Search Results

Search found 5086 results on 204 pages for 'compiler constants'.

Page 148/204 | < Previous Page | 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155  | Next Page >

  • Problem with basic program using Boost Threads in c++

    - by Eternal Learner
    I have a simple program which creates and executes as thread using boost threads in c++. #include<boost/thread/thread.hpp> #include<iostream> void hello() { std::cout<<"Hello, i am a thread"<<std::endl; } int main() { boost::thread th1(&hello); th1.join(); } The compiler throws an error against the th1.join() line. It says " Multiple markers at this line - undefined reference to `boost::thread::join()' - undefined reference to `boost::thread::~thread()' "

    Read the article

  • How can I do these operations in C?

    - by Juan Antonio
    Hello, I'm converting some assembly code to C to be able to use it with the current compiler environment I have to work with. I've reached 2 operations I don't know how to translate to C. Anyone know how to do it? In both, offset is an unsigned 32-bit integer and shift is a signed integer value. C_FLAG is a bool. OP1: __asm { __asm mov ecx, shift __asm ror offset, cl } OP2: __asm { __asm bt dword ptr C_FLAG, 0 __asm rcr offset, 1 } Thank you very much for your expertise. P.S.: I'm not the original developer, nor I have seen many x86 assembly code...

    Read the article

  • How to use #ifdef entities as part of functions in header files

    - by Crazyjavahacking
    I would like to ask if it is possible to use the entities defined in #ifdef block in header files. To be clear, I have following code: #ifdef #include <winsock2.h> #define SOCKET_HANDLE SOCKET #define CONNECTION_HANDLE SOCKET #endif SOCKET_HANDLE createServerSocket(const char* hostAddress, short port); I am Java developer and this seems completely fine for me. However compiler has a problem with this. Can you explain why is that code a problem? Also how can I force to compile it. (The idea is to have generic interface and conditional compilation to determine real types according to running platform at compile time.) Thanks

    Read the article

  • When will YOU adopt C++0x?

    - by HighCommander4
    I'm particularly looking for input from managers of ongoing C++ projects: Have you already adopted C++0x? If so, what has your experience been like? If you haven't adopted C++0x yet, are you planning to? If so, what is your timeline (in rough terms)? Are there any obstacles that are holding you back from adopting C++0x? Perhaps you are waiting for your favourite compiler or IDE to catch up? For managers of open source projects: are you afraid that adopting C++0x will mean less developers who are willing/able to contribute because they don't know the new features? Or, on the other hand, do you think most developers have been eagerly awaiting C++0x, and and will jump at the opportunity to use it? Do you think C++0x is stable enough to be adopted by a large project?

    Read the article

  • Injecting a dependancy into a base class

    - by Jamie Dixon
    Hey everyone, I'm on a roll today with questions. I'm starting out with Dependency Injection and am having some trouble injecting a dependency into a base class. I have a BaseController controller which my other controllers inherit from. Inside of this base controller I do a number of checks such as determining if the user has the right privileges to view the current page, checking for the existence of some session variables etc. I have a dependency inside of this base controller that I'd like to inject using Ninject however when I set this up as I would for my other dependencies I'm told by the compiler that: Error 1 'MyProject.Controllers.BaseController' does not contain a constructor that takes 0 argument This makes sense but I'm just not sure how to inject this dependency. Should I be using this pattern of using a base controller at all or should I be doing this in a more efficient/correct way?

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    Read the article

  • Memory management for "id<ProtocolName> variableName" type properties

    - by Malakim
    Hi, I'm having a problem with properties of the following type: id<ProtocolName> variableName; ..... ..... @property (nonatomic, retain) id<ProtocolName> variableName; I can access and use them just fine, but when I try to call [variableName release]; I get compiler warnings: '-release' not found in protocol(s) Do I need to define a release method in the interface, or how do I release the memory reserved for the variable? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C/C++ usage of special CPU fetures

    - by b-gen-jack-o-neill
    Hi, I am curious, do new compilers use some extra features built into new CPUs such as MMX SSE,3DNow! and so? I mean, in original 8086 there was even no FPU, so compiler that old cannot even use it, but new compilers can, since FPU is part of every new CPU. So, does new compilers use new features of CPU? Or, it should be more right to ask, does new C/C++ standart library functions use new features? Thanks for answer.

