|
Might not wanna help him. This is the third time he's posted a programming question in the lounge. And from what I've seen the forums, he's not doing much better there either.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I have never look for "compile level", but I 'll try to find it...
Do you mean any function will return int or just when it is declared as returning
int specifically ?
I will have to go see if I actually used the return value...
But since few souls mention this not to post programming questions
I hesitate to post the actual code...
int TEST ( int test )
{
}
for those who needed the code
please note
THERE IS NO "return test;"
WHOOPS
I did not format it properly...
(time to get banned ...)
|
|
|
|
|
Even with all warnings disabled, the compiler should throw an error. ( visual studio and C++)
int Patate()
{
}
goto one of the programming forum and post minimal code that reproduce the problem.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, this is like the third time. Clearly it's intentional now. You are expecting too much since this is the lounge.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like something like this question was discussed not that long ago.
Salvatore Terress wrote: define C function to return int...
So C and not C++.
Per the following at least as far as the C11 spec this is allowed. I did not verify the spec myself.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10079089/implicit-int-return-value-of-c-function[^]
As several replies suggest the behavior is undefined however if the caller attempts to use the value. That of course would include crashing.
But there could be other reasons for it crashing.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 3/6
β¬β¬β¬π¨π¨
π¨β¬π¨π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 4/6
β¬π¨β¬β¬π¨
π¨π¨β¬π¨β¬
π¨β¬π¨π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 4/6
β¬β¬β¬π¨β¬
π¨π¨β¬π¨π¨
β¬π¨π¨π©π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
β¬π¨β¬β¬π¨
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
β¬π¨π¨π¨π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 3/6*
β¬π¨β¬β¬π¨
π¨β¬π¨π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 3/6*
β¬🟨🟨β¬🟨
🟨🟨β¬🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 6/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬β¬π©β¬π¨
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬π¨π¨π¨β¬
π©β¬π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 4/6
β¬β¬🟨β¬🟨
β¬🟨β¬🟨🟨
🟨🟨β¬🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 4/6*
β¬π¨π¨β¬π¨
π¨π¨β¬π¨β¬
β¬π¨β¬π¨π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man, people need to realize they either need to start studying AI or get left behind.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like future generations will experience more of augmented reality than 'real' reality.
Edit: Perhaps 'fictitious' reality is a better term compared to augmented reality.
modified 21hrs ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what you mean by "Hollydeadwood"...but there's more to movies than just the visuals. Oh, wait...Hollywood producers haven't been reminded of that for a couple of decades now. Never mind.
In some instances, I can't help but think it did a good job finding an existing video that matches the description provided. In other instances, the descriptions are so specific, obviously no such video already existed. Or did they work backwards? Produce a video first, then come up with a prompt to make it look like it generated the whole thing out of nothing? It wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing was done to blow the minds of the gullible with deep pockets.
I've probably grown too cynical.
It's cute, for sure. But the real question is, if you give it a long enough script, is it gonna be able to produce something that goes beyond the novelty value?
|
|
|
|
|
Came across this bit of code in a review
int v = 2 >> 10;
Usually I just skim by stuff like this because I figure the programmer knows what they are doing. Then I went back and looked because it was specify a max size so I figured someone was being clever. And 'clever' doesn't mean good code.
Then I realized it definitely was not clever.
Always willing to question myself I started wondering if I was misreading it. Or if I had actually forgotten what the operator did. So I wrote code just to verify it.
If it hadn't been so weird and so wrong I wouldn't have spent that much time on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the author is just suffering of left-right confusion  Poor soul just wanted to write 2k.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Was the author made aware of the error. Perhaps the authors' finger missed the '<' key.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
maybe just v = 0x.....? all cute code needs to be bitch slapped out of noobs
Charlie Gilley
βThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.β BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a great way to detect if anyone stole their code.
The OP only says that he came across it 'in a review', so the code may not be open source. Even if open source, it may have been inserted to detect if anyone uses the code without giving the required credit to the source.
Or maybe it was the developer's little test to see how observant the reviewers are 
Map companies often add small, non-existing villages to their maps to detect theft. I guess similar things is common in other fields as well.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
That is an interesting idea. Original author could have copied it from some other source.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
