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 <WL************ *************** ***@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.inv alid
wrote:

>>No point. I have no comment to make on your experience, which differs
from mine. It is possible that you are confused by the fact that
Canadians are likely to think of and describe themselves as Canadians
rather than Americans for the same reason that Germans are likely to
think of and describe themselves as Germans rather than Europeans. That
does not mean that Canadians are not Americans, any more than it means
that Germans are not Europeans.

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't* consider
themselves to be "Americans" ,

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people living
in North and South America. Canadians /are/ Americans (whether or not they
consider themselves to be Americans), because they live in America
(specifically, North America) - just as much as Usanians are Americans and
Brazilians are Americans.

your anti-American fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding .

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm anti-American from the fact
that I don't like the idea of discriminating against the 70% of them that
don't live in the USA.

--
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]

sp******@milmac .com (Doug Miller) writes:
[...]

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't* consider
themselves to be "Americans" , your anti-American fantasies to the contrary
notwithstanding .

I am now determined to ignore the point, whatever it might be.
I invite everyone to join me in ignoring the point. If you must
continue to discuss this, please take it somewhere else.

--
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"

[Doug Miller]

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

>Doug Miller said:

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

>>>No point. I have no comment to make on your experience, which differs
from mine. It is possible that you are confused by the fact that
Canadians are likely to think of and describe themselves as Canadians
rather than Americans for the same reason that Germans are likely to
think of and describe themselves as Germans rather than Europeans. That
does not mean that Canadians are not Americans, any more than it means
that Germans are not Europeans.

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't* consider
themselves to be "Americans" ,

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people living
in North and South America.

No, *you're* confusing the point -- which is that while *you* might think
this, *they* don't.

>Canadians /are/ Americans (whether or not they
consider themselves to be Americans), because they live in America
(specificall y, North America) - just as much as Usanians are Americans and
Brazilians are Americans.

Ahh, I see -- what *they* think they are doesn't matter. *You* already know.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

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

>>Doug Miller said:

<snip>

>>>
You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't*
consider themselves to be "Americans" ,

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people living
in North and South America.

No, *you're* confusing the point

We are not having an argument, merely a contradiction. As such, it is
pointless to continue it.

--
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

[santosh]

Doug Miller wrote:

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

>>Doug Miller said:

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

No point. I have no comment to make on your experience, which
differs from mine. It is possible that you are confused by the fact
that Canadians are likely to think of and describe themselves as
Canadians rather than Americans for the same reason that Germans are
likely to think of and describe themselves as Germans rather than
Europeans . That does not mean that Canadians are not Americans, any
more than it means that Germans are not Europeans.

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't*
consider themselves to be "Americans" ,

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people
living in North and South America.

No, *you're* confusing the point -- which is that while *you* might
think this, *they* don't.

>>Canadians /are/ Americans (whether or not they
consider themselves to be Americans), because they live in America
(specifically , North America) - just as much as Usanians are Americans
and Brazilians are Americans.

Ahh, I see -- what *they* think they are doesn't matter. *You* already
know.

I tend to note that in literature from before the mid 20th century, the
word "America" and "the Americas" is used quite often to refer to the
entire north and south American landmass, while early travellers seem
to have used the word "American" for all the people of this landmass
simultaneously with other more specific designations.

In any case, calling a Brazilian or a Canadian, or a Cuban "American" is
as "correct" as calling a Japanese, a Mongol, an Indian, a Russian, an
Israeli, and an East Timorese, as an "Asian", even though in day-to-day
life a representative individual of all these countries will not think
of himself as "Asian".

Just as the word "Asian" applies to collectively to all the people of
Asia and not exclusively to the citizens of one or more of it's
constituent countries, the word "American" should also apply to all the
people of north and south America and not exclusively to the citizens
of the USA. I agree that in common usage that it doesn't, but that
doesn't make it "correct".

Personally I don't like the word "Usanian" for a country-specific
designation of the citizens of the USA (the word sounds and feels
awkward), but I can't think of a better word either.

Maybe the time has come to deprecate and mark as obsolescent the whole
notion of continents, and instead just deal with countries? :-)

[Ian Collins]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Ian Collins said:

>Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>>Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Willem said:
>The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
>the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
>opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
>seatbelt .
They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.
Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?
Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their
belt injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets() despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.

Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

--
Ian Collins.

[Antoninus Twink]

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2008-08-16, Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam. invalidwrote:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

>Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

The wide world of stdin is far more dangerous than the roadways, and
it's much less obvious - especially to somebody new to the field -
what horrible things could happen by feeding gets() a finite buffer.

--
Andrew Poelstra ap*******@wpsof tware.com
To email me, use the above email addresss with .com set to .net

[santosh]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

>Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who
in the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say
that I can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

Because one of the "state's" responsibility is to improve the safety of
it's subjects and to inform them of the same?

BTW, this debate about seat-belts is mildly amusing to me, seeing as
here, most cities do not mandate even drivers to wear seat-belts, while
even in the few that do, the very vast majority put them on at traffic
intersections (where a cop or a CCTV might be watching you) and take
them off as soon as they are on their way again.

The accident rate is horrendous, but that has nothing to do with
seat-belts, but with poor driving and completely flouting road
regulations and safety. This is one issue where the "state" might do
well to let it's subjects work it out for themselves and in the
meanwhile accept the minutely larger fraction of causalities that might
result from non-enforcement.

[Ian Collins]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

>Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

Because the 200lb twat in the back of a 70mph car carries on moving at
70mph when the car comes to an unscheduled stop, not only doing himself
harm (fair enough) but taking out the poor souls in the front on his way
to oblivion.

Same happens to the careful project team when the stubborn nonconformist
idiot team member uses gets.

--
Ian Collins.