Structure Pointer

[RAKHE]

Hi
I am having some warning when i used like this
struct creat_table {
--------
----------
};
struct creat_table *table();
int main()
{
struct creat_table *p;
p =table();
}
struct creat_table *table()
{

}
I used to get Some warning like
Incompatible assignment Please if any body find solution can u
expalin it

 

[Keith Thompson]

I am having some warning when i used like this
struct creat_table {
--------
----------
};
struct creat_table *table();
int main()
{
struct creat_table *p;
p =table();
}
struct creat_table *table()
{

}
I used to get Some warning like
Incompatible assignment Please if any body find solution can u
expalin it

Please don't use silly abbrevations like "u". If you want us to take
the time to read your article, take the time to spell out the words.

After I cleaned up the code you posted (removing the "--------" lines,
adding a dummy member to the structure), it compiled without error.
My conclusion is that the code you posted differs from the code that's
giving you the warning. We're not mindreaders; we can't possibly tell
you what's wrong with your code unless you actually show it to us.

And you say you got a warning "something like" Incompatible
assignment. Don't tell us what the warning is like; tell us what it
really is.

Write a small complete compilable program that illustrates the
problem. Post it exactly (copy-and-paste, don't re-type), and tell us
what the problem is.

If you're going to post to a newsgroup, it's a good idea to read the
group for a while, or at least browse the archives. If you had done
so, this reply would not be necessary, because everything I'm saying
has already been posted here many many times.

 

[jaysome]

Hi
I am having some warning when i used like this
struct creat_table {
--------
----------
};
struct creat_table *table();
int main()
{
struct creat_table *p;
p =table();
}
struct creat_table *table()
{

}
I used to get Some warning like
Incompatible assignment Please if any body find solution can u
expalin it

I'm really curious as to why you chose to name your struct
"creat_table" instead of "create_table". We had an incompetent
programmer working for us who chose to use the same naming convention,
and we always wondered why in the world he chose to omit the final 'e'
in "create". I'm not saying you're incompetent--I just want to know
what your rationale is behind choosing "creat" (which we pronounce
"kreet") over "create".

Best regards

 

[santosh]

Hi
I am having some warning when i used like this
struct creat_table {
--------
----------
};
struct creat_table *table();
int main()
{
struct creat_table *p;
p =table();
}
struct creat_table *table()
{

}
I used to get Some warning like
Incompatible assignment Please if any body find solution can u
expalin it

If you want assistance, please post a minimal, compilable program that
exhibits your problem. Use cut and paste, don't retype. If relevant,
post the actual text of the compiler's diagnostics, not your rephrased
version.

 

[Chris Dollin]

If you want assistance, please post a minimal, compilable program that
exhibits your problem. Use cut and paste, don't retype. If relevant,
post the actual text of the compiler's diagnostics, not your rephrased
version.

Nitpick:

It's a but difficult to present a compilable example that produces
"incompatible assignment" messages, assuming that those are
constraint violations.

 

[u plz]

I'm really curious as to why you chose to name your struct "creat_table"
instead of "create_table". We had an incompetent programmer working for
us who chose to use the same naming convention, and we always wondered
why in the world he chose to omit the final 'e' in "create". I'm not
saying you're incompetent--I just want to know what your rationale is
behind choosing "creat" (which we pronounce "kreet") over "create".

OT: Ken Thompson said this about the creat() function call in Unix:

"If I had to do it over again? Hmm... I guess I'd spell 'creat' with an
'e'."

Maybe OP got the inspiration from Ken Thompson.

-Alok

 

[santosh]

OT: Ken Thompson said this about the creat() function call in Unix:

"If I had to do it over again? Hmm... I guess I'd spell 'creat' with an
'e'."

He (Ken) said that in jest. There're far more cryptic calls like brk.

 

[Coos Haak]

Op Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:31:21 +0000 (UTC) schreef u plz:

OT: Ken Thompson said this about the creat() function call in Unix:

"If I had to do it over again? Hmm... I guess I'd spell 'creat' with an
'e'."

Maybe OP got the inspiration from Ken Thompson.

I use a language that would have been called Fourth if the compiler had
allowed six letter words ;-)

 

[Keith Thompson]

He (Ken) said that in jest. There're far more cryptic calls like brk.

But "break" is a keyword.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I use a language that would have been called Fourth if the compiler had
allowed six letter words ;-)

Fortran IV? }

 

[santosh]

But "break" is a keyword.

Indeed. But brk itself is more heavily "abbreviated", (I can't come up
with a better term), than creat, (two vowels excised, destroying the
pronounciation, instead of one almost redundant one.)

 

[Keith Thompson]

Indeed. But brk itself is more heavily "abbreviated", (I can't come up
with a better term), than creat, (two vowels excised, destroying the
pronounciation, instead of one almost redundant one.)

Agreed, but spelling it out as "break" wasn't an option. I guess my
point (and it's a trivial one) is that Ken Thompson was probably
speaking in jest in that it was a humorous remark, but I suspect he
really did wish he had spelled "creat" with an 'e'. And dropping the
'e' from "create" does destroy the pronunciation.

This is all quite off-topic, of course.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

But "break" is a keyword.

As a side note, in the 6th Edition kernel, brk was named sbreak,
with this comment above it:

bad planning: "break" is a dirty word in C.

 

[Keith Thompson]

As a side note, in the 6th Edition kernel, brk was named sbreak,
with this comment above it:

bad planning: "break" is a dirty word in C.

Modern Unixish systems have both brk() and sbrk().

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Agreed, but spelling it out as "break" wasn't an option. I guess
my point (and it's a trivial one) is that Ken Thompson was probably
speaking in jest in that it was a humorous remark, but I suspect he
really did wish he had spelled "creat" with an 'e'. And dropping
the 'e' from "create" does destroy the pronunciation.

The last time I was in Northern Quebec I watched as the Cree ate
their venison and fish

 

[Richard Tobin]

Agreed, but spelling it out as "break" wasn't an option. I guess my
point (and it's a trivial one) is that Ken Thompson was probably
speaking in jest in that it was a humorous remark, but I suspect he
really did wish he had spelled "creat" with an 'e'. And dropping the
'e' from "create" does destroy the pronunciation.

The nature of the remark is clear if you know the context. Thompson
was asked what he would do differently if he were designing Unix
today.

-- Richard

 

[Richard Tobin]

As a side note, in the 6th Edition kernel, brk was named sbreak,
with this comment above it:

bad planning: "break" is a dirty word in C.

[/QUOTE]

Modern Unixish systems have both brk() and sbrk().

That was true in V6 too. But sbreak() in V6 was the system call used
by both of them. It corresponds more directly to brk() than sbrk().

You can see the code at
ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/home/aeb/unix-archive/UnixArchive/PDP-11/Trees/V6
in
usr/sys/ken/sys1.c
and
usr/source/s5/sbrk.s

-- Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Op Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:31:21 +0000 (UTC) schreef u plz:


I use a language that would have been called Fourth if the compiler had
allowed six letter words ;-)

I once used a language whose name is a four-letter word.

Richard