New member

[kerbacs2]

Originally posted by Boualem-DZ
Totally correct kerbaks2!

Told you it would hurt!
Although I don't think you meant that gcc complained?
The boom is supposed to unleash at runtime!
by boom ofcourse I mean "crash"

lol, exactly that would be:
$> ./time_bomb
segmentation fault.
*time_bomb dangling pointer
P.s what worries me it might even be detected at compile time

[Boualem-DZ]

Originally posted by kerbacs2
lol, exactly that would be:
$> ./time_bomb
segmentation fault.
*time_bomb dangling pointer
P.s what worries me it might even be detected at compile time

I am impressed, I never really used gcc, as I have grown used to the comfort of graphic mode compiling (i.e. via Visual Studio)

I beleive that some compilors might check this, but I still contend that this is not a compilation nor linking error, nor warning, so the compilor is being "generous" by reporting my time bomb at compile time!

Any example of a compiler error/warning free timebomb then?

[kerbacs2]

Originally posted by Boualem-DZ


I am impressed, I never really used gcc, as I have grown used to the comfort of graphic mode compiling (i.e. via Visual Studio)

I beleive that some compilors might check this, but I still contend that this is not a compilation nor linking error, nor warning, so the compilor is being "generous" by reporting my time bomb at compile time!

Any example of a compiler error/warning free timebomb then?

lol, the compiler actually might recognise him
(it was programmed to detected him and reject....)