Re: strcmp, please help me understand this

[Marcus]

you guys are funny. i thought this was comp.lang.c++.. . not
comp.we.can.onl y.comment.on things.that.can .be.compiled.c+ +

back in the day in this group, the jibe replies would've looked like:
"char*'s WILL strcmp, assuming you didn't mean those errors above,
your error is somewhere else."

times change i guess. thanks though joe, appreciate you taking the
time to actually compile that. the error must be somewhere else.

[Mike Wahler]

"Marcus" <mc*******@wall a.comwrote in message
news:b4******** *************** ***********@u36 g2000prf.google groups.com...

you guys are funny. i thought this was comp.lang.c++.. . not
comp.we.can.onl y.comment.on things.that.can .be.compiled.c+ +

Huh? This is a C++ group. So of course we talk about
C++. Often there are discussions about C++ issues where
actual code is not posted. BUT: you asked about specific
function's behavior under certain circumstances. So of
course we need to know *exactly* what you did.

>
back in the day in this group, the jibe replies would've looked like:
"char*'s WILL strcmp, assuming you didn't mean those errors above,
your error is somewhere else."

This is essentially the same as we're telling you. "the error is
somewhere else." If we don't see what the "somewhere else" looks
like, we're only guessing, and wasting everyone's time.

>
times change i guess. thanks though joe, appreciate you taking the
time to actually compile that.

Please note that he did NOT compile YOUR code. He simply wrote
(I assume correct) code, and compiled THAT. He cannot know what
the rest of your code really looks like.

the error must be somewhere else.

Of course it is. But if you refuse to show us "somewhere else",
we're only guessing. I won't do that.

You're coming awfully close to "biting a hand that feeds you."

-Mike

[Joe Greer]

Marcus <mc*******@wall a.comwrote in news:b4aea5d2-b49b-43a7-ab39-
83**********@u3 6g2000prf.googl egroups.com:

you guys are funny. i thought this was comp.lang.c++.. . not
comp.we.can.onl y.comment.on things.that.can .be.compiled.c+ +

back in the day in this group, the jibe replies would've looked like:
"char*'s WILL strcmp, assuming you didn't mean those errors above,
your error is somewhere else."

times change i guess. thanks though joe, appreciate you taking the
time to actually compile that. the error must be somewhere else.

The point is that strcmp works as advertised, so there is something else
going on corrupting things. Since you are messing with pointers, I would
look for boundary overwrites or writing to invalid pointers. A tool like
Purify can be valuable for finding these sorts of things.

joe

[Juha Nieminen]

Marcus wrote:

you guys are funny. i thought this was comp.lang.c++.. . not
comp.we.can.onl y.comment.on things.that.can .be.compiled.c+ +

back in the day in this group, the jibe replies would've looked like:
"char*'s WILL strcmp, assuming you didn't mean those errors above,
your error is somewhere else."

What's wrong with that answer? It looks perfectly accurate to me.

Fixing your typing mistakes and putting a minimal complete program
around it makes it work as it should. Thus your lines don't show any
error and thus it's impossible to answer your question.

[Yannick Tremblay]

In article <b4************ *************** *******@u36g200 0prf.googlegrou ps.com>,
Marcus <mc*******@wall a.comwrote:

>you guys are funny. i thought this was comp.lang.c++.. . not
comp.we.can.on ly.comment.on things.that.can .be.compiled.c+ +

back in the day in this group, the jibe replies would've looked like:
"char*'s WILL strcmp, assuming you didn't mean those errors above,
your error is somewhere else."

times change i guess. thanks though joe, appreciate you taking the
time to actually compile that. the error must be somewhere else.

Why do newbies insist on being childish? Peoples up here are willing
to help. However, they can only help with the material they have.
But no, so often, newbies when they don't get it all cooked,
pre-chewed and spoonfed directly in their mouth, fell the need to
throw a tantrum.

Look, you came here and asked for help. However, you didn't ask a
clear question ("It doesn't work"). Why are _you_ unwilling to make an
effort yourself so that others can help _you_ solve _your_ problem?
Essentially, all that can be answered from your post:

1- strcmp works.
2- There must be an error somewhere in your code.
3- The sample you have posted is not complete and would not
compile if inserted in a real program.

The above is really not that useful to you: i.e. strcmp works. That
should be a given. But you've have made a mistake. If you post a
complete but minimal self contained example that actually compile,
then peoples can look and identify where you made the mistake. If you
don't do that, all that can be said is: "You made a mistake somewhere."
Yannick