Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!adam!scs From: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions on comp.lang.c Message-ID: <1990May18.120209.23416@athena.mit.edu> Date: 18 May 90 12:02:09 GMT Expires: 1 Jun 90 00:00:00 GMT Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system) Reply-To: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) Distribution: usa Organization: Thermal Technologies, Inc. Lines: 1018 Certain topics come up again and again on this newsgroup. They are good questions, and the answers may not be immediately obvious, but each time they recur, much net bandwidth and reader time is wasted on repetitive responses, and on tedious corrections to the incorrect answers which are inevitably posted. This article, which will be reposted periodically, attempts to answer these common questions definitively and succinctly, so that net discussion can move on to more constructive topics without continual regression to first principles. This article does not, and cannot, provide an exhaustive discussion of all of the subtle points and counterarguments which could be mentioned with respect to these topics. Cross-references to standard C publications have been provided, for further study by the interested and dedicated reader. A few of the more perplexing and pervasive topics are further explored in some in-depth minitreatises which are periodically posted in conjunction with this article. No mere newsgroup article can substitute for thoughtful perusal of a full-length language reference manual. Anyone interested enough in C to be following this newsgroup should also be interested enough to read and study one or more such manuals, preferably several times. Some vendor's compiler manuals are unfortunately inadequate; a few even perpetuate some of the myths which this article attempts to debunk. Two invaluable references, which are an excellent addition to any serious programmer's library, are: The C Programming Language, by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie. C: A Reference Manual, by Samuel P. Harbison and Guy L. Steele, Jr. Both exist in several editions. If you have a question about C which is not answered in this article, please try to answer it by referring to these or other books, or to knowledgable colleagues, before posing your question to the net at large. There are many people on the net who are happy to answer questions, but the volume of repetitive answers posted to one question, as well as the growing numbers of questions as the net attracts more readers, can become oppressive. If you have questions or comments prompted by this article, please reply by mail rather than following up -- this article is meant to decrease net traffic, not increase it. This article is still under development. Your input is welcomed. In particular, I am soliciting: 1. cross-referencing suggestions, particularly to the ANSI C standard, a copy of which I don't yet have; 2. additions to the Pascal-to-C translators list (question 40; I know there are some commercial programs out there) and to any other product lists, since I don't want to imply disfavor by not mentioning one; and 3. answers to the questions at the end which, though frequent, have not been of enough interest to me that I've paid attention to them. Send your comments to scs@adam.mit.edu, disregarding the From: line in this article's header, which may be incorrect. Herewith, some frequently-asked questions and their answers: Null Pointers 1. What is this infamous null pointer, anyway? A: The language definition states that for each pointer type, there is a special value -- "null" -- which is distinguishable from all other pointer values and which is not the address of any object. That is, the address-of operator & will never "return" null, nor will malloc. Note that there is a null pointer for each pointer type, and that different pointer types (e.g. char * and int *) may have _different_ null pointers. References: K&R I Sec. 5.4 pp. 97-8; K&R II Sec. 5.4 p. 102; H&S Sec. 5.3 p. 91. 2. How do I "get" a null pointer in my programs? A: According to the language definition, a constant 0 in a pointer context is converted into a null pointer at compile time. That is, in an assignment or comparison when one side is a variable of pointer type, the compiler can tell that a constant 0 on the other side is really a null pointer, and take appropriate action. Therefore, the following fragments are perfectly legal: char *p = 0; if(p != 0) However, an argument being passed to a function is not necessarily recognizable as a pointer context, and the compiler may not be able to tell that an unadorned 0 "means" a null pointer. For instance, the Unix system call "execl" takes a variable-length, null- terminated list of character pointer arguments. To generate a null pointer in a function call context, an explicit cast is typically required: execl("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", "ls", (char *)0); If the (char *)cast were omitted, the compiler would not know to pass a null pointer, and would pass an integer 0 instead. (Note that many Unix manuals get this example wrong.) When function prototypes are in scope, argument passing becomes an "assignment context," so casts may safely be omitted, since the prototype tells the compiler that a pointer is required, and of which type, enabling it to correctly cast unadorned 0's. Function prototypes cannot provide the types for variable arguments in variable-length argument lists, however, so explicit casts are still required for those arguments. It is safest always to cast null pointer function arguments, to guard against varargs functions or those without prototypes, to allow interim use of non-ANSI compilers, and to demonstrate that you know what you are doing. Summary: 0 or NULL okay: cast required: assignments function call, no prototype in scope comparisons variable argument to function call, varargs function prototype in scope, fixed argument References: K&R I Sec. A7.7 p. 190, Sec. A7.14 p. 192; K&R II Sec. A7.10 p. 207, Sec. A7.17 p. 209. H&S Sec. 4.6.3 p. 72. 3. But aren't pointers the same as ints? A: Not since the early days. It is now merely guaranteed that a pointer to an object may be cast to a "suitably capacious" integral type, and back, without change, but how large the type is is not specified (it may be larger than a long int) and the rule does _not_ apply to pointers to functions. References: K&R I Sec. 5.6 pp. 102-3. 4. What is NULL and how is it #defined? A: As a stylistic convention, many people prefer not to have unadorned 0's scattered throughout their programs. For this reason, the preprocessor macro NULL is #defined (by stdio.h or stddef.h), with value 0 (or (void *)0, about which more later). A programmer who wishes to make explicit the distinction between 0 the integer and 0 the null pointer can then use NULL whenever a null pointer is required. This is a stylistic convention only; the preprocessor turns NULL back to 0 which is then recognized by the compiler (in pointer contexts) as before. In particular, a cast may still be necessary before NULL (as before 0) in a function call argument. NULL should _only_ be used for pointers. It should not be used when another kind of 0 is required, even though it might work, because doing so sends the wrong stylistic message. In particular, do not use NULL when the ASCII nul character is desired. Provide your own definition #define NUL '\0' if you must. References: K&R I Sec. 5.4 pp. 97-8; K&R II Sec. 5.4 p. 102; H&S Sec. 13.1 p. 283. 5. How should NULL be #defined on a machine which uses a nonzero bit pattern as the internal representation of the null pointer? A: Until now, no mention has been made of the internal representation of the null pointer. Programmers should never need to know the details of this representation, because it is normally taken care of by the compiler. If a machine uses a nonzero bit pattern for null pointers, it is the compiler's responsibility to generate it when the programmer requests, by writing "0" or "NULL," a null pointer. Therefore #defining NULL as 0 on a machine for which internal null pointers are nonzero is as valid as on any other, because the compiler must (and can) still generate the machine's correct null pointers in response to unadorned 0's seen in pointer contexts. 6. If NULL were defined as follows: #define NULL (char *)0 wouldn't that make function calls which pass an uncast NULL work? A: Not in general. The problem is that there are machines which use different kinds of pointers for different types of data. The suggested #definition would make uncast NULL arguments to functions expecting pointers to characters to work correctly, but pointer arguments to other types would still be problematical. Nevertheless, ANSI C allows the alternate #define NULL (void *)0 definition for NULL. Besides helping incorrect programs to work (but only on machines with all pointers the same, thus questionably valid assistance) this definition may catch programs which use NULL incorrectly (e.g. when the ASCII nul character was really intended). 7. Is the abbreviated pointer comparison "if(p)" to test for non-null pointers valid? What if the internal representation for null pointers is nonzero? A: When C requires the boolean value of an expression (in the if, while, for, and do statements, and with the &&, ||, !, and ?: operators), a false value is produced when the expression is equal to zero, and a true value otherwise. That is, whenever one writes if(expr) where "expr" is any expression at all, the compiler essentially acts as if it had been written as if(expr != 0) Substituting the trivial pointer expression "p" for "expr," we have if(p) is equivalent to if(p != 0) and this is a comparison context, so the compiler can tell that the (implicit) 0 is a null pointer, and use the correct value. There is no trickery involved here; compilers do work this way, and generate identical code for both statements. The internal representation of a pointer does not matter. The boolean negation operator, !, can be described as follows: !expr is essentially equivalent to expr?0:1 It is left as an exercise for the reader to show that if(!p) is equivalent to if(p == 0) References: K&R II Sec. A7.4.7 p. 204; H&S Sec. 5.3 p. 91. 