Keith Thompson wrote:
> Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com> writes:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> You don't need all that confusing local declaration of variables,
>>> etc. Consider:
>>> int fcopy(char const *dst, char const *src) {
>>> FILE *sf, *df;
>>> int ch
>>> if (sf = fopen(src, "r") { /* text files */
>>> if (df = fopen(dst, "w") {
>>> while (EOF != (ch = getc(sf))) putc(ch, df);
>>> fclose(df);
>>> }
>>> fclose(sf);
>>> }
>>> return sf && df; /* non-zero for success */
>>> }
>>> which I consider more readable and safer than your version. :-)
>>
>> This is good-weather code, and has nothing to do with "safe" code in
>> production.
>>
>> Just on my first read, I think you need to consider:
>>
>> - fopen failure
>> - getc failure
>> - putc failure
>>
>> far more carefully.
>
> I believe it already handles fopen failure correctly.
>
> I agree about getc and putc.

It also handles getc failure. putc failure is not handled. The
handling technique is simply to abort the function execution.
fopen failure is signalled, the others are not.

putc can be handled by "if (EOF != putc(ch, df)) {
/* error action */
break;
}"

and similar testing after the while loop can give details about a
getc failure. Most systems don't have any use for all this, and
function exit suffices.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com