Xref: utzoo comp.arch:3006 comp.lang.c:5827
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Null-terminated C strings
Message-ID: <3087@phri.UUCP>
Date: 24 Dec 87 03:05:00 GMT
References: <174@quick.COM> <14116@think.UUCP> <2447@hall.cray.com>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 27

In article <2447@hall.cray.com> blu@hall.UUCP (Brian Utterback) writes:
> At least the compiler should issue a warning if it eats a null.  I mean,
> what is the use of being able to specify a character in a string (i.e.
> \000) if the compiler won't really use it?

	Interesting question.  Should a \000 in a string constant be
flagged as a warning by the compiler?  On both my 4.3 Vax and 3.2 Suns, the
following program draws no complaint:

main ()
{
	printf ("this\000probably won't print\n");
}

	Even lint has nothing to say (other than complaining about printf's
return value being ignored on the Sun).  Surely at least lint should pick
up this one.  There is nothing strictly illegal about imbedding a null in a
string constant, but it is strange.  One might want to do:

	printf ("this\000probably won't print\n"+5);

and the compiler should let you do it, although I can't think of any valid
reason offhand you would *want* to do such a thing.
-- 
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016