    Read the article

  • Using a class with const data members in a vector

    - by Max
    Given a class like this: class Foo { const int a; }; Is it possible to put that class in a vector? When I try, my compiler tells me it can't use the default assignment operator. I try to write my own, but googling around tells me that it's impossible to write an assignment operator for a class with const data members. One post I found said that "if you made [the data member] const that means you don't want assignment to happen in the first place." This makes sense. I've written a class with const data members, and I never intended on using assignment on it, but apparently I need assignment to put it in a vector. Is there a way around this that still preserves const-correctness?

    Read the article

  • Determine an object's class returned by a factory method (Error: function does not take 1 arguments

    - by tzippy
    I have a factorymethod that either returns an object of baseclass or one that is of derivedclass (a derived class of baseclass). The derived class has a method virtual void foo(int x) that takes one argument. baseclass however has virtual void foo() without an argument. In my code, a factory method returns a pointer of type bar that definetly points to an object of class derivedclass. However since this is only known at runtime I get a compiler error saying that foo() does not take an argument. Can I cast this pointer to a pointer of type derivedclass? std::auto_ptr<baseclass> bar = classfactory::CreateBar(); //returns object of class derivedclass bar->foo(5); class baseclass { public: virtual void foo(); } class derivedclass : public baseclass { public: virtual void foo(int x); }

    Read the article

  • Constructing a function call in C

    - by 0x6adb015
    Given that I have a pointer to a function (provided by dlsym() for example) and a linked list of typed arguments, how can I construct a C function call with those arguments? Example: struct param { enum type { INT32, INT64, STRING, BOOL } type; union { int i32; long long i64; char *str; bool b; } value; struct param *next; }; int call_this(int (*function)(), struct param *args) { int result; /* magic here that calls function(), which has a prototype of f(int, long long, char *, bool); , when args consist of a linked list of INT32, INT64, STRING, BOOL types. */ return result; } The OS is Linux. I would like the solution to be portable across MIPS, PPC and x86 (all 32 bits) architecture, using GCC as the compiler. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C++: namespace conflicht between extern "C" and class member

    - by plaisthos
    Hi, I stumbled upon a rather exotic c++ namespace problem: condensed example: extern "C" { void solve(lprec * lp); } class A { public: lprec * lp; void solve(int foo); } void A::solve(int foo) { solve(lp); } I want to call the c funcition solve in my C++ member function A::solve. The compiler is not happy with my intents: error C2664: 'lp_solve_ilp::solve' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'lprec *' to 'int' Is there something I can prefix the solve function? C::solve does not work

    Read the article

  • Masking a bit in C returning unexpected result

    - by Eamorr
    0x7F000000 is 0111 1111 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 in 32 bit binary. 0x01000058 is 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 0000 0101 1000. When I AND the two numbers together I expect 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000, but for some reason I get 0. Here is my code: #define MASK_binop 0x80000000 #define MASK_operation 0x7F000000 int instruction=atoi(line); if((MASK_binop & instruction)>0) printf("binop\n"); else if((MASK_operation & instruction)>0) printf("operation\n"); Each of the above comparisons keeps returning zero. Is it something to do with 32/64 bits? I'm using 64-bit compiler.

    Read the article

  • C++: How to use types that have not been defined?

    - by Jen
    C++ requires all types to be defined before they can be used, which makes it important to include header files in the right order. Fine. But what about my situation: Bunny.h: class Bunny { ... private: Reference<Bunny> parent; } The compiler complains, because technically Bunny has not been completely defined at the point where I use it in its own class definition. This is not sufficient: class Bunny; class Bunny { ... private: Reference<Bunny> parent; } Apart from re-writing my template class Reference so it takes a pointer type (in which case I can use the forward declaration of Bunny), I don't know how to solve this. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why Can't I import a UITableViewCell subclass ? That's weird....

