Return-Path: Delivered-To: diana@transocean.com Received: from vps.transocean.com by vps.transocean.com (Dovecot) with LMTP id IVKxE8z4kVhcBwAAInt2oQ for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 07:03:40 -0800 Return-path: Envelope-to: diana@transocean.com Delivery-date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 07:03:40 -0800 Received: from [66.23.219.238] (port=46801 helo=futuratintas.com) by vps.transocean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cYwRT-0000nh-IQ for diana@transocean.com; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 07:03:40 -0800 Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:58:36 -0500 Message-ID: <6AwFXVms7535367880efcab8c324536e0c838e3bqH0ZEuY3CnOIlPx7b91M8NJroiQBDg@lastmx.futuratintas.com> Reply-To: aaron.ward@futuratintas.com To: diana@transocean.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="i1aCdPpMm5535041o2bcn7u4NSvrR6BVyFxWhezG" Mime-Version: 1 From: Aaron Ward Subject: Your 50.00 Amazon Member-Rewards eCard can be activated and used as early as 2/1/17. X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.4 X-Spam-Score: 34 X-Spam-Bar: +++ X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "vps.transocean.com", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see root\@localhost for details. Content preview: Amazon.com Thank you for visiting! Please confirm your eligibility by confirming your eGift-card. To activate your card please click the below link. Learn More | Activate Amazon Card ? (http://www.futuratintas.com/tar/amazon-002478623) [...] Content analysis details: (3.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: futuratintas.com] 0.0 T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR SPF: test of HELO record failed (temperror) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0052] 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 0.9 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) 1.9 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 2.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS 0.0 T_REMOTE_IMAGE Message contains an external image X-Spam-Flag: NO --i1aCdPpMm5535041o2bcn7u4NSvrR6BVyFxWhezG Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Amazon.com Thank you for visiting! Please confirm your eligibility by confirming your eGift-card. To activate your card please click the below link. Learn More | Activate Amazon Card ? (http://www.futuratintas.com/tar/amazon-002478623) http://www.futuratintas.com/card-holder-9932456 http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/home.html This is an automated messages delivery system. All information should not be forwarded or shared. If you were sent this message on error please delete it. If you would like end communication with out alert service use this URL (http://amz1.futuratintas.com) or use this address to write: Eight Robbins Road Arlington MA 02476. Thank you, and have a great day. which book is this? ??? Shikhar Bhardwaj Feb 2 at 11:46 The book is: amazon.co.uk/Tour-C--Depth/dp/0321958314/??? ??? Andy Res Feb 2 at 11:48 2 Just to expand on these nice answers, you're confusing null pointers (what you're looping is actually checking for) and null terminators (what you want to check for, the character that terminates a C string). ??? nanny Feb 2 at 14:56 Thank you for pointing it out. ??? Andy Res Feb 2 at 15:01 I suggest you throw that book in the recycle bin, and curse all 'programmers' who suggest you write cutsie code like that. If you write the code so that the intended meaning is clear - "while (p != NULL)" it's pretty obvious that you're stepping the pointer p through all memory. Instead you want "while (*p != '\0')", checking for a null-terminated string * If x doesn't implement an __iadd__ method then the x += y statement is just a shorthand for x = x + y. This would be the case if x was something like an int. * If __iadd__ returns NotImplemented, Python falls back to x = x + y. * The __iadd__ method could theoretically be implemented to not work in place. It'd be really weird to do that, though. Your code (while(p)) loops as long as p isn't zero. P is the pointer to the array, and you keep incrementing it and check memory past the array's bounds. That's the cause of the segmentation fault. share improve this answer answered Feb 2 at 11:38 zmbq 20.8k 3 25 68 add a comment up vote2down vote to my surprise it does not stop there, but it continues to cycle, which I suppose might be the cause of segmentation fault? This happens because you are checking the pointer for NULL, rather than checking what it points to for '\0': while(*p){ --i1aCdPpMm5535041o2bcn7u4NSvrR6BVyFxWhezG Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Amazon.com | Card

Amazon.com

Thank you for visiting!

Please confirm your eligibility by confirming your eGift-card. To activate your card please click the below link.

Learn More | Activate Amazon Card →



 

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/home.html

This is an automated messages delivery system. All information should not be forwarded or shared. If you were sent this message on error please delete it. If you would like end communication with out alert service use this URL or use this address to write: Eight Robbins Road Arlington MA 02476. Thank you, and have a great day.

 

which book is this??????????Shikhar Bhardwaj??Feb 2 at 11:46
???? ??
The book is:??amazon.co.uk/Tour-C--Depth/dp/0321958314/????????????Andy Res??Feb 2 at 11:48
2 ??
Just to expand on these nice answers, you're confusing??null pointers??(what you're looping is actually checking for) and??null terminators??(what you want to check for, the character that terminates a C string).???????nanny??Feb 2 at 14:56
????
Thank you for pointing it out.?????????Andy Res??Feb 2 at 15:01??
???? ??

I suggest you throw that book in the recycle bin, and curse all 'programmers' who suggest you write cutsie code like that. If you write the code so that the intended meaning is clear - "while (p != NULL)" it's pretty obvious that you're stepping the pointer p through all memory. Instead you want "while (*p != '\0')", checking for a null-terminated string

 

  • If??x??doesn't implement??an??__iadd__??method then the??x += y??statement is just a shorthand for??x = x + y. This would be the case if??x??was something like an??int.

  • If??__iadd__??returns??NotImplemented, Python falls back to??x = x + y.

  • The??__iadd__??method could theoretically be implemented to not work in place. It'd be really weird to do that, though.

 

 

Your code (while(p)) loops as long as p isn't zero. P is the pointer to the array, and you keep incrementing it and check memory past the array's bounds. That's the cause of the segmentation fault.

share improve this answer
answered??Feb 2 at 11:38
zmbq
20.8k 3 25 68
up vote2down vote

to my surprise it does not stop there, but it continues to cycle, which I suppose might be the cause of segmentation fault?

This happens because you are checking the pointer for??NULL, rather than checking what it points to for??'\0':

while(*p){

 

--i1aCdPpMm5535041o2bcn7u4NSvrR6BVyFxWhezG--