8. If "NULL" and "0" are equivalent, which should I use? A: Many programmers believe that "NULL" should be used in all pointer contexts, as a reminder that the value is to be thought of as a pointer. Others feel that the confusion surrounding "NULL" and "0" is only compounded by hiding "0" behind a #definition, and prefer to use unadorned "0" instead. There is no one right answer. C programmers must understand that "NULL" and "0" are interchangeable and that an uncast "0" is perfectly acceptable in assignment and comparison contexts. Any usage of "NULL" (as opposed to "0") should be considered a gentle reminder; programmers should not depend on it (either for their own understanding or the compiler's) for distinguishing pointer 0's from integer 0's. Again, NULL should not be used for other than pointers. References: K&R II Sec. 5.4 p. 102. 9. But wouldn't it be better to use NULL (rather than 0) in case the value of NULL changes, perhaps on a machine with nonzero null pointers? A: No. NULL is _not_ defined as a preprocessor macro because its value might change. That source-code 0's generate null pointers is guaranteed by the language. NULL is used only as a stylistic convention. 10. I'm confused. NULL is guaranteed to be 0, but the null pointer is not? A: A "null pointer" (written in lower case in this article) is a language concept whose particular internal value does not matter. (On some machines the internal value is 0; on others it is not.) A "null pointer" is requested in source code with the character '0'. "NULL" (always in capital letters) is a preprocessor macro, which is always #defined as 0 (or (void *)0). 11. Why is there so much confusion surrounding null pointers? Why do these questions come up so often? A: C programmers traditionally like to know more than they need to about the underlying machine implementation. The fact that null pointers are represented both in source code, and internally to most machines, as zero invites unwarranted assumptions. The fact that a preprocessor macro (NULL) is often used suggests that this is done so because the value might change, or on some weird machine. One good way to wade out of the confusion is to imagine that C had a keyword (perhaps "nil", like Pascal) with which null pointers were requested. The compiler could either turn "nil" into the correct type of null pointer when it could determine the type from the source code (as it does with 0's in reality) or complain when it could not. Now, in fact, in C the keyword for a null pointer is not "nil" but '0', which works almost as well, except that an uncast '0' in a non-pointer context generates an integer zero. If null were "nil" the compiler could emit an error message for an ambiguous usage, but since it is '0' the compiler may end up emitting incorrect code. Arrays and Pointers 12. I had the declaration char a[5] in one source file, and in another I declared extern char *a. Why didn't it work? A: The declaration extern char *a simply does not match the actual definition. The type "pointer-to-type-T" is not the same as "array-of-type-T." Use extern char a[]. 13. But I heard that char a[] was identical to char *a. A: This identity (that a pointer declaration is interchangeable with an array, usually unsized) holds _only_ for formal arguments to functions. This identity falls out of the fact that arrays "turn into" pointers in expressions. That is, when an array name is mentioned in an expression, it is converted immediately into a pointer to the array's first element. Therefore, an array is never passed to a function; rather a pointer to its first element is passed instead. Since functions can never receive arrays as arguments, any argument declarations which "look like" arrays, e.g. f(a) char a[]; are treated as if they were pointers, since that is what the function will receive if an array is passed: f(a) char *a; To repeat, however, this conversion holds only within function formal argument declarations, nowhere else. References: K&R I Sec. 5.3 p. 95, Sec. A10.1 p. 205; K&R II Sec. 5.3 p. 100, Sec. A8.6.3 p. 218, Sec. A10.1 p. 226; H&S Sec. 5.4.3 p. 96. 14. So what is meant by the "equivalence of pointers and arrays" in C? A: Perhaps no aspect of C is more confusing than pointers, and no statement has compounded this confusion more than the one above. Saying that arrays and pointers are "equivalent" does not by any means imply that they are interchangeable. (The fact that, as formal arguments to functions, array-style and pointer-style declarations are in fact interchangeable does nothing to reduce the confusion.) "Equivalence" refers to the fact (mentioned above) that arrays "turn into" pointers within expressions, and that pointers and arrays can both be dereferenced using array-like subscript notation. That is, if we have char a[10]; char *p; int i; we can refer to a[i] and p[i]. (That pointers can be subscripted like arrays is hardly surprising, since arrays are also pointers by the time they are subscripted.) References: K&R I Sec. 5.3 pp. 93-6; K&R II Sec. 5.3 p. 99; H&S Sec. 5.4.1 p. 93. Order of Evaluation 15. Under my compiler, the program int i = 7; printf("%d\n", i++ * i++); prints 49. Regardless of the order of evaluation, shouldn't it print 56? A: Although the postincrement and postdecrement operators ++ and -- perform the operations after yielding the former value, many