51–60 of 64 posts
Kind of sad that 75% of the comments in this thread are negative or pedantic. I work as a reverse engineer and I thought it was a good "gentle primer".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author addresses this in footnote #2. They're simplifying the C code to get to the point of the article faster.
The author was wrong, and then corrected their post. Why get indignant on their behalf?
I'm indignant because this happens on almost every marginally interesting article that makes the front page and I'm sick of it. I get that the code was wrong and a bug and C must be correct at all times or the world will literally light on fire. It's just exhausting reading comment after comment about the tiniest little nit in an otherwise perfectly wonderful essay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's look at the source of stdbool.h: #define true 1 #define false 0 http://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/stdbool_8h_source.html
I know that sdtbool actually contains macros for defining true and false, but _Bool is a new type in C99 ... But it is in the standard, implemented by all major compilers, so it should be used for the sake of clarity. IMHO this: bool is_valid(char* password); is more clear than this: int is_valid(char* password);
I'm glad that the OP at least made it a const char *password though, since that's also a must-have. Always const input pointers. And local temporaries. And everything else that you can const, except scalar arguments pretty much.
The basic one cannot accept any flags and when I type `echo "\x01"` it prints `\x01`
The one in bin can accept flags, and requires the -e flag to interpret backslashes.
This changes the echo line of the program to this:
`/bin/echo -e "\x01"`
I found this out because it was changing the byte from 00 to 5C rather than 01, because 5C is the ASCII for \
Something interesting I found out whilst following these instructions: My version of linux has two different echo commands `echo` and `/bin/echo`. The basic one cannot accept any flags and when I type `echo "\x01"` it prints `\x01` The one in bin can accept flags, and requires the -e flag to interpret backslashes. This changes the echo line of the program to this: `/bin/echo -e "\x01"` I found this out because it was…
Something interesting I found out whilst following these instructions: My version of linux has two different echo commands `echo` and `/bin/echo`. The basic one cannot accept any flags and when I type `echo "\x01"` it prints `\x01` The one in bin can accept flags, and requires the -e flag to interpret backslashes. This changes the echo line of the program to this: `/bin/echo -e "\x01"` I found this out because it was…
Interesting. You might be seeing the bash (or other shell) `echo` builtin.
echo: shell built-in command.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it especially amusing because "poop" and "butts" are my default "I need to enter some text here" strings.
This is why we have [foo, bar, baz, quux] and example.com though: https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author addresses this in footnote #2. They're simplifying the C code to get to the point of the article faster.
Simplifying does not mean incorrect. Initializing the variable would not add appreciable complexity to the code. It's a snippet and should be fixed lest it make the author appear incompetent.
But maybe it's just a common trait of detail oriented programmer types to be pedantic?
C lacks a boolean type This is false, as of C99 we have booleans in C, just include stdbool.h in your code, e.g.: #include ... bool test = true; ...
Let's look at the source of stdbool.h: #define true 1 #define false 0 http://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/stdbool_8h_source.html