why printf works first than cout

[pai]

Hi,

This is a code . the output will be
why is this so. Can any nody explain me this..
4444 2222 7777 8888
aaaa

*************** *************** *
#include <stdio.h>
#include<iostre am.h>

int main(void)
{

char* test = "4444 2222 7777 8888";
cout<<"aaaa";
printf("New string: %s\n", test);

return 0;
}
*************** *************** ***
thanks

Pai...

[mlimber]

pai wrote:

Hi,

This is a code . the output will be
why is this so. Can any nody explain me this..
4444 2222 7777 8888
aaaa

*************** *************** *
#include <stdio.h>
#include<iostre am.h>

int main(void)
{

char* test = "4444 2222 7777 8888";
cout<<"aaaa";
printf("New string: %s\n", test);

return 0;
}
*************** *************** ***
thanks

Pai...

Cout is buffered, and you didn't sync it with stdio (see, e.g.,
http://www.cplusplus.com/ref/iostrea...th_stdio.html).

Cheers! --M

[Ron Natalie]

pai wrote:

Hi,

This is a code . the output will be
why is this so. Can any nody explain me this..

Your standard library implementation is broken.
cout and stdout are supposed to be sync'd together
by default.

Of course, you're not using a standard library
cout if you are using <iostream.h>.

Try it with <iostreamand see if it works better.

[Ron Natalie]

mlimber wrote:

Cout is buffered, and you didn't sync it with stdio (see, e.g.,
http://www.cplusplus.com/ref/iostrea...th_stdio.html).

sync_with_stdio is true by defualt.

[Greg Comeau]

In article <11************ **********@m73g 2000cwd.googleg roups.com>,
pai <gr****@yahoo.c omwrote:

>This is a code . the output will be
why is this so. Can any nody explain me this..
4444 2222 7777 8888
aaaa

************** *************** **
#include <stdio.h>
#include<iostr eam.h>

int main(void)
{

char* test = "4444 2222 7777 8888";
cout<<"aaaa";
printf("New string: %s\n", test);

return 0;
}

iostreams and stdio are diffeent I/O systems and hance allowed
to maintain seperate buffers. Solutions range from turning
buffering off (set*buf()), flushing after each operations (endl or fflush),
or sync'ing (std::ios_base: :sync_with_stdi o()). It will probably
take some playing around with and I forget with aspects are
guaranteed or not. Of course there is the approach of not mixing
the two as well.
--
Greg Comeau / 20 years of Comeauity! Intel Mac Port now in alpha!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE == http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Thomas J. Gritzan]

pai schrieb:

Hi,

This is a code . the output will be
why is this so. Can any nody explain me this..
4444 2222 7777 8888
aaaa

*************** *************** *
#include <stdio.h>

Should be <cstdio>

#include<iostre am.h>

Should be <iostream>

>
int main(void)

Should be

int main()

{

char* test = "4444 2222 7777 8888";

const char* test = "4444 2222 7777 8888";

>

cout<<"aaaa";

std::cout << "aaaa";

printf("New string: %s\n", test);

return 0;
}

Usually, both printf and cout are buffered. printf flushes the buffer on a
newline ('\n'), and cout flushes by calling flush() member function, or by
using:

std::cout << std::endl; // and:
std::cout << std::flush;

In general, it's a bad idea to mix C and C++ standard library stuff.

--
Thomas

[Jack Klein]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:46:18 +0200, "Thomas J. Gritzan"
<Ph************ *@gmx.dewrote in comp.lang.c++:

pai schrieb:

Hi,

This is a code . the output will be
why is this so. Can any nody explain me this..
4444 2222 7777 8888
aaaa

*************** *************** *
#include <stdio.h>

Should be <cstdio>

Agreed, although the original is not incorrect. And I doubt that the
C++ standard will actually remove the <cheader.husa ge in any of our
lifetimes. Or that if they do, compilers will actually remove it.

#include<iostre am.h>

Should be <iostream>

int main(void)

Should be

int main()

Balderdash. The OP's definition of main() is 100% correct and
standard conforming. It's bad form to inject your esthetic
preferences into real corrections without identifying them as such.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Jim Langston]

"pai" <gr****@yahoo.c omwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ m73g2000cwd.goo glegroups.com.. .

Hi,

This is a code . the output will be
why is this so. Can any nody explain me this..
4444 2222 7777 8888
aaaa

*************** *************** *
#include <stdio.h>
#include<iostre am.h>

int main(void)
{

char* test = "4444 2222 7777 8888";
cout<<"aaaa";
printf("New string: %s\n", test);

return 0;
}
*************** *************** ***
thanks

Pai...

Because you are not flushing cout. Either add std::endl; to the end (which
adds a newline and then does cout.flush()) or if you don't want to add the
newline, just do the flush manually.

std::cout << "aaaa" << std::endl;
printf("New string: %s\n", test);

or

std::cout << "aaaa";
std::cout.flush ();
printf("New string: %s\n", test);

Try that and see if you get what you expected.

[Thomas J. Gritzan]

Jack Klein wrote:

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:46:18 +0200, "Thomas J. Gritzan"
<Ph************ *@gmx.dewrote in comp.lang.c++:

>pai schrieb:

>>int main(void)

Should be

int main()

Balderdash. The OP's definition of main() is 100% correct and
standard conforming. It's bad form to inject your esthetic
preferences into real corrections without identifying them as such.

Err, you are right. Both forms are correct in C++.

I thought that it is a C'ism to write (void) for empty parameter list,
since without the void, the parameters are unspecified in C.

--
Thomas

[Greg Comeau]

In article <ec**********@n ewsreader2.netc ologne.de>,
Thomas J. Gritzan <Ph************ *@gmx.dewrote:

>Jack Klein wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:46:18 +0200, "Thomas J. Gritzan"
<Ph*********** **@gmx.dewrote in comp.lang.c++:

>>pai schrieb:
int main(void)
Should be

int main()

Balderdash. The OP's definition of main() is 100% correct and
standard conforming. It's bad form to inject your esthetic
preferences into real corrections without identifying them as such.

Err, you are right. Both forms are correct in C++.

I thought that it is a C'ism to write (void) for empty parameter list,
since without the void, the parameters are unspecified in C.

It (prototypes) was a C++ism that C adopted but as you
point out empty params already meant something in C,
therefore C also has (void), which bounced back into
C++ as a Cism in order to not have another incompatibility .
--
Greg Comeau / 20 years of Comeauity! Intel Mac Port now in alpha!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE == http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?