people misunderstand the implication of "after." It is _not_ guaranteed that the operation is performed immediately after giving up the previous value and before any other part of the expression is evaluated. It is merely guaranteed that the update will be performed sometime before the expression is considered "finished" (before the next "sequence point," in ANSI C's terminology). In the example, the compiler chose to multiply the previous value by itself and to perform both increments afterwards. References: K&R I Sec. 2.12 p. 50; K&R II Sec. 2.12 p. 54. ANSI C 16. What is the "ANSI C Standard?" A: In 1983, the American National Standards Institute commissioned a committee, X3J11, to standardize the C language. After a long and arduous process, this C standard was finally ratified as an American National Standard, X3.159-1989, in the spring of 1990. For the most part, ANSI C standardizes existing practice, with a few additions from C++ (most notably function prototypes) and support for multinational character sets (including the much-lambasted trigraph sequences for transfer of source code between machines with deficient or multinational character sets). The ANSI C standard also formalizes the C run-time library support routines, an unprecedented effort. 17. How can I get a copy of the ANSI C standard? A: Copies are available from American National Standards Institute 1430 Broadway New York, NY 10018 (212) 642-4900 or Global Engineering Documents 2805 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 261-1455 The cost is approximately $50.00, plus $6.00 shipping. C Preprocessor 18. How can I write a macro to swap two values? A: There is no good answer to this question. If the values are integers, a well-known trick using exclusive-OR can be used, but it will not work for floating-point values or pointers. If the macro is intended to be used on values of arbitrary type (the usual goal), it cannot use a temporary, since it doesn't know what type of temporary it needs, and standard C does not provide a typeof operator. (GNU C does.) The best all-around solution is probably to forget about using a macro. If you're worried about the use of an ugly temporary, and know that your machine provides an exchange instruction, convince your compiler vendor to recognize the standard three-assignment swap idiom in the optimization phase. Alternatively, use a language which supports multiple, parallel assignment (a,b := b,a). 19. How can I write a cpp macro which takes a variable number of arguments? One popular trick is to define the macro with a single argument, and call it with a double set of parentheses, which appear to the compiler to indicate a single argument: #define DEBUG(args) {printf("DEBUG: ");printf args;} if(n != 0) DEBUG(("n is %d\n", n)); The obvious disadvantage to this trick is that the caller must always remember to use the extra parentheses. (It is often best to use a bona-fide function, which can take a variable number of arguments in a well-defined way, rather than a macro. See question 20 below.) Variable-Length Argument Lists 20. How can I write a function that takes a variable number of arguments? A: Use varargs or stdarg. Here is a function which concatenates an arbitrary number of strings into malloc'ed memory, using stdarg: #include #include #include extern char *malloc(); /* VARARGS1 */ char * vstrcat(first, ...) char *first; { int len = 0; char *retbuf; va_list argp; char *p; if(first == NULL) return NULL; len = strlen(first); va_start(argp, first); while((p = va_arg(argp, char *)) != NULL) len += strlen(p); va_end(argp); retbuf = malloc(len + 1); /* +1 for trailing \0 */ if(retbuf == NULL) return NULL; (void)strcpy(retbuf, first); va_start(argp, first); while((p = va_arg(argp, char *)) != NULL) (void)strcat(retbuf, p); va_end(argp); return retbuf; } Usage is something like char *str = vstrcat("Hello, ", "world!", (char *)NULL); Note the cast on the last argument. Using varargs, rather than stdarg, requires a few changes which are not discussed here, in the interests of brevity. See the next question for hints. References: K&R II Sec. 7.3 p. 155, Sec. B7 p. 254; H&S Sec. 13.4 pp. 286-9. 21. How can I write a function that takes a format string and a variable number of arguments, like printf, and passes them to printf so it can do most of the work? A: Use v*printf. Here is an "error" routine which prints an error message, preceded by the string "error: " and terminated with a newline: #include #include void error(fmt, ...) char *fmt; { va_list argp; fprintf(stderr, "error: "); va_start(argp, fmt); vfprintf(stderr, fmt, argp); va_end(argp); fprintf(stderr, "\n"); } To use varargs, instead of stdarg, change the function header to: void error(va_alist) va_dcl { char *fmt; and add the line fmt = va_arg(argp, char *); between the calls to va_start and vfprintf. References: K&R II Sec. 8.3 p. 174, Sec. B1.2 p. 245; H&S Sec. 17.12 p. 337. 