    - by user320064
    It's like this, I created a UITableViewCell subclass called NewsItemCell, then I wanna use it in my FirstViewController.m, then I tried to import it, but the compiler keeps telling me this Below is my code, it is driving me mad, thank you if you can help. import "NewsItemCell.h" import "FirstViewController.h" @implementation FirstViewController @synthesize computers; (UITableViewCell *)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView cellForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath { static NSString *CellIdentifier = @"NewsItemCellIdentifier"; NewsItemcell *cell = (NewsItemcell *)[tableView dequeueReusableCellWithIdentifier: CellIdentifier]; if (cell == nil) { NSArray *nib = [[NSBundle mainBundle] loadNibNamed:@"NewsItemCell" owner:self options:nil]; for (id oneObject in nib) if ([oneObject isKindOfClass:[NewsItemcell class]]) cell = (NewsItemcell *)oneObject; } NSUInteger row = [indexPath row]; NSDictionary *rowData = [self.computers objectAtIndex:row]; cell.newsTitle.text = [rowData objectForKey:@"Color"]; cell.newsDate.text = [rowData objectForKey:@"Name"]; return cell; } Jason

    Read the article

  • How to avoid "incomplete implementation" warning in partial base class

    - by garph0
    I have created a protocol that my classes need to implement, and then factored out some common functionality into a base class, so I did this: @protocol MyProtocol - (void) foo; - (void) bar; @end @interface Base <MyProtocol> @end @interface Derived_1 : Base @end @interface Derived_2 : Base @end @implementation Base - (void) foo{ //something foo } @end @implementation Derived_1 - (void) bar{ //something bar 1 } @end @implementation Derived_2 - (void) bar{ //something bar 2 } @end In this way in my code I use a generic id<MyProtocol>. The code works (as long as Base is not used directly) but the compiler chokes at the end of the implementation of Base with a warning: Incomplete implementation of class Base Is there a way to avoid this warning or, even better, a more proper way to obtain this partially implemented abstract base class behavior in Objc?

    Read the article

  • const member functions can call const member functions only?

    - by Abhi
    Hi all. Do const member functions call only const member functions? class Transmitter{ const static string msg; mutable int size; public: void xmit() const{ size = compute(); cout<<msg; } private: int compute() const{return 5;} }; string const Transmitter::msg = "beep"; int main(){ Transmitter t; t.xmit(); return EXIT_SUCCESS; } If i dont make compute() a const, then the compiler complains. Is it because since a const member function is not allowed to modify members, it wont allow any calls to non-consts since it would mean that the const member function would be 'indirectly' modifying the data members?

    Read the article

  • Is it legal for a C++ reference to be NULL?

    - by BCS
    A while back I ran into a bug the looked something like this: void fn(int &i) { printf(&i == NULL ? "NULL\n" : "!NULL\n"); } int main() { int i; int *ip = NULL; fn(i); // prints !NULL fn(*ip); // prints NULL return 0; } More recently, I ran into this comment about C++ references: [References arguments make] it clear, unlike with pointers, that NULL is not a possible value. But, as show above, NULL is a possible value. So where is the error? In the language spec? (Unlikely.) Is the compiler in error for allowing that? Is that coding guide in error (or a little ambiguous)? Or am I just wandering into the minefield known as undefined behavior?

    Read the article

  • very simple delegate musing

    - by Ted
    Sometimes the simplest questions make me love C/C++ and C# more and more. Today sitting on the bus musing aout delegates I remembered reading somwhere you don't need to use the new keyword when instaniating a new delegate. For example: public static void SomeMethod(string message) { ... } ... public delegate void TestDelgate(string message); //Define a delegate ........... //create a new instance ..METHOD 1 TestDelgate t = new TestDelgate(SomeMethod); //OR another way to create a new instance ..METHOD 2 TestDelgate t = SomeMethod; //create a new instance ..METHOD 2 So todays questions are What happens under the hood in method 2. Does the compiler expand method 2 into method 1, hence writing TestDelgate t = SomeMethod; is just a shortcut for TestDelgate t = new TestDelgate(SomeMethod);, or is there another reason for the exsitence of method 2 Do you guys think method 1 or method 2 is better for readability (this is a subjective question, but I'd just like to get a unscientific feel of general opinion of stackoverflow :-))

    Read the article

  • Will Algorithm written in OCaml compiled from C be Faster than Algorithm written in Pure C code?

