Search Results

Search found 3255 results on 131 pages for 'pointers'.

Page 11/131 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • Swapping values using pointers

    - by xbonez
    I have this code fragment int i = 5; int k = 7; int * iPtr; int * jPtr; int * kPtr; iPtr = &i; kPtr = &k; I am required to swap i and k using the pointers. This is how I'm doing it: *jPtr = *kPtr ; *kPtr = *iPtr ; *iPtr = *jPtr ; Is this the best way to do it, or is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Template meta-programming with member function pointers?

    - by wheaties
    Is it possible to use member function pointers with template meta-programming? Such as: class Connection{ public: string getName() const; string getAlias() const; //more stuff }; typedef string (Connection::*Con_Func)() const; template<Con_Func _Name> class Foo{ Connection m_Connect; public: void Foo(){ cout << m_Connect.(*_Name); } }; typedef Foo<&Connection::getName> NamedFoo; typedef Foo<&Connection::getAlias> AliasFoo; Granted, this is rather contrived but is it possible? (yes, there are probably much better ways but humor me.)

    Read the article

  • Can I use memcpy in C++ to copy classes that have no pointers or virtual functions

    - by Shane MacLaughlin
    Say I have a class, something like the following; class MyClass { public: MyClass(); int a,b,c; double x,y,z; }; #define PageSize 1000000 MyClass Array1[PageSize],Array2[PageSize]; If my class has not pointers or virtual methods, is it safe to use the following? memcpy(Array1,Array2,PageSize*sizeof(MyClass)); The reason I ask, is that I'm dealing with very large collections of paged data, as decribed here, where performance is critical, and memcpy offers significant performance advantages over iterative assignment. I suspect it should be ok, as the 'this' pointer is an implicit parameter rather than anything stored, but are there any other hidden nasties I should be aware of?

    Read the article

  • Basic help needed with pointers

    - by sbsp
    Hi, i asked some time ago on an account i cant remember how to manipulate basic pointers and someone gave me a really good demo for example char *ptr = hello (hello = a char array) so now *ptr is pointing at h ptr++ = moves the ptr to point at the next element, to get its value i do *ptr and that gives me e ok so far i hope :D but now i need to manipulate a char **ptr and was wondering how i do this in a way that mimmicks the effects of a 2d array? some basic tips would be much appreciated as i need to do an assignment that has a **ptr to immitate a 2d array and without knowing how it does this first means i cant even solve it on paper (for example, how do you dereference a **ptr, how do you get [x][y] values etc) thanks

    Read the article

  • Basic help needed with pointers (double indirection)

    - by sbsp
    Hi, i asked some time ago on an account i cant remember how to manipulate basic pointers and someone gave me a really good demo for example char *ptr = "hello" (hello = a char array) so now *ptr is pointing at h ptr++ = moves the ptr to point at the next element, to get its value i do *ptr and that gives me e ok so far i hope :D but now i need to manipulate a char **ptr and was wondering how I do this in a way that mimmicks the effects of a 2d array? some basic tips would be much appreciated as I need to do an assignment that has a **ptr to imitate a 2d array and without knowing how it does this first means I cant even solve it on paper (for example, how do you dereference a **ptr, how do you get [x][y] values etc) thanks

    Read the article

  • c++ signatures, pointers

    - by coubeatczech
    Hello, what's the difference between these signatures? T * f(T & identifier); T & f(T & identifier); T f(T & identifier); void f(T * identifier); void f(T & identifier); void f(T identifier); I met pointers in c, but the amperstand in function signature is new for me. Can Anyone explain this?

    Read the article

  • Why do they initialize pointers this way?

    - by Rob
    In almost all of the books I read and examples I go through I see pointers initialized this way. Say that I have a class variable NSString *myString that I want to initialize. I will almost always see that done this way: -(id)init { if (self = [super init]) { NSString *tempString = [[NSString alloc] init]; myString = tempString; [tempString release]; } return self; } Why can't I just do the following? -(id)init { if (self = [super init]) { myString = [[NSString alloc] init]; } return self; } I don't see why the extra tempString is ever needed in the first place, but I could be missing something here with memory management. Is the way I want to do things acceptable or will it cause some kind of leak? I have read the Memory Management Guide on developer.apple.com and unless I am just missing something, I don't see the difference.

