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.

[Keith Thompson]

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@sc hmitz-digital.dewrite s:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@sc hmitz-digital.dewrite s:

>>Antoninus Twink wrote:

[...]

>>>
Utter nonsense.

[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.

--
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"

[Joachim Schmitz]

Keith Thompson wrote:

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@sc hmitz-digital.dewrite s:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@sc hmitz-digital.dewrite s:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]

Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.

Sorry, point taken. I seem to be overly thin skinned lately...

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rote:

>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@sc hmitz-digital.dewrite s:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@sc hmitz-digital.dewrite s:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]

Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.

I see what you mean, but it is a fine line you tread.

Like it or not, you (and your cronies) have set yourselves up as
newsgroup cops in CLC - and you enforce the topicality rules with
aplomb. So, when you speak, it carries somewhat more force than when
Joe Newbie speaks. People are expected to follow your directives, just
as they are expected to follow the directives issued by real life cops.

[lawrence.jones]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>
If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviate d" (which has the same root as "abbreviati on") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school. (See 7.23.3.5(3) for
details.) Thus, this discussion has uncovered a flaw in the Standard! So
it seems it may conceivably have been worthwhile after all. :-)

Are you sure it's a flaw in the standard rather than a flaw in your
schooling? :-)

My dictionary accepts any form of shortening as an abbreviation; an
abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words is either an
/acronym/ (if pronounceable) or an /initialism/ (if not).

What does the OED have to say?
--
Larry Jones

Years from now when I'm successful and happy, ...and he's in
prison... I hope I'm not too mature to gloat. -- Calvin

[Richard Tobin]

In article <-I************** *************** *@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviate d" (which has the same root as "abbreviati on") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school.

If you consider that root you will see that it consists of "ad" (to)
and "brevis" (short), so it's not surprising that it has a very
general meaning covering any kind of shortening. If it has a more
specific meaning amongst English teachers, they have failed to impose
it on the rest of us.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

[Richard Heathfield]

la************@ siemens.com said:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>>
If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of
the word "abbreviate d" (which has the same root as "abbreviati on")
clearly disagrees with the way I was taught at school. (See 7.23.3.5(3)
for details.) Thus, this discussion has uncovered a flaw in the
Standard! So it seems it may conceivably have been worthwhile after all.
:-)

Are you sure it's a flaw in the standard rather than a flaw in your
schooling? :-)

Yeah. The chances of my having learned anything wrong at school are
basically zero. The teachers were perfect and knew everything.

My dictionary accepts any form of shortening as an abbreviation; an
abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words is either an
/acronym/ (if pronounceable) or an /initialism/ (if not).

What does the OED have to say?

The OED says "I cost £450". :-)

--
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

[Ben Bacarisse]

la************@ siemens.com writes:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>>
If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviate d" (which has the same root as "abbreviati on") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school. (See 7.23.3.5(3) for
details.) Thus, this discussion has uncovered a flaw in the Standard! So
it seems it may conceivably have been worthwhile after all. :-)

Are you sure it's a flaw in the standard rather than a flaw in your
schooling? :-)

My dictionary accepts any form of shortening as an abbreviation; an
abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words is either an
/acronym/ (if pronounceable) or an /initialism/ (if not).

What does the OED have to say?

abbreviation

1. The act of shortening, reducing in length.
2. The result of abbreviating; an abbreviated or reduced form; short
summary, abridgement.
3. esp. A shortened form of a spoken word, or written symbol; a part
of a word or symbol standing for the whole.

abbreviated

1. Shortened, cut short, in the various senses of the vb.

and so we also need:

abbreviate

To make shorter, shorten, cut short in any way.

3. trans. To shorten by cutting off a part; to cut short.
d. Of words spoken or written, or symbols of any kind: To contract,
so that a part stands for the whole. The common mod. use.

(Obsolete and obscure uses removed -- hence the missing numbers.)
This is from the on-line 1989 second edition.

--
Ben.

[Ron Ford]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:37:57 -0700 (PDT), Paul Hsieh posted:

On Aug 14, 10:16*pm, [e-mail] m wrote:

>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

You forgot:

- The general practice of programming and computer science
- C compilers
- Any real world program written in C outside of command line
utilities
- Comparisons of C with any other language

>On-topic:

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

You forgot:

- Complaining about google groups
- Complaining about signatures
- Bible study -- err, I mean ANSI standard recitations.

Funny stuff. I was perusing the later messages and thinking that "the
topic" had widened up.

Never heard of a usanian.
--
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart. 5
H. L. Mencken

[Chris M. Thomasson]

"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotma il.comwrote in message
news:6g******** *****@mid.indiv idual.net...

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotma il.comwrote in message
news:6g******* ******@mid.indi vidual.net...

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

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.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
seat? Who gets to get sued?

I live in New Zealand, so nobody gets sued!

You mean there are no ambulance chasers in New Zealand?

;^)

[Ian Collins]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>
You mean there are no ambulance chasers in New Zealand?

Not really, we've managed to remain civilised so far...

--
Ian Collins.