22. How can I discover how many arguments a function was actually called with? A: This information is not available to a portable program. Some systems have a nonstandard nargs() function available, but even this is questionable, since it typically returns the number of words pushed, not the number of arguments. (Floating point values and structures are usually passed as several words.) Any function which takes a variable number of arguments must be able to determine from the arguments themselves how many of them there are. printf-like functions do this by looking for formatting specifiers (%d and the like) in the format string (which is why these functions fail badly if the format string does not match the argument list). Another common technique (useful when the arguments are all of the same type) is to use a sentinel value (often 0, -1, or an appropriately-cast null pointer) at the end of the list (see the vstrcat and execl examples under questions 20 and 2 above). 23. How can I write a function which takes a variable number of arguments and passes them to some other function (which takes a variable number of arguments)? A: In general, you cannot. You must provide a version of that other function which accepts a va_list pointer, like vfprintf in the example above. If the arguments must be passed as arguments (not indirectly through a va_list pointer) to another function which is itself varargs (for which you do not have the option of creating an alternate, va_list-accepting version) no portable solution is possible. (The problem can be solved by resorting to machine- specific assembly language.) Memory Allocation 24. Why doesn't this program work? main() { char *answer; printf("Type something: "); gets(answer); printf("You typed \"%s\"\n", answer); } A: The pointer variable "answer," which is handed to the gets function as the location into which the response should be stored, has not been set to point to any valid storage. It is an uninitialized variable, just as is the variable i in this example: main() { int i; printf("i = %d\n", i); } That is, we cannot say where the pointer "answer" points. (Since local variables are not initialized, and typically contain garbage, it is not even guaranteed that "answer" starts out as a null pointer.) The simplest way to correct the question-asking program is to use a local array, instead of a pointer, and let the compiler worry about allocation: #include main() { char answer[100]; printf("Type something: "); fgets(answer, 100, stdin); printf("You typed \"%s\"\n", answer); } Note that this example also uses fgets instead of gets (always a good idea), so that the size of the array can be specified, so that fgets will not overwrite the end of the array if the user types an overly-long line. (Unfortunately, gets and fgets differ in their treatment of the trailing \n.) Struct Assignment 25. I heard on a street corner that structures could be assigned to variables and passed to and from functions, but K&R I says no. A: What K&R I said was that the restrictions on struct operations would be lifted in a forthcoming version of the compiler, and in fact struct assignment and passing were fully functional in Ritchie's compiler even as K&R I was being published. Although a few early C compilers lacked struct assignment, all modern compilers support it, and it is part of the ANSI C standard, so there should be no reluctance to use it. References: K&R I Sec. 6.2 p. 121; K&R II Sec. 6.2 p. 129; H&S Sec. 5.6.2 p. 103. 26. How does struct passing and returning work? A: When structures are passed as arguments to functions, the entire struct is pushed on the stack, which may involve significant overhead for large structures. It may be preferable in such cases to pass a pointer to the structure instead. Structures are returned from functions either in a special, static place (which may make struct-valued functions nonreentrant) or in a buffer pointed to by an extra, "hidden" argument to the function. 27. The following program works correctly, but it dumps core after it finishes. Why? struct list { char *item; struct list *next; } /* Here is the main program. */ main(argc, argv) ... A: A missing semicolon causes the compiler to believe that main returns a struct list. (The connection is hard to see because of the intervening comment.) When struct-valued functions are implemented by adding a hidden return pointer, the generated code tries to store a struct with respect to a pointer which was not actually passed (in this case, by the C start-up code). Storing a structure into memory pointed to by the argc or argv value on the stack (where the compiler expected to find the hidden return pointer) causes the core dump. 28. Why can't you compare structs? A: There is no reasonable way for a compiler to implement struct comparison which is consistent with C's low-level flavor. A byte- by-byte comparison could be invalidated by random bits present in unused "holes" in the structure (such padding is used to keep the alignment of later fields correct). A field-by-field comparison would require unacceptable amounts of repetitive, in-line code for large structures. Either method would not necessarily "do the right thing" with pointer fields: oftentimes, equality should be judged by equality of the things pointed to rather than strict equality of the pointers themselves. If you want to compare two structures, you must write your own function to do so. C++ (among other languages) would let you arrange for the == operator to map to your