    Read the article

  • pointers in C with a #define

    - by milan
    The function: #define ASSOC(port) (*(volatile bit_field *) (&port)) The function call: #define SCLK ASSOC(PORTC).bit0 bit_field defined as a struct like this: typedef struct { unsigned char bit0 :1, bit1 :1, bit2 :1, bit3 :1, bit4 :1, bit5 :1, bit6 :1, bit7 :1; } bit_field; I don't know where &port is defined. Can someone please explain how the function is read and how it works please? I am not very good with pointers and this example in particular is very confusing with "*" in the front and at the end and the "&" with the port. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Array-size macro that rejects pointers

    - by nneonneo
    The standard array-size macro that is often taught is #define ARRAYSIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0])) or some equivalent formation. However, this kind of thing silently succeeds when a pointer is passed in, and gives results that can seem plausible at runtime until things mysteriously fall apart. It's all-too-easy to make this mistake: a function that has a local array variable is refactored, moving a bit of array manipulation into a new function called with the array as a parameter. So, the question is: is there a "sanitary" macro to detect misuse of the ARRAYSIZE macro in C, preferably at compile-time? In C++ we'd just use a template specialized for array arguments only; in C, it seems we'll need some way to distinguish arrays and pointers. (If I wanted to reject arrays, for instance, I'd just do e.g. (arr=arr, ...) because array assignment is illegal).

    Read the article

  • How to copy an array of char pointers with a larger list of char pointers?

    - by Casey Link
    My function is being passed a struct containing, among other things, a NULL terminated array of pointers to words making up a command with arguments. I'm performing a glob match on the list of arguments, to expand them into a full list of files, then I want to replace the passed argument array with the new expanded one. The globbing is working fine, that is, g.gl_pathv is populated with the list of expected files. However, I am having trouble copying this array into the struct I was given. #include <glob.h> struct command { char **argv; // other fields... } void myFunction( struct command * cmd ) { char **p = cmd->argv; char* program = *p++; // save the program name (e.g 'ls', and increment to the first argument glob_t g; memset(&g, 0, sizeof(g)); int res = glob(*p, 0, NULL, &g); *p++ // increment while (*p) { glob(*p++, GLOB_APPEND, NULL, &g); // append the matches } // here i want to replace cmd->argv with the expanded g.gl_pathv memcpy(cmd->argv, g.gl_pathv, g.gl_pathc ); // this doesn't work globfree(&g); }

    Read the article

  • Problem with passing vector of pointers to objects to member function of another object

    - by Jamesz
    Hi, I have a vector of pointers to Mouse objects called 'mice'. I'm passing the mice to the cat by reference. vector <Mouse*> mice; Cat * c; c->lookForMouse(&mice); And here's my lookForMouse() member function void Cat::lookForMouse(vector <Mouse*> *mice) { ... } And now to the problem! Within the function above, I can't seem to access my mice. This below will not work mice[i]->isActive(); The error message I receive suggests to use mice[i].isActive(), but this throws an error saying isActive() is not a member of std::vector<_Ty ... This works though... vector <Mouse*> miceCopy = *mice; miceCopy[i]->isActive(); I understand that I shouldn't be creating another vector of mice here, it defeats the whole point of passing it by reference (let me know if I'm wrong)... Why can't I do mice[i]-isActive() What should I be doing? Thanks for your time and help :D James.

    Read the article

  • C++ design question, container of instances and pointers

    - by Tom
    Hi all, Im wondering something. I have class Polygon, which composes a vector of Line (another class here) class Polygon { std::vector<Line> lines; public: const_iterator begin() const; const_iterator end() const; } On the other hand, I have a function, that calculates a vector of pointers to lines, and based on those lines, should return a pointer to a Polygon. Polygon* foo(Polygon& p){ std::vector<Line> lines = bar (p.begin(),p.end()); return new Polygon(lines); } Here's the question: I can always add a Polygon (vector Is there a better way that dereferencing each element of the vector and assigning it to the existing vector container? //for line in vector<Line*> v //vcopy is an instance of vector<Line> vcopy.push_back(*(v.at(i)) I think not, but I dont really like that approach. Hopefully, I will be able to convince the author of the class to change it, but I cant base my coding right now to that fact (and i'm scared of a performance hit). Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • push(ing)_back objects pointers within a loop

