Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
first welcome to devrant.
second thats why we should use static allocations as much as possible else we will end up with memory overlap. and there is no such thing called u should not put some thing at address ending at 9 , infact there are address spaces reserved for certain things and those addresses started from say x to y.
Related Rants
She runs C shells by the seashore.
Compilers should just work for raw C with only static memory allocation. This isn't the bad old days where a couple of dudes wrote a short book explaining how C might probably should possibly work. I hear supposedly we have standards now.
Well, last week I lost 2 days to our compiler randomly forgetting that it wasn't okay to put a globally allocated uint32 at an address ending in 9. What? It had been handling this case without issue for more a year, but now after changing completely unrelated code we have this problem.
I'm not sure how to even deal with this idiocy so no doubt I'll continue working on it this week, too.
Thanks a lot, GCC.
undefined
gcc
c
compiler