function. References: K&R II Sec. 6.2 p. 129; H&S Sec. 5.6.2 p. 103. Declarations 29. I can't seem to define a linked list node which contains a pointer to itself. I tried typedef struct { char *item; NODEPTR next; } NODE, *NODEPTR; but the compiler gave me errors. Can't a struct in C contain a pointer to itself? Structs in C can certainly contain pointers to themselves; the discussion and example in section 6.5 of K&R make this clear. The problem is that the example above attempts to hide the struct pointer behind a typedef, which is not complete at the time it is used. First, rewrite it without a typedef: struct node { char *item; struct node *next; }; Then, if you feel you must use typedefs, define them after the fact: typedef struct node NODE, *NODEPTR; References: K&R I Sec. 6.5 p. 101; K&R II Sec. 6.5 p. 139; H&S Sec. 5.6.1 p. 102. 30. How can I define a pair of mutually referential structures? I tried typedef struct { int structafield; STRUCTB *bpointer; } STRUCTA; typedef struct { int structbfield; STRUCTA *apointer; } STRUCTB; but the compiler doesn't know about structb when it is used in struct a. A: Again, the problem is not the pointers but the typedefs. First, define the two structures without using typedefs: struct a { int structafield; struct b *bpointer; }; struct b { int structbfield; struct a *apointer; }; The compiler can accept the field declaration struct b *bpointer within struct a, even though it has not yet heard of struct b. Occasionally it is necessary to precede this couplet with the tentative declaration struct b; to mask the declaration (if in an inner scope) from a different struct b in an outer scope. References: H&S Sec. 5.6.1 p. 102. 31. How do I declare a pointer to a function returning a pointer to a double? A: There are three answers to this question: 1. double *(*p)(); 2. Build it up in stages, using typedefs: typedef double *pd; /* pointer to double */ typedef pd fpd(); /* func returning ptr to double */ typedef fpd *pfpd; /* ptr to func ret ptr to double */ pfpd p; 3. Use the cdecl program, which turns English into C and vice versa: $ cdecl cdecl> define p as pointer to function returning pointer to double double *(*p)(); cdecl> cdecl can also explain complicated declarations, help with casts, and indicate which set of parentheses the arguments go in (for complicated function definitions). References: H&S Sec. 5.10.1 p. 116. 32. So where can I get cdecl? A: Several public-domain versions are available. A file called "cdecl.shar" is available for anonymous ftp from mimsy.umd.edu (128.8.128.8), or check your local archive. (Commercial versions may also be available, at least one of which was shamelessly lifted from the public domain copy submitted by Graham Ross, one of cdecl's originators.) Boolean Expressions and Variables 33. What is the right type to use for boolean values in C? Why isn't it a standard type? Should #defines or enums be used for the true and false values? A: C does not provide a standard boolean type because picking one involves a space/time tradeoff which is best decided by the programmer. (Using an int for a boolean may be faster, while using char will probably save space.) The choice between #defines and enums is arbitrary and not terribly interesting. Use any of #define TRUE 1 #define YES 1 #define FALSE 0 #define NO 0 enum bool {false, true}; enum bool {no, yes}; as long as you are consistent within one program or project. (The enum may be preferable if your debugger expands enum values when examining variables.) Some people prefer variants like #define TRUE (1==1) #define FALSE (!TRUE) These don't really buy much (see below). 34. Isn't #defining TRUE to be 1 dangerous, since any nonzero value is considered "true" in C? What if a built-in boolean or relational operator "returns" something other than 1? A: It is true (sic) that any nonzero value is considered true in C, but this applies only "on input", i.e. where a boolean value is expected. When a boolean value is generated by a built-in operator, it is guaranteed to be 1 or 0. Therefore, code like if((a == b) == TRUE) is guaranteed to work (if TRUE is 1), but this code is obviously silly. Preprocessor macros like TRUE and FALSE (and, in fact, NULL) are used for code readability, not because the underlying values might ever change. That "true" is 1 and "false" (and null) 0 is guaranteed by the language. References: K&R I Sec. 2.7 p. 41; K&R II Sec. 2.6 p. 42, Sec. A7.4.7 p. 204, Sec. A7.9 p. 206. 35. What is the difference between an enum and a series of preprocessor #defines? A: At the present time, there is essentially no difference. Although many people might have wished otherwise, the ANSI standard says that enums may be freely intermixed with integral types, without warnings. (If such intermixing were disallowed without explicit casts, judicious use of enums could catch certain programming errors.) For now, the only advantage of an enum (other than that the numeric values are automatically assigned) is that a debugger may be able to display the symbolic value when enum variables are examined. References: K&R II Sec. 2.3 p. 39, Sec. A4.2 p. 196; H&S Sec. 5.5 p. 100. Operating System Dependencies 36. How can I read a single character from the keyboard without waiting for a newline? A: Contrary to popular belief and many people's wishes, this is not a C-related question. The delivery of characters from a "keyboard" to a C program is a function of the operating system, and cannot be standardized by the C language. Under UNIX, use ioctl to play with the CBREAK or RAW bits. Under MS-DOS, use getch(). Under other operating systems, you're on your own. Beware that some operating systems make this sort of thing impossible, because character collection into input lines is done by peripheral processors not under direct control of the CPU running your program. 37. How can I find out if there are characters available for reading (and if so, how many)? Alternatively, how can I do a read that will not block if there are no characters available? A: These, too, are entirely operating-system-specific. Depending on your operating system, you may be able to use "nonblocking I/O", or a system call named "select", or the FIONREAD ioctl. Miscellaneous 38. Why does errno contain ENOTTY after a call to printf? A: Many implementations of the stdio package adjust their behavior slightly depending on whether stdout is a terminal or not. To make this determination, these implementations perform an operation which fails (with ENOTTY) if stdout is not a terminal. Although the output operation goes on to complete successfully, errno still contains ENOTTY. This behavior can be mildly confusing, but it is not strictly incorrect, because it is only meaningful for a program to inspect the contents of errno after an error has occurred (that is, after a library function has returned an error code). 39. I know that the library routine localtime will convert a time_t into a broken-down struct tm, and that ctime will convert a time_t to a printable string. How can I perform the inverse operations of converting a struct tm or a string into a time_t? A: ANSI C specifies a library routine, mktime, which converts a struct tm to a time_t. Several public-domain versions of this routine are available if your compiler does not support it yet. Converting a string to a time_t is harder, because of the wide variety of date and time formats which should be parsed. Public- domain routines have been written for performing this function, as well, but they are less likely to become standardized. References: K&R II Sec. B10 p. 256; H&S Sec. 20.4 p. 361. 40. Does anyone know of a program for converting Pascal (Fortran, lisp, ...) to C? A: Several public-domain programs are available: p2c written by Dave Gillespie, and posted to comp.sources.unix in March, 1990. f2c jointly developed by people from Bell Labs, Bellcore, and Carnegie Mellon. To find about f2c, send the message "send index from f2c" to netlib@research.att.com or research!netlib. A number of companies, not listed here yet, sell various language translation tools, both to and from C. 41. I'm having trouble with a Turbo C program which crashes and says something like "floating point not loaded." A: Some compilers for small machines, including Turbo C and Ritchie's original pdp11 compiler, attempt to leave out floating point support if it looks like it will not be needed. In particular, the non- floating-point versions of printf and scanf don't handle %e, %f, and %g. Occasionally the heuristics for "is the program using floating point?" are insufficient, and the programmer must insert one dummy explicit floating-point operation to force loading of floating-point support. Unfortunately, an apparently common sort of program (thus the frequency of the question) uses scanf to read, and/or printf to print, floating-point values upon which no arithmetic is done, which elicits the problem under Turbo C. In general, questions about a particular compiler are inappropriate for comp.lang.c . Problems with PC compilers, for instance, will find a more receptive audience in a PC newsgroup. 42. Does anyone have a C compiler test suite I can use? A: Plum Hall, among others, sells one. 43. I need a sort of an "approximate" strcmp routine, for comparing two strings for close, but not necessarily exact, equality. A: The classic routine for doing this sort of thing is the "soundex" algorithm, which maps similar-sounding words to the same numeric codes. Soundex is described in the Searching and Sorting volume of Donald Knuth's classic The Art of Computer Programming. The following frequent question(s) have answers which I haven't paid attention to. Please send answers you might have to scs@adam.mit.edu, for inclusions in future updates to this list. 44. Can anyone send me a YACC grammar for C? Thanks to Mark Brader, Stephen M. Dunn, Christopher Lott, Rich Salz, and Joshua Simons, from whose comp.lang.c articles portions of this list have been lifted. (Indirect thanks too to Chris Torek, Doug Gwyn, Guy Harris, Karl Heuer, and others who have so patiently been answering these questions for so long, and better so than here, and especially to Guy, who set me straight back in 1984 when I was the one asking a stupid question about NULL.) Steve Summit scs@adam.mit.edu This article is Copyright 1988, 1990 by Steve Summit. It may be freely redistributed so long as the author's name, and this notice, are retained.