    - by Jose Manuel Albornoz
    Consider the following: I have a class CDevices containing, amongst others, a string member class CDevice { public: CDevice(void); ~CDevice(void); // device name std::string Device_Name; etc... } and somewhere else in my code I define another class that contains a vector of pointers to CDevices class CDevice; class CServers { public: CServers(void); ~CServers(void); // Devices vector vector<CDevice*> Devices; etc... } The problem appears in the following lines in my main.c pDevice = new CDevice; pDevice->Device_Name = "de"; Devices.push_back(pDevice); pDevice->Device_Name = " revolotiunibus"; Devices.push_back(pDevice); pDevice->Device_Name = " orbium"; Devices.push_back(pDevice); pDevice->Device_Name = " coelestium"; Devices.push_back(pDevice); for(int i = 0; i < (int)Devices.size(); ++i) cout << "\nLoad name = " << Devices.at(i)->Device_Name << endl; The output I get is " coelestium" repeated four times: each time I push_back a new element into the vector all of the already existing elements take the value of the one which has just been added. I have also tried using iterators to recover each element in the vector with the same results. Could someone please tell me what's wrong here? Thankx

    Read the article

  • C++ Function pointers vs Switch

    - by Perfix
    What is faster: Function pointers or switch? The switch statement would have around 30 cases, consisting of enumarated unsigned ints from 0 to 30. I could do the following: class myType { FunctionEnum func; string argv[123]; int someOtherValue; }; // In another file: myType current; // Iterate through a vector containing lots of myTypes // ... for ( i=0; i < myVecSize; i ++ ) switch ( current.func ) { case 1: //... break; // ........ case 30: // blah break; } And go trough the switch with func every time. The good thing about switch would also be that my code is more organized than with 30 functions. Or I could do that (not so sure with that): class myType { myReturnType (*func); string argv[123]; int someOtherValue; }; I'd have 30 different functions then, at the beginning a pointer to one of them is assigned to myType. What is probably faster: Switch statement or function pointer? Calls per second: Around 10 million. I can't just test it out - that would require me to rewrite the whole thing. Currently using switch. I'm building an interpreter which I want to be faster than Python & Ruby - every clock cycle matters!

    Read the article

  • Problem with passing array of pointers to struct among functions in C

    - by karatemonkey
    The Code that follows segfaults on the call to strncpy and I can't see what I am doing wrong. I need another set of eyes to look it this. Essentially I am trying to alloc memory for a struct that is pointed to by an element in a array of pointers to struct. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #define MAX_POLICY_NAME_SIZE 64 #define POLICY_FILES_TO_BE_PROCESSED "SPFPolicyFilesReceivedOffline\0" typedef struct TarPolicyPair { int AppearanceTime; char *IndividualFile; char *FullPolicyFile; } PolicyPair; enum { bwlist = 0, fzacts, atksig, rules, MaxNumberFileTypes }; void SPFCreateIndividualPolicyListing(PolicyPair *IndividualPolicyPairtoCreate ) { IndividualPolicyPairtoCreate = (PolicyPair *) malloc(sizeof(PolicyPair)); IndividualPolicyPairtoCreate->IndividualFile = (char *)malloc((MAX_POLICY_NAME_SIZE * sizeof(char))); IndividualPolicyPairtoCreate->FullPolicyFile = (char *)malloc((MAX_POLICY_NAME_SIZE * sizeof(char))); IndividualPolicyPairtoCreate->AppearanceTime = 0; memset(IndividualPolicyPairtoCreate->IndividualFile, '\0', (MAX_POLICY_NAME_SIZE * sizeof(char))); memset(IndividualPolicyPairtoCreate->FullPolicyFile, '\0', (MAX_POLICY_NAME_SIZE * sizeof(char))); } void SPFCreateFullPolicyListing(SPFPolicyPair **CurrentPolicyPair, char *PolicyName, char *PolicyRename) { int i; for(i = 0; i < MaxNumberFileTypes; i++) { CreateIndividualPolicyListing((CurrentPolicyPair[i])); // segfaults on this call strncpy((*CurrentPolicyPair)[i].IndividualFile, POLICY_FILES_TO_BE_PROCESSED, (SPF_POLICY_NAME_SIZE * sizeof(char))); } } int main() { SPFPolicyPair *CurrentPolicyPair[MaxNumberFileTypes] = {NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL}; int i; CreateFullPolicyListing(&CurrentPolicyPair, POLICY_FILES_TO_BE_PROCESSED, POLICY_FILES_TO_BE_PROCESSED); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • deleting an array that stores pointers to some objects

