gcc version 4.9.2 (Debian 4.9.2-10)

>>60103831
they're uninitialised...

>>60103831
>t. I don't have a clue about C

>>60103831
You literally have no clue how C works.

If you do int a;, then the data you get in a to start with is uninitialized, it could be anything. Well an int* holds a memory address. When you do

int* a;

the address that a holds could point literally anywhere, it's garbage data.

You need to do

int* a = calloc(1, sizeof(int));

, and then you need to re-read the first chapter of your C textbook

do this instead opie

int main(){
    int a;
    int b;
    int c;
    *(&a) = 10;
    *(&b) = 20;
    *(&c) = 30;
    return 0;
}

>>60103831
You're assigning the integer values 10, 20 and 30 to random memory locations that you don't own.

>>60103831
I don't like C but you are just plain retarded

File: gcc.png (17KB, 543x148px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 543x148px

>>60103831
>gcc 4.9.2
topfuckingkek

>>60103905
calloc? Why not use malloc?

>>60103964
pacman -Qi gcc

I was under the impression that C would also allocate space on the stack for the pointers values. I kind of forgot that it doesn't.

>>60103987
Just habit I guess. malloc would work as well, but calloc memsets it to zero before it returns it

>>60103964
That's nothing, the latest version of Centos has 4.8.5 and slitaz has 4.6.3

>>60104022
>calloc memsets it to zero before it returns it
Totally useless, especially if you initialize to something else just after.

>>60103831
C IS INSECURE AS DEMONSTRATED ITT
C IS FINISHED AND BANKRUPT
C BTFO