From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!transit3.readnews.com!textspool1.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews7.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:00:18 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <31c357bd-c8dc-4583-a454-86d9c579e5f4@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <05a3673e-fb97-449c-94ed-1139eb085c32@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <05a3673e-fb97-449c-94ed-1139eb085c32@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d4c232a$0$28967$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: e968dcab.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=eOIHG1UdgYZ6gOR\]RLQaXQFZ3T]GPM]WmX0AG3X_jU_PbP2JgcKIE[VjKk:Lk^BNQcR12TN^Bg7^FhIU742\JVYDB2j=C>ck`[
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:17838
Date: 2011-02-04T11:00:18-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/4/2011 4:24 AM, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
 > Did I mention that *every* time I look at C code I see a bug?
 > Sometimes, looking twice at the same code reveals two bugs! Here you
 > do not check that message != NULL; the condition should be:
>             while (message&&  *message != 0)

Did I mention that people who criticize C are like people
who criticize grammar? Every time they do so, their own
criticism contains errors.

You make two errors here. The first is to assume without
any actual knowledge that it is possible for the argument
to be a null pointer; it is likely that the contract for
this procedure requires that it not be. The second is that
you test for the pointer being null each time through the
loop rather than just once.