    - by memC
    hi, I am storing pointers to elements of a vec_A in an array A* a_ptrs[3] . Assume that vec_A will not be resized. So, a_ptrs[i] will point to the correct element. My question is: Suppose A* a_ptrs[3] is declared in a class B. Since it is not created using 'new' I am guessing I don't need to delete it in the destructor. Am I right?? class A { public: int getNumber(); A(int val); ~A(){}; private: int num; }; A::A(int val){ num = val; }; int A::getNumber(){ return num; }; int main(){ int i =0; int num; std::vector<A> vec_A; for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++){ vec_A.push_back(A(i)); } A* a_ptrs[3]; a_ptrs[0] = &vec_A[0]; a_ptrs[1] = &vec_A[3]; a_ptrs[2] = &vec_A[5]; for (i = 0; i<3; i++){ std::cout<<"\n: a_ptrs[i].getNumber() = "<<a_ptrs[i]->getNumber(); } std::cout << "\nPress RETURN to continue..."; std::cin.get(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • c++ Multiple Inheritance - Compiler modifying my pointers

    - by Bob
    If I run the following code, I get different addresses printed. Why? class Base1 { int x; }; class Base2 { int y; }; class Derived : public Base1, public Base2 { }; union U { Base2* b; Derived* d; U(Base2* b2) : b(b) {} }; int main() { Derived* d = new Derived; cout << d << "\n"; cout << U(d).d << "\n"; return 0; } Even more fun is if you repeatedly go in and out of the union the address keeps incrementing by 4, like this int main() { Derived* d = new Derived; cout << d << "\n"; d = U(d).d; cout << d << "\n"; d = U(d).d; cout << d << "\n"; return 0; } If the union is modified like this, then the problem goes away union U { void* v; Base2* b; Derived* d; U(void* v) : v(v) {} }; Also, if either base class is made empty, the problem goes away. Is this a compiler bug? I want it to leave my pointers the hell alone.

    Read the article

  • Pointer arithmetic and arrays: what's really legal?

    - by bitcruncher
    Consider the following statements: int *pFarr, *pVarr; int farr[3] = {11,22,33}; int varr[3] = {7,8,9}; pFarr = &(farr[0]); pVarr = varr; At this stage, both pointers are pointing at the start of each respective array address. For *pFarr, we are presently looking at 11 and for *pVarr, 7. Equally, if I request the contents of each array through *farr and *varr, i also get 11 and 7. So far so good. Now, let's try pFarr++ and pVarr++. Great. We're now looking at 22 and 8, as expected. But now... Trying to move up farr++ and varr++ ... and we get "wrong type of argument to increment". Now, I recognize the difference between an array pointer and a regular pointer, but since their behaviour is similar, why this limitation? This is further confusing to me when I also consider that in the same program I can call the following function in an ostensibly correct way and in another incorrect way, and I get the same behaviour, though in contrast to what happened in the code posted above!? working_on_pointers ( pFarr, farr ); // calling with expected parameters working_on_pointers ( farr, pFarr ); // calling with inverted parameters . void working_on_pointers ( int *pExpect, int aExpect[] ) { printf("%i", *pExpect); // displays the contents of pExpect ok printf("%i", *aExpect); // displays the contents of aExpect ok pExpect++; // no warnings or errors aExpect++; // no warnings or errors printf("%i", *pExpect); // displays the next element or an overflow element (with no errors) printf("%i", *aExpect); // displays the next element or an overflow element (with no errors) } Could someone help me to understand why array pointers and pointers behave in similar ways in some contexts, but different in others? So many thanks. EDIT: Noobs like myself could further benefit from this resource: http://www.panix.com/~elflord/cpp/gotchas/index.shtml

    Read the article

  • How to access pixels of an NSBitmapImageRep?

    - by Paperflyer
    I have an NSBitmapImageRep that is created like this: NSBitmapImageRep *imageRep = [[NSBitmapImageRep alloc] initWithBitmapDataPlanes:NULL pixelsWide:waveformSize.width pixelsHigh:waveformSize.height bitsPerSample:8 samplesPerPixel:4 hasAlpha:YES isPlanar:YES colorSpaceName:NSCalibratedRGBColorSpace bytesPerRow:0 bitsPerPixel:0]; Now I want to access the pixel data so I get a pointer to the pixel planes using unsigned char *bitmapData; [imageRep getBitmapDataPlanes:&bitmapData]; According to the Documentation this returns a C array of five character pointers. But how can it do that? since the type of the argument is unsigned char **, it can only return an array of chars, but not an array of char pointers. So, this leaves me wondering how to access the individual pixels. Do you have an idea how to do that? (I know there is the method – setColor:atX:y:, but it seems to be pretty slow if invoked for every single pixel of a big bitmap.)

