K
kevin
write a program in c.
N
Nick Keighley
you forgot the magic "p" word
W
Wolfgang Draxinger
kevin said:
If that's some exercise and you want to cheat, then go to
<http://kernel.org>, there you can get the sources of a
particulary good programm written in C.
But don't be surpreised, if you got a bad mark...
If it shall be a bit simpler then a full blown OS kernel:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 42; ++i) {
printf("%d, not the awnser to the question...\n", i);
}
return ++i;
}
That should do it, but I don't think you will profit from that
example.
Seriously: If this is a exercise, and you're a total newbie, then
just crying "help" won't help you at all. Anything people can do
is giving you some written examples of code and some explanation
to it.
Such things are commnly called textbooks and can be found in
buildings called libraries and bought in bookshops, that come
also in online form, one of them being <http://amazon.com>.
But neither, an explanation given here, nor a textbook will take
the work from you. It's still up to you to read the texts and
also to understand them. I highly suggest, you read the book,
and in the case of 'C' that would be "The C Programming
Language" by Kernighan and Ritchie then.
Once you've questions on thing you didn't understand reading the
book, you're welcome to ask here, as long as you give detailed
information about with which part you got a problem.
Wolfgang Draxinger
S
santosh
kevin said:
Save the program below in a file called test.c. Invoke your favourite
compiler and enjoy.
#include "test.c"
main(){}
K
Keith Thompson
kevin said:
Ok, done.
If you're interested, the output was:
Qb lbhe bja ubzrjbex
Hope this helps, have a nice day.
W
Walter Roberson
Is this for C89 or C99? If it is for C99 then you need the 'int'
on main. If it is for C89 then you should return a value from main.
Recall, by the way, that compilers are permitted to impose limits on
the depth of inclusions. For example,
gcc version 3.4.4 20050721 (Red Hat 3.4.4-2)
with default options will expand to a total of 199 instances of main.
S
santosh
Walter said:
The code is broken on purpose.
Yes, and lcc-win apparently has a limit of 15. The Intel C compiler
gives this amusing diagnostic:
test.c(1): catastrophic error: #include file "test.c" includes itself
#include "test.c"
^
compilation aborted for test.c (code 4)
BTW "test.c" can be replaced with __FILE__ to make the include directive
immune to file renaming.
J
John J. Smith
kevin said:
Easy.
/*
* aprog.c
*
* "write a program in c."
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#define in "\n"
#define c
int write(const char *foo)
{
signed int short bar = 0;
const char *baz = foo;
while(baz[bar]) putchar(bar[baz++]);
return 0;
}
int main(void)
{
return write("a program" in c);
}
H
Hans Schneider
John said:
This program works not with LCC-WIN32 again! Why?
lc -ansic -pedantic -unused shadows -O aprog.c
Pedants aren't supported any more
1 error
How do you do that? Not funny!
J
Jens Thoms Toerring
lc -ansic -pedantic -unused shadows -O aprog.c
Pedants aren't supported any more
1 error
Jacob Navia announced in a recent thread here in clc
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...7bd9720d78/7a4bcdc84d952874?q=Pedants&lnk=ol&
that lcc-win no will longer have a '-pedantic' option (or, to be
precise, will output the above text if it's used). Since it's his
compiler he can do whatever he likes with it.
Better discuss that with Jacob in personal email (or in the lcc
newsgroup) unless you're trolling for another long-winded, use-
less and mostly off-topic thread here in clc;-)
Regards, Jens
K
Kenneth Brody
kevin said:
Done. What do I get?
--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:[email protected]>
H
Hans Schneider
Jens said:
Sucks.
But, if I remove -pedantic, it works still not:
lc -ansic -unused -shadows -O aprog.c
Error aprog.c: 14 invalid type specification
1 error, 0 warnings
1 error
Is signed int short bar = 0; valid C?
B
Ben Bacarisse
Hans Schneider said:
Yes -- odd, but valid. <OT>And I get no error from it in lcc-win32.</OT>
K
kevin
Keith said:
Looks like rot13. How do you decode that in C?
K
kevin
Kenneth said:
Cool. Can I see it?
K
Keith Thompson
kevin said:
Yes, it's rot13. Did you decode it?
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
Do your own homework
K
Kenneth Brody
kevin said:
Sure. I charge $125/hour with a 2 hour minimum, so send me $250
and I'll forward you the program.
--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:[email protected]>
K
kevin
Richard said:
Yes I know, I won first price in a rot13 contest. It is easy to do in
your head because for example 'D' + 13 is always 'Q'.
On my computer at home 'D' is 68 and 'Q' is 81, no problem there.
On my computer at school, 'D' is 196, 'Q' is 216, and 'D' + 13 is 209,
which is 'J'. Problem.
What to do?
I could translate all letters so alphabetical and numerical order is
the same, apply rot13, then translate back. Then I would need a
different code versions on each computer.
Or I could use some gigantic switch. Doesn't look right either.
B
Bartc
kevin said:
Forget the numeric equivalents. Just memorise the translations so that A
becomes N, B becomes O and so on. This will then work on anything. In fact
after a while you will not need to translate at all. And you can win more
prices.
B
Bartc
Hans said:
I think until recently lccwin didn't allow type specifiers in any order,
even though the C standard rather unwisely didn't prohibit this. Presumably
for historic reasons.
Now lccwin seems to go along with other C compilers rather than take a
stand. So you can now write every declaration in at least N! different ways.