    - by Ole Jak
    So I have some cool Image Processing algorithm. I have written it in OCaml. It performs well. I now I can compile it as C code with such command ocamlc -output-obj -o foo.c foo.ml (I have a situation where I am not alowed to use OCaml compiler to bild my programm for my arcetecture, I can use only specialy modified gcc. so I will compile that programm with sometyhing like gcc -L/usr/lib/ocaml foo.c -lcamlrun -lm -lncurses and Itll run on my archetecture.) I want to know in general case will my OCaml code compiled into C run faster than algorithm implemented in pure C?

    Read the article

  • C++ template nontype parameter arithmetic

    - by aaa
    hello I am trying to specialize template the following way: 132 template<size_t _1,size_t _2> 131 struct integral_index_ {}; ... 141 template<size_t _1> 142 struct integral_index_<_1, _1 + 1> { ... 148 }; however I get compiler message error the template argument list of the partial specialization includes a non -type argument whose type depends on a template parameter. what do my doing wrong? thanks

    Read the article

  • How to pass a class method as an argument for another function in C++ and openGL?

    - by tsubasa
    I know this thing works: void myDisplay() { ... } int main() { ... glutDisplayFunc(myDisplay) ... } so I tried to include myDisplay() function to a class that I made. Because I want to overload it in the future with a different class. However, the compiler complains that argument of type 'void (ClassBlah::)()' does not match 'void(*)()' . Here is the what I try to make: class ClassBlah { .... void myDisplay() .... } ...... int main() { ... ClassBlah blah glutDisplayFunc(blah.myDisplay) ... } Does anybody knows how to fix this problem? Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Does C++ require a destructor call for each placement new?

    - by Josh Haberman
    I understand that placement new calls are usually matched with explicit calls to the destructor. My question is: if I have no need for a destructor (no code to put there, and no member variables that have destructors) can I safely skip the explicit destructor call? Here is my use case: I want to write C++ bindings for a C API. In the C API many objects are accessible only by pointer. Instead of creating a wrapper object that contains a single pointer (which is wasteful and semantically confusing). I want to use placement new to construct an object at the address of the C object. The C++ object will do nothing in its constructor or destructor, and its methods will do nothing but delegate to the C methods. The C++ object will contain no virtual methods. I have two parts to this question. Is there any reason why this idea will not work in practice on any production compiler? Does this technically violate the C++ language spec?

    Read the article

  • Using module include in OCaml

    - by Geoff
    In OCaml 3.11, I want to "extend" an existing module using the include directive, like so: module MyString = struct include String let trim s = ... end No problem. But now I want to expose this module's type explicitly (i.e. in a .mli file). I want something like this: module MyString : sig include String val trim : string -> string end But the include syntax is not correct because String refers to a module, not a module type (and the compiler does indeed barf). How can I refer to the module type for String here (without having write it out explicitly in a sig expression)? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • The implicit function __strcpy_chk() call

    - by Summer_More_More_Tea
    Hi everyone: I'm now performing a stack buffer overflow attack test on my own PC( Ubuntu 9.10, gcc-4.4.1 ) based on the article http://www.tenouk.com/Bufferoverflowc/Bufferoverflow4.html. Yet I haven't achieved the goal. Each time a segfault is thrown accompanied with some error informaiton. I compile the source code, and wanna get further information using objdump. Function __strcpy_chk is invoked in the assembly code dumped out, and it's said that "The __strcpy_chk() function is not in the source standard; it is only in the binary standard." Does this the mechanism a compiler employed to protect runtime stack? To finish my test, how can I bypass the protection? Regards.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155  | Next Page >