    Read the article

  • Function pointer arrays in Fortran

    - by Eduardo Dobay
    I can create function pointers in Fortran 90, with code like real, external :: f and then use f as an argument to another function/subroutine. But what if I want an array of function pointers? In C I would just do double (*f[])(int); to create an array of functions returning double and taking an integer argument. I tried the most obvious, real, external, dimension(3) :: f but gfortran doesn't let me mix EXTERNAL and DIMENSION. Is there any way to do what I want? (The context for this is a program for solving a system of differential equations, so I could input the equations without having a million parameters in my subroutines.)

    Read the article

  • Pointer to auto_ptr instead of a classical double pointer

    - by Pin
    Hello. I'm quite new to smart pointers and was trying to refactor some existing code to use auto_ptr. The question I have is about double pointers and their auto_ptr equivalent, if that makes sense. I have a function that accepts a double pointer as its parameter and the function allocates resources for it: void foo ( Image** img ) { ... *img = new Image(); ...} This function is then used like this: Image* img = NULL; foo ( &img ); ... delete img; I want to use auto_ptr to avoid having to call delete explicitly. Is the following correct? void foo ( auto_ptr<Image>* img ); and then auto_ptr<Image> img = NULL; foo ( &img ); Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Conversion of pointer-to-pointer between derived and base classes?

    - by Mike Mueller
    Regarding the following C++ program: class Base { }; class Child : public Base { }; int main() { // Normal: using child as base is allowed Child *c = new Child(); Base *b = c; // Double pointers: apparently can't use Child** as Base** Child **cc = &c; Base **bb = cc; return 0; } GCC produces the following error on the last assignment statement: error: invalid conversion from ‘Child**’ to ‘Base**’ My question is in two parts: Why is there no implicit conversion from Child** to Base**? I can make this example work with a C-style cast or a reinterpret_cast. Using these casts means throwing away all type safety. Is there anything I can add to the class definitions to make these pointers cast implicitly, or at least phrase the conversion in a way that allows me to use static_cast instead?

    Read the article

  • Arrow operator (->) usage in C

    - by Mohit Deshpande
    I am currently learning C by reading a good beginner's book called "Teach Yourself C in 21 Days" (I have already learned Java and C# so I am moving at a much faster pace). I was reading the chapter on pointers and the - (arrow) operator came up without explanation. I think that it is used to call members and functions (like the equivalent of the . (dot) operator, but for pointers instead of members). But I am not entirely sure. Could I please get an explanation and a code sample?

    Read the article

  • C++ smart pointer for a non-object type?

    - by Brian
    Hi, I'm trying to use smart pointers such as auto_ptr, shared_ptr. However, I don't know how to use it in this situation. CvMemStorage *storage = cvCreateMemStorage(); ... use the pointer ... cvReleaseMemStorage(&storage); I'm not sure, but I think that the storage variable is just a malloc'ed memory, not a C++ class object. Is there a way to use the smart pointers for the storage variable? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • C# huge size 2-dim arrays

    - by 4eburek
    I need to declare square matrices in C# WinForms with more than 20000 items in a row. I read about 2GB .Net object size limit in 32bit and also the same case in 64bit OS. So as I understood the single answer - is using unsafe code or separate library built withing C++ compiler. The problem for me is worth because ushort[20000,20000] is smaller then 2GB but actually I cannot allocate even 700MB of memory. My limit is 650MB and I don't understand why - I have 32bit WinXP with 3GB of memory. I tried to use Marshal.AllocHGlobal(700<<20) but it throws OutOfMemoryException, GC.GetTotalMemory returns 4.5MB before trying to allocate memory. I found only that many people say use unsafe code but I cannot find example of how to declare 2-dim array in heap (any stack can't keep so huge amount of data) and how to work with it using pointers. Is it pure C++ code inside of unsafe{} brackets? Could you please provide a small example of working with matrices using pointers in unsafe code.

    Read the article

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