t's possible) about our
> warning, telling that "gets" is not too dangerous, because in our case,
> works perfectly, under some restrictions obviously.
Simply reading the man page states:
No check for buffer overrun is performed (see BUGS below).
Hopefully, you know
a
homework, and one restriction was to use gcc to compile our code,
without warnings.
We ask you for a simple explanation (if it's possible) about our
warning, telling that "gets" is not too dangerous, because in our
case, works perfectly, under some restrictions obviously.
Instead
ction was to use gcc to compile our code,
without warnings.
We ask you for a simple explanation (if it's possible) about our
warning, telling that "gets" is not too dangerous, because in our case,
works perfectly, under some restrictions obviously.
Instead of using gets(), use fge
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:52:16PM -0400, Miguel Angel Champin Catalan wrote:
> We ask you for a simple explanation (if it's possible) about our
> warning, telling that "gets" is not too dangerous, because in our case,
> works perfectly, under some restrictions obvio
iction was to use gcc to compile our code,
> without warnings.
> We ask you for a simple explanation (if it's possible) about our
> warning, telling that "gets" is not too dangerous, because in our case,
> works perfectly, under some restrictions obviously.
the gets wa
e our code,
without warnings.
We ask you for a simple explanation (if it's possible) about our
warning, telling that "gets" is not too dangerous, because in our case,
works perfectly, under some restrictions obviously.
Please send us a notification for our teacher's assistant, an
