Why is it dangerous?

[Julian]

'evening.

I'm not new to C and have been programming in it since I was 8 but
here's a strange problem I've never seen before.

When I compile a program from our C course with a windows compiler
there is no problem but when I try to compile it with a linux compiler
it complains that

a_03.c:(.text+0 x4d): warning: the `gets' function is dangerous
and should not be used.

Is linux more dangerous than windows? Where can I download a
non dangerous gets function? I have never used gets before is
there undefined behavior somewhere?
Here is a trimmed down example program from my assignment that
demonstrates the problem

#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>

void main()
{
char *string;
printf("enter string (max 2000 chars): ");
fflush(stdin);
fflush(stdout);
string = (char *)malloc(2001);
if(!string) exit(1);
gets(string);
printf("you entered: %s\n", string);
free(string);
exit(0);
}

On windows with TurboC and Lcc no error is printed. On linux with
gcc it says gets is dangerous.

Please advise my instructor says gcc is overly pedantic.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

In article <AI************ *************** ***@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.inv alid
wrote:

>>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population
of a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to
an admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and
it should not surprise us to learn that those who seek
self-aggrandisement are not going to be best pleased by the introduction
of a term which neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil
think of themselves as "Americans" , do you?

I don't honestly believe that calling a trunk an elephant makes it an
elephant.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

In article <6g************ @mid.individual .net>, "Default User"
<de***********@ yahoo.comwrote:

>>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.

Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a particular word,
phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use that word, phrase, etc.
*is* being deliberately offensive.

Fine. For future reference, I find these following terms deeply upsetting,
and would appreciate your refraining from their usage:

"a", "been", "being", "causes", "continue", "deliberate ly", "etc", "has",
"informed", "is", "moreover", "of", "offense", "offensive" , "once", "one",
"particular ", "phrase", "that", "the", "to", "use", "word".

and I found your paragraph very disturbing.

You now have some choices:

(a) refuse to believe that I find those words offensive (as I refuse to
believe that anyone can seriously find the word "Usanian" offensive);
(b) consider that I'm being ridiculous (as I consider that anyone finding
the word "Usanian" offensive is being ridiculous);
(c) refrain from using any of the words I mentioned above in all
comp.lang.c articles, from now on.

Choice (c), the only choice in keeping with your position, is untenable.
The other two choices reflect my position nicely.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

Joe Wright <jo********@com cast.netwrites:
[...]

I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard. Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography. No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South
American, rather in terms of our nationality. Canadian, Mexican,
Brazilian, Argentinian. And American because our nation is United
States of America.

'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.

Do you speak for Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and Argentinians?

You certainly don't speak for all citizens of the US.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[CBFalconer]

Doug Miller wrote:

rj*@see.sig.inv alid wrote:

>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the
population of a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents -
and apply it only to an admittedly large minority of that
population is self-aggrandising, and it should not surprise us
to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement are not going
to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or
Brazil think of themselves as "Americans" , do you?

Certainly do. They may even add a North, South, Central to it. Or
nothing.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

[CBFalconer]

Doug Miller wrote:

"Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people
who use the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor
and more with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans
to use that term. I don't for a minute believe that users of
the term are bleeding their hearts for the Costa Ricans and
such shut out by the use of the term to mean only those from
the USA.

Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a
particular word, phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use
that word, phrase, etc. *is* being deliberately offensive.

No, you miss the point. It is much better to doggedly defend your
attitude, and to cause the injection of roughly 100 OT messages
into the newsgroup, than to ever concede a point. This works
especially well when two opposing attitudes are present. We can be
thankful that the protagonists are fairly well trained in snipping
and bottom-posting.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

[Joe Wright]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Joe Wright <jo********@com cast.netwrites:
[...]

>I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard. Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography. No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South
American, rather in terms of our nationality. Canadian, Mexican,
Brazilian, Argentinian. And American because our nation is United
States of America.

'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.

Do you speak for Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and Argentinians?

You certainly don't speak for all citizens of the US.

What? I speak for myself of course. But if you ask a Canadian if he's an
American he'll say "No, I'm Canadian". Every time.

Do you know Nova Scotians or Brazilians who think of themselves as
American? I suppose not.

All citizens of the USA are American by definition. The adjective
'American' applies to the USA only.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[James Kuyper]

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <AI************ *************** ***@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.inv alid wrote:

>Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil think of
themselves as "Americans" , do you?

Actually, in Latin America that is in fact the case:

<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/American_(word) #Political_and_ cultural_views>

[s0suk3]

On Aug 14, 8:41 pm, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

Doug Miller said:

In article <6g************ @mid.individual .net>, "Default User"
<de***********@ yahoo.comwrote:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.

>I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.

Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a particular word,
phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use that word, phrase, etc.
*is* being deliberately offensive.

Fine. For future reference, I find these following terms deeply upsetting,
and would appreciate your refraining from their usage:

"a", "been", "being", "causes", "continue", "deliberate ly", "etc", "has",
"informed", "is", "moreover", "of", "offense", "offensive" , "once", "one",
"particular ", "phrase", "that", "the", "to", "use", "word".

and I found your paragraph very disturbing.

You now have some choices:

(a) refuse to believe that I find those words offensive (as I refuse to
believe that anyone can seriously find the word "Usanian" offensive);
(b) consider that I'm being ridiculous (as I consider that anyone finding
the word "Usanian" offensive is being ridiculous);
(c) refrain from using any of the words I mentioned above in all
comp.lang.c articles, from now on.

Choice (c), the only choice in keeping with your position, is untenable.
The other two choices reflect my position nicely.

So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

- Networking in C
- Threading in C
- Creating directories in C
- Future C standards
- Programs written in C

On-topic:

- Prototyping main()
- (Not) casting malloc() calls
- Proper use of English words
- Nationalities abbreviations

:-)

Sebastian

[santosh]

s0****@gmail.co m wrote:

<snip>

So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

[ ... ]

- Future C standards

There is <news:comp.std. cfor this.

- Programs written in C

I would say that this is topical. If the problem involves an extension
then we can always redirect the OP.

<snip>

[Richard Bos]

"Default User" <de***********@ yahoo.comwrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Alas, many Usanians tend not to notice it.

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard English.

Why? Do you USAliens not have the graps of the English language to
understand them?

Richard