Search Results

Search found 2 results on 1 pages for 'conejoroy'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• why unsigned int 0xFFFFFFFF is equal to int -1?

  - by conejoroy

  perhaps it's a very stupid question but I'm having a hard time figuring this out =) in C or C++ it is said that the maximum number a size_t (an unsigned int data type) can hold is the same as casting -1 to that data type. for example see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1420982/invalid-value-for-sizet Why?? I'm confused.. I mean, (talking about 32 bit ints) AFAIK the most significant bit holds the sign in a signed data type (that is, bit 0x80000000 to form a negative number). then, 1 is 0x00000001.. 0x7FFFFFFFF is the greatest positive number a int data type can hold. then, AFAIK the binary representation of -1 int should be 0x80000001 (perhaps I'm wrong). why/how this binary value is converted to anything completely different (0xFFFFFFFF) when casting ints to unsigned?? or.. how is it possible to form a binary -1 out of 0xFFFFFFFF? I have no doubt that in C: ((unsigned int)-1) == 0xFFFFFFFF or ((int)0xFFFFFFFF) == -1 is equally true than 1 + 1 == 2, I'm just wondering why. thanks!

  Read the article

• are runtime linking library globals shared among plugins loaded with dlopen?

  - by conejoroy

  I've a C++ program that links at runtime with, lets say, mylib.so. then, the same program uses dlopen()/dlsym() to load a function from myplugin.so, dynamic library that in turn has dependencies to mylib.so. My question is: will the program AND the function in the plugin access the same globals defined in mydlib.so in the same memory area reserved for the program, or each will be assigned different, unrelated copies in its own memory space? if the latter is the default behaviour, is it possible to change that? Thanks in advance =)!

  Read the article

1