Search Results

Search found 18119 results on 725 pages for 'shared memory'.

Page 163/725 | < Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >

  • Using CreateFileMapping between two programs - C

    - by Jamie Keeling
    Hello, I have two window form applications written in C, one holds a struct consisting of two integers, another will receive it using the CreateFileMapping. Although not directly related I want to have three events in place so each of the processes can "speak" to each other, one saying that the first program has something to pass to the second, one saying the first one has closed and another saying the second one has closed. What would be the best way about doing this exactly? I've looked at the MSDN entry for the CreateFileMapping operation but I'm still not sure as to how it should be done. I didn't want to start implementing it without having some sort of