Search Results

Search found 5015 results on 201 pages for 'compiler construction'.

Page 150/201 | < Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >

• can a program written in C be faster than one written in OCaml and translated to C?

  - 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 can a program written in C be faster than one written in OCaml and translated to C?

  Read the article

• Same memory space being allocated again & again while using malloc()

  - by shadyabhi

  In each loop iteration, variable j is declared again and again. Then why is its address remaining same? Shouldn't it be given some random address each time? Is this compiler dependent? #include<stdio.h> #include<malloc.h> int main() { int i=3; while (i--) { int j; printf("%p\n", &j); } return 0; } Testrun:- shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~/c$ gcc test.c shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~/c$ ./a.out 0x7fffc0b8e138 0x7fffc0b8e138 0x7fffc0b8e138 shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~/c$

  Read the article

• Best way to access nested data structures?

  - by Blackshark

  I would like to know what the best way (performance wise) to access a large data structure is. There are about hundred ways to do it but what is the most accessible for the compiler to optimize? One can access a value by foo[someindex].bar[indexlist[i].subelement[j]].baz[0] or create some pointer aliases like sometype_t* tmpfoo = &foo[someindex]; tmpfoo->bar[indexlist[i].subelement[j]].baz[0] or create reference aliases like sometype_t &tmpfoo = foo[someindex]; tmpfoo.bar[indexlist[i].subelement[j]].baz[0] and so forth...

  Read the article

• Why I have to redeclare a virtual function while overriding [C++]

  - by Neeraj

  #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Duck { public: virtual void quack() = 0; }; class BigDuck : public Duck { public: // void quack(); (uncommenting will make it compile) }; void BigDuck::quack(){ cout << "BigDuckDuck::Quack\n"; } int main() { BigDuck b; Duck *d = &b; d->quack(); } Consider this code, the code doesn't compiles. However when I declare the virtual function in the subclass, then it compiles fine. The compiler already has the signature of the function which the subclass will override, then why a redeclaration is required? Any insights.

  Read the article

• How to use AOP to intercept a method call in super on an argument?

  - by hleinone

  I'm extending a class and overriding a method. All I want to do is to call super, but with a modified argument that gets intercepted upon one of its methods is called. An example makes it more clear: // Foo is an interface and also this method is part of an interface @Override public void foo(Foo foo) { // I want to intercept the call to foo.bar() in super super.foo(foo); } I'd rather use a tool that doesn't require a compiler of its own. What would be the optimal one?

  Read the article

• Why does a non-constant offsetof expression work?

  - by Chris J. Kiick

  Why does this work: #include <sys/types.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stddef.h> typedef struct x { int a; int b[128]; } x_t; int function(int i) { size_t a; a = offsetof(x_t, b[i]); return a; } int main(int argc, char **argv) { printf("%d\n", function(atoi(argv[1]))); } If I remember the definition of offsetof correctly, it's a compile time construct. Using 'i' as the array index results in a non-constant expression. I don't understand how the compiler can evaluate the expression at compile time. Why isn't this flagged as an error?

  Read the article

• Using an int as the numerical representation of a string in C#

  - by bluewall21

  I'm trying to use an integer as the numerical representation of a string, for example, storing "ABCD" as 0x41424344. However, when it comes to output, I've got to convert the integer back into 4 ASCII characters. Right now, I'm using bit shifts and masking, as follows: int value = 0x41424344; string s = new string ( new char [] { (char)(value >> 24), (char)(value >> 16 & 0xFF), (char)(value >> 8 & 0xFF), (char)(value & 0xFF) }); Is there a cleaner way to do this? I've tried various casts, but the compiler, as expected, complained about it.

  Read the article

• int vs const int&

  - by Valdo

  I've noticed that I usually use constant references as return values or arguments. I think the reason is that it works almost the same as using non-reference in the code. But it definitely takes more space and function declarations become longer. I'm OK with such code but I think some people my find it a bad programming style. What do you think? Is it worth writing const int& over int? I think it's optimized by the compiler anyway, so maybe I'm just wasting my time coding it, a?

  Read the article

• Strange macro declaration in C

  - by Andrey Atapin

  Exploring libusb-1.0.9 source code, I have found such line (./os/poll_windows.c:78): #define CHECK_INIT_POLLING do {if(!is_polling_set) init_polling();} while(0) As for me this is the same like: #define CHECK_INIT_POLLING if(!is_polling_set) init_polling(); Is there any reason to loop that expression? UPDATE: I couldn't still realize what'd be wrong after the answers, and the following example helped: #include <stdio.h> #define TEST if(test) foo(); #define TEST_DO do { if(test) foo(); } while(0) int test = 1; void foo() { printf("%s", "Foo called"); } int main(int argc, char** argv) { if(argc > 1) TEST_DO; /* LINE 12 */ else printf("%s", "skipping..."); return 0; } If you put TEST at line 12, a compiler will give an error "error: ‘else’ without a previous ‘if’". Hope, this will help someone.

  Read the article

• Java generic Interface performance

  - by halfwarp

  Simple question, but tricky answer I guess. Does using Generic Interfaces hurts performance? Example: public interface Stuff<T> { void hello(T var); } vs public interface Stuff { void hello(Integer var); <---- Integer used just as an example } My first thought is that it doesn't. Generics are just part of the language and the compiler will optimize it as though there were no generics (at least in this particular case of generic interfaces). Is this correct?

  Read the article

• Assigning Value to a variable that is too big for it! (checked and unchecked concept)

  - by ThickBook

  So when we assign a value to a variable then that variable should be able to hold it, right? and if not compiler produces the error. Now there is an option in C# known as Checked (which is by default) and unchecked option. But is there practical use of unchecked? any comments for a layman? :) Example: int a=int.MaxValue; int b=int.MaxValue; unchecked { int sum=a+b; }

  Read the article

• Create object of unknown class (two inherited classes)

  - by Paul

  I've got the following classes: class A { void commonFunction() = 0; } class Aa: public A { //Some stuff... } class Ab: public A { //Some stuff... } Depending on user input I want to create an object of either Aa or Ab. My imidiate thought was this: A object; if (/*Test*/) { Aa object; } else { Ab object; } But the compiler gives me: error: cannot declare variable ‘object’ to be of abstract type ‘A’ because the following virtual functions are pure within ‘A’: //The functions... Is there a good way to solve this?

  Read the article

• assignment from incompatible pointer type

  - by Hristo

  I have set up the following struct: typedef struct _thread_node_t { pthread_t thread; struct thread_node_t *next; } thread_node_t; ... and then I have defined: // create thread to for incoming connection thread_node_t *thread_node = (thread_node_t*) malloc(sizeof(thread_node_t)); pthread_create(&(thread_node->thread), NULL, client_thread, &csFD); thread_node->next = thread_arr; // assignment from incompatible pointer type thread_arr = thread_node; where thread_arr is thread_node_t *thread_arr = NULL; I don't understand why the compiler is complaining. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

  Read the article

• cygwin g++ produces no output

  - by fred basset

  I just installed g++ from cygwin, when I try to compile a C++ file I am not getting any executable produced by the compiler, see example below. What's going wrong? Directory of C:\helloworld 01/02/2011 04:50 PM . 01/02/2011 04:50 PM .. 01/02/2011 04:48 PM 94 helloworld.cpp 1 File(s) 94 bytes 2 Dir(s) 24,658,272,256 bytes free C:\helloworldg++-4 helloworld.cpp C:\helloworlddir Volume in drive C is OS Volume Serial Number is C47B-942D Directory of C:\helloworld 01/02/2011 04:50 PM . 01/02/2011 04:50 PM .. 01/02/2011 04:48 PM 94 helloworld.cpp 1 File(s) 94 bytes 2 Dir(s) 24,657,747,968 bytes free C:\helloworld

  Read the article

• Is there a TextWriter interface to the System.Diagnostics.Debug class?

  - by John Källén

  I'm often frustrated by the System.Diagnostics.Debug.Write/WriteLine methods. I would like to use the Write/WriteLine methods familiar from the TextWriter class, so I often write Debug.WriteLine("# entries {0} for connection {1}", countOfEntries, connection); which causes a compiler error. I end up writing Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("# entries {0} for connection {1}", countOfEntries, connection)); which is really awkward. Does the CLR have a class deriving from TextWriter that "wraps" System.Debug, or should I roll my own?

  Read the article

• Can I reproduce Scala's behavior for == ?

  - by JPP

  In Programming in Scala, I can read that the == operator behaves as if it was defined like this: final def == (that: Any): Boolean = if (null eq this) {null eq that} else {this equals that} But there must actually be compiler magic to avoid null pointer exceptions, right? Is there any way for me to replicate this behavior with pure Scala; i.e., have an operator/method return one thing if the receiver is null and another one if it isn't? What I mean is an actual implementation of null eq this. I suppose I can write a "pimp" and then define the method on the wrapper class, but is there a more direct way to do this?

  Read the article

• Inter-project dependencies

  - by Mike Hordecki

  Hello! I'm doing some Delphi (2010) work this summer, and I've stumbled upon this problem: My project consists of reusable backend library and a bunch of GUIs that tap into its interface. In this circumstances I've decided to make the backend and GUIs separate projects within single project group (I hope my train of thought is correct). The problem is, how can I include units from the backend in a GUI project? I've tried to modify Project Options > Directories and Conditionals but compiler still complains about being unable to find proper .dcu's. Any ideas? Your help will be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Same memory space being allocated again & again

  - by shadyabhi

  In each loop iteration, variable j is declared again and again. Then why is its address remaining same? Shouldn't it be given some random address each time? Is this compiler dependent? #include<stdio.h> #include<malloc.h> int main() { int i=3; while (i--) { int j; printf("%p\n", &j); } return 0; } Testrun:- shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~/c$ gcc test.c shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~/c$ ./a.out 0x7fffc0b8e138 0x7fffc0b8e138 0x7fffc0b8e138 shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~/c$

  Read the article

• c++ - FIFO implementation

  - by Narek

  While implementing a FIFO I have used the following structure: struct Node { T info_; Node* link_; Node(T info, Node* link=0): info_(info), link_(link) {} }; I think this a well known trick for lots of STL containers (for example for List). Is this a good practice? What it means for compiler when you say that Node has a member with a type of it's pointer? Is this a kind of infinite loop? And finally, if this is a bad practice, how I could implement a better FIFO.

  Read the article

• Delegate Example From C# In Depth Confusion

  - by ChloeRadshaw

  I am looking at this example: List<Product> products = Product. GetSampleProducts() ; products.Sort( (first, second) => first.Name.CompareTo(second. Name) ) ; foreach (Product product in products) { Console. WriteLine(product) ; } What function is actually called in the API when you do that? Does the compiler create a class which implemnents the IComparer interface? I thought delegates were anonymous methods - Here it seems to be an anonymous interface implementation which is casuing confusion

  Read the article

• Can a method return an NSRange?

  - by Dan Donaldson

  I have a method that returns an NSRange. When I call this method from outside the class I get a compile error. NSRange tmpRange; tmpRange = [phrase rangeInString:searchString forString:theLetter goingForward:YES]; return tmpRange.location == -1; in the .h file: #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> @interface Phrase : NSObject { } - (NSRange) rangeInString:(NSString *) tgt forString:(NSString *) find goingForward:(BOOL) fwd; @end This method is called within the Phrase object by other methods without problems. The compiler says 'incompatible types in assignment'. Can anyone explain this to me? I assume it has to do with returning an NSRange/struct type value generated outside the object, but I don't know why it works in one place and not the other.

  Read the article

• a macro question for c language (#define)

  - by Daniel

  I am reading source code of hoard memory allocator, and in the file of gnuwrapper.cpp, there are the following code #define CUSTOM_MALLOC(x) CUSTOM_PREFIX(malloc)(x) What's the meaning of CUSTOM_PREFIX(malloc)(x)? is CUSTOM_PREFIX a function? But as a function it didn't defined anywhere. If it's variable, then how can we use variable like var(malloc)(x)? more code: #ifndef __GNUC__ #error "This file requires the GNU compiler." #endif #include <string.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <malloc.h> #ifndef CUSTOM_PREFIX ==> here looks like it's a variable, so if it doesn't define, then define here. #define CUSTOM_PREFIX #endif #define CUSTOM_MALLOC(x) CUSTOM_PREFIX(malloc)(x) ===> what's the meaning of this? #define CUSTOM_FREE(x) CUSTOM_PREFIX(free)(x) #define CUSTOM_REALLOC(x,y) CUSTOM_PREFIX(realloc)(x,y) #define CUSTOM_MEMALIGN(x,y) CUSTOM_PREFIX(memalign)(x,y)

  Read the article

• Cast A primitive type pointer to A structure pointer - Alignment and Padding?

  - by Seçkin Savasçi

  Just 20 minutes age when I answered a question, I come up with an interesting scenario that I'm not sure of the behavior: Let me have an integer array of size n, pointed by intPtr; int* intPtr; and let me also have a struct like this: typedef struct { int val1; int val2; //and less or more integer declarations goes on like this(not any other type) }intStruct; My question is if I do a cast intStruct* structPtr = (intStruct*) intPtr; Am I sure to get every element correctly if I traverse the elements of the struct? Is there any possibility of miss-alignment(possible because of padding) in any architecture/compiler?

  Read the article

• Is new int[10]() valid c++?

  - by Naveen

  While trying to answer this question I found that the code int* p = new int[10](); compiles fine with VC9 compiler and initializes the integers to 0. So my questions are: First of all is this valid C++ or is it a microsoft extension? Is it guaranteed to initialize all the elements of the array? Also, is there any difference if I do new int; or new int();? Does the latter guarantee to initialize the variable?

  Read the article

• how to specify a pointer to an overloaded function?

  - by davka

  I want to pass an overloaded function to the std::for_each() algorithm. e.g.: void f(char c); void f(int i); std::string s("example"); std::for_each(s.begin(), s.end(), f); I'd expect the compiler to resolve f() by the iterator type. Apparently, it (gcc 4.1.2) doesn't do it. So, how can I specify which f() I want? thanks a lot

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >