Search Results

Search found 3887 results on 156 pages for 'pointer arithmetic'.

Page 11/156 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • A Question about dereferencing pointer to incomplete type In C programming

    - by user552279
    Hi, can you explain this error for me? Blockquote /////////////////////////////// In my A.h file: struct TreeNode; struct TreeHead; typedef struct TreeNode * Node; typedef struct TreeHead * Head; /////////////////////////////// In my A.c file: struct TreeNode { char* theData; Node Left; Node Right; } ; struct TreeHead{ int counter; char type; Node Root; }; Head Initialisation() { Head treeHead; treeHead = malloc(sizeof (struct TreeHead)); treeHead-Root = malloc(sizeof (struct TreeNode)); return treeHead; } /////////////////////////////// In my Main.c file: Head head; Node tree; int choose =5; head = Initialisation(); (head-Root) = tree; //When compiling, this line has an error: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type Blockquote haed-Root will return a Node pointer, tree is also a Node pointer. So why error is dereferencing pointer to "incomplete" type?

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 black screen with mouse pointer after login

    - by Sagar Juneja
    I restarted my system today and after logging in, i could see see nothing but a black screen with mouse pointer. I can start task manager via alt+ctrl+del, Task manager and msconfig show fine but when i try to run 'explorer' nothing happens. In safe mode everything seems fine. I do not have any system restore points and repair options from the DVD show "this option is not available for the selected OS" I've also updated my graphic drivers. Didn't help

    Read the article

  • Add 64 bit offset to a pointer

    - by Novox
    In F#, there's the NativePtr module, but it seems to only support 32 bit offsets for its’ add/get/set functions, just like System.IntPtr does. Is there a way to add a 64 bit offset to a native pointer (nativeptr<'a) in F#? Of course I could convert all addresses to 64 bit integers, do normal integer operations and then convert the result again to nativeptr<'a, but this would cost additional add and imul instructions. I really want the AGUs to perform the address calculations. For instance, using unsafe in C# you could do something like void* ptr = Marshal.AllocHGlobal(...).ToPointer(); int64 offset = ...; T* newAddr = (T*)ptr + offset; // T has to be an unmanaged type Well actually you can't, because there is no "unmanaged" constraint for type parameters, but at least you can do general pointer arithmetic in a non-generic way. In F# we finally got the unmanaged constraint; but how do I do the pointer arithmetic?

    Read the article

  • Floating point precision in Visual C++

    - by Luigi Giaccari
    HI, I am trying to use the robust predicates for computational geometry from Jonathan Richard Shewchuk. I am not a programmer, so I am not even sure of what I am saying, I may be doing some basic mistake. The point is the predicates should allow for precise aritmthetic with adaptive floating point precision. On my computer: Asus pro31/S (Core Due Centrino Processor) they do not work. The problem may stay in the fact the my computer may use some improvements in the floating point precision taht conflicts with the one used by Shewchuk. The author says: /* On some machines, the exact arithmetic routines might be defeated by the / / use of internal extended precision floating-point registers. Sometimes / / this problem can be fixed by defining certain values to be volatile, / / thus forcing them to be stored to memory and rounded off. This isn't / / a great solution, though, as it slows the arithmetic down. */ Now what I would like to know is that there is a way, maybe some compiler option, to turn off the internal extended precision floating-point registers. I really appriaciate your help

    Read the article

  • delete pointer to 2d array c ++

    - by user1848054
    i have this pointer to 2d array of Robot class Robot ***rob; and this is here the code for the constructor !! and the program works fine !!! but now i am trying to build a destructor to delete this pointer !! and it keeps on crashing the program !! my question is , how to delete this pointer to 2d array of robots ? RobotsWorld::RobotsWorld(int x , int y) { X=x;Y=y; // returns the limitation of the matrix rob = new Robot**[x]; for(int i = 0; i < x; i++) { rob[i] = new Robot*[y]; for(int j = 0; j < y; j++) { rob[i][j] = NULL; } } }

    Read the article

  • pointer reference type

    - by Codenotguru
    I am trying to write a function that takes a pointer argument, modifies what the pointer points to, and then returns the destination of the pointer as a reference. I am gettin the following error: cannot convert int***' toint*' in return| Code: #include <iostream> using namespace std; int* increment(int** i) { i++; return &i;} int main() { int a=24; int *p=&a; int *p2; p2=increment(&p); cout<<p2; } Thanks for helping!

    Read the article

  • Handling pointer while updating a key value in rpgle

    - by abhinav singh
    my code goes like this femp uf e k disk dvar1 s 5p 0 c *loval setll emp c read emp c dow not %eof(emp) C eval ecode = ecode + 10 c eval var1=ecode c update recemp c var1 setgt emp c read emp c enddo c eval *inlr=*on here is a file named emp with record format name recemp with ecode as the key ...now when i am reading the file and then updating the ecode without using setgt ..the pointer is not moving ahead it is updating the same ecode value many time ...now when i use set gt pointer picks the next record but it dint work when two ecode values are same ...else also it will not be working with descending key values...is there any solution so that i can set pointer regardless of the fact whether the values are same or ascending or descending .......thanks

    Read the article

  • Double pointer as Objective-C block parameter

    - by George WS
    Is it possible (and if so, safe) to create/use a block which takes a double pointer as an argument? For instance: - (void)methodWithBlock:(void (^)(NSError **error))block; Additional context, research, and questions: I'm using ARC. When I declare the method above and attempt to call it, XCode autocompletes my method invocation as follows: [self methodWithBlock:^(NSError *__autoreleasing *error) {}]; What does __autoreleasing mean here and why is it being added? I presume it has something to do with ARC. If this is possible and safe, can the pointer still be dereferenced in the block as it would be anywhere else? In general, what are the important differences between doing what I'm describing, and simply passing a double pointer as a method parameter (e.g. - (void)methodWithDoublePointer:(NSError **)error;)? What special considerations, if any, should be taken into account (again assuming this is possible at all)?

    Read the article

  • Does copy_from_user modify the user pointer?

    - by Michael
    Does the copy_from_user function, declared in uaccess.h, modify the (void __user *)from pointer? The pointer isn't declared as const in the function declaration, only the contents it points to. The reason I ask is that I want to use copy_from_user twice, with the second copy_from_user copying from the place where the first one finished. I was planning on doing something like this, is it guaranteed to work? //buf is a user pointer that is already defined copy_from_user(my_first_alloced_region, buf, some_size); //do stuff copy_from_user(my_second_alloced_region, buf + some_size, some_other_size); Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Malloc to a CGPoint Pointer throwing EXC_BAD_ACCESS when accessing

    - by kdbdallas
    I am trying to use a snippet of code from a Apple programming guide, and I am getting a EXC_BAD_ACCESS when trying to pass a pointer to a function, right after doing a malloc. (For Reference: iPhone Application Programming Guide: Event Handling - Listing 3-6) The code in question is really simple: CFMutableDictionaryRef touchBeginPoints; UITouch *touch; .... CGPoint *point = (CGPoint *)CFDictionaryGetValue(touchBeginPoints, touch); if (point == NULL) { point = (CGPoint *)malloc(sizeof(CGPoint)); CFDictionarySetValue(touchBeginPoints, touch, point); } Now when the program goes into the if statement it assigns the 'output' of malloc into the point variable/pointer. Then when it tries to pass point into the CFDictionarySetValue function it crashes the application with: Program received signal: “EXC_BAD_ACCESS”. Someone suggested not doing the malloc and pass the point var/pointer as: &point, however that still gave me a EXC_BAD_ACCESS. What I am (and it looks like Apple) doing wrong??? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Add C pointer to NSMutableArray

    - by Georges Oates Larsen
    I am writing an Objective-C program that deals with low level image memory. I am using ANSI-C structs for my data storage -- Full blown objects seem overkill seeing as the data I am storing is 100% data, with no methods to operate on that data. Specifically, I am writing a customizable posterization algorithm which relies on an array of colors -- This is where things get tricky. I am storing my colors as structs of three floats, and an integer flag (related to the posterization algorithm specifically). Everyhting is going well, except for one thing... [actual question] I can't figure out how to add pointers to an NSMutableArray! I know how to add an object, but adding a pointer to a struct seems to be more difficult -- I do not want NSMutableArray dereferencing my pointer and treating the struct as some sort of strange object. I want NSMutableArray to add the pointer its self to its collection. How do I go about doing this? Thanks in advance, G

    Read the article

  • Pointer-based binary heap implementation

    - by Derek Chiang
    Is it even possible to implement a binary heap using pointers rather than an array? I have searched around the internet (including SO) and no answer can be found. The main problem here is that, how do you keep track of the last pointer? When you insert X into the heap, you place X at the last pointer and then bubble it up. Now, where does the last pointer point to? And also, what happens when you want to remove the root? You exchange the root with the last element, and then bubble the new root down. Now, how do you know what's the new "last element" that you need when you remove root again?

    Read the article

  • rewrite a function using only pointer increment/decrement

    - by Richard Nguyen
    can anyone help me rewrite the function i wrote below using only points and pointer increment/decrement? I dont have much experience with pointer so I dont know what to do. void reverse(char * s) { int i, l = strlen(s); char c; for(i = 0; i < (l >> 1); i++) { c = s[i]; s[i] = s[l - i - 1]; s[l - i - 1] = c; } } do not use pointer arithmetic or array notation. any help or hint on how to rewrite the function above is appriciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Returning new base class when the parent class shared pointer is the return type

    - by Ben Dol
    Can you have a parent class shared pointer return type of a function and then return a new child class without it being a shared pointer? I'm not sure how shared pointers work in these situations, do they act like a regular pointer? Here is my example: BaseEventPtr Actions::getEvent(const std::string& nodeName) { if(asLowerCaseString(nodeName) == "action") return new ActionEvent(&m_interface); return nullptr; } ActionEvent is the subclass of BaseEvent in this situation. Cheers!

    Read the article

  • C pointer array scope and function calls

    - by juvenis
    I have this situation: { float foo[10]; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { foo[i] = 1.0f; } object.function1(foo); // stores the float pointer to a const void* member of object } object.function2(); // uses the stored void pointer Are the contents of the float pointer unknown in the second function call? It seems that I get weird results when I run my program. But if I declare the float foo[10] to be const and initialize it in the declaration, I get correct results. Why is this happening?

    Read the article

  • Passing a pointer to a function that doesn't match the requirements of the formal parameter

    - by Andreas Grech
    int valid (int x, int y) { return x + y; } int invalid (int x) { return x; } int func (int *f (int, int), int x, int y) { //f is a pointer to a function taking 2 ints and returning an int return f(x, y); } int main () { int val = func(valid, 1, 2), inval = func(invalid, 1, 2); // <- 'invalid' does not match the contract printf("Valid: %d\n", val); printf("Invalid: %d\n", inval); /* Output: * Valid: 3 * Invalid: 1 */ } At the line inval = func(invalid, 1, 2);, why am I not getting a compiler error? If func expects a pointer to a function taking 2 ints and I pass a pointer to a function that takes a single int, why isn't the compiler complaining? Also, since this is happening, what happens to the second parameter y in the invalid function?

    Read the article

  • Alternates to C++ Reference/Pointer Syntax

    - by Jon Purdy
    What languages other than C and C++ have explicit reference and pointer type qualifiers? People seem to be easily confused by the right-to-left reading order of types, where char*& is "a reference to a pointer to a character", or a "character-pointer reference"; do any languages with explicit references make use of a left-to-right reading order, such as &*char/ref ptr char? I'm working on a little language project, and legibility is one of my key concerns. It seems to me that this is one of those questions to which it's easy for a person but hard for a search engine to provide an answer. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to C++ Reference/Pointer Syntax

    - by Jon Purdy
    What languages other than C and C++ have explicit reference and pointer type qualifiers? People seem to be easily confused by the right-to-left reading order of types, where char*& is "a reference to a pointer to a character", or a "character-pointer reference"; do any languages with explicit references make use of a left-to-right reading order, such as &*char/ref ptr char? I'm working on a little language project, and legibility is one of my key concerns. It seems to me that this is one of those questions to which it's easy for a person but hard for a search engine to provide an answer. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • C++ deleting a pointer

    - by eSKay
    On this page, its written that One reason is that the operand of delete need not be an lvalue. Consider: delete p+1; delete f(x); Here, the implementation of delete does not have a pointer to which it can assign zero. Adding a number to a pointer shifts it forward in memory by those many number of sizeof(*p) units. So, what is the difference between delete p and delete p+1, and why would making the pointer 0 only be a problem with delete p+1?

    Read the article

  • Size of a class with 'this' pointer

    - by psvaibhav
    The size of a class with no data members is returned as 1 byte, even though there is an implicit 'this' pointer declared. Shouldn't the size returned be 4 bytes(on a 32 bit machine)? I came across articles which indicated that 'this' pointer is not counted for calculating the size of the object. But I am unable to understand the reason for this. Also, if any member function is declared virtual, the size of the class is now returned as 4 bytes. This means that the vptr is counted for calculating the size of the object. Why is the vptr considered and 'this' pointer ignored for calculating the size of object?

    Read the article

  • Boost Shared Pointer: Simultaneous Read Access Across Multiple Threads

    - by Nikhil
    I have a thread A which allocates memory and assigns it to a shared pointer. Then this thread spawns 3 other threads X, Y and Z and passes a copy of the shared pointer to each. When X, Y and Z go out of scope, the memory is freed. But is there a possibility that 2 threads X, Y go out of scope at the exact same point in time and there is a race condition on reference count so instead of decrementing it by 2, it only gets decremented once. So, now the reference count newer drops to 0, so there is a memory leak. Note that, X, Y and Z are only reading the memory. Not writing or resetting the shared pointer. To cut a long story short, can there be a race condition on the reference count and can that lead to memory leaks?

    Read the article

  • Call function by pointer and set parametrs in memory block

    - by Ellesmess Glain
    Hi, I've little problem : I'm solving problem with calling function by pointer and passing to it parameters in continuous memory block. My goal is to have function named e.g CallFunc(void * func,void *params, unsigned int param_length); that I'll send function pointer, pointer to function's parameters and eventually parameters length and this calling function will call passed function with it's parameters. I will like write this in C/C++, but if somebody has idea, how this resolve in other language, that supports DLL generation and exportet functions, it will be fine too. Thanks for answers, Ellesmess P.S. I'm sorry about my English, but I'm Czech, thanks :o)

    Read the article

  • Objective-C classes, pointers to primitive types, etc.

    - by Toby Wilson
    I'll cut a really long story short and give an example of my problem. Given a class that has a pointer to a primitive type as a property: @interface ClassOne : NSObject { int* aNumber } @property int* aNumber; The class is instantiated, and aNumber is allocated and assigned a value, accordingly: ClassOne* bob = [[ClassOne alloc] init]; bob.aNumber = malloc(sizeof(int)); *bob.aNumber = 5; It is then passed, by reference, to assign the aNumber value of a seperate instance of this type of class, accordingly: ClassOne* fred = [[ClassOne alloc] init]; fred.aNumber = bob.aNumber; Fred's aNumber pointer is then freed, reallocated, and assigned a new value, for example 7. Now, the problem I'm having; Since Fred has been assigned the same pointer that Bob had, I would expect that Bob's aNumber will now have a value of 7. It doesn't, because for some reason it's pointer was freed, but not reassigned (it is still pointing to the same address it was first allocated which is now freed). Fred's pointer, however, has the allocated value 7 in a different memory location. Why is it behaving like this? What am I minsunderstanding? How can I make it work like C++ does?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >