >? and ? 4 = 4 2 ? b) #define min(a, b) (a "the 'gets' function is dangerous and should not be used." > What the #$$##$ does gcc think it's saying to me, am i not allowed to > get a string from the keyboard, is there a bug in this function? This is, just as it says, a dangerous function. All you have to do is hit too many keys for the buffer given to gets() and BOOM! It isn't that you're not allowed to do it, gcc is just politely recomending that you don't. --Insomnia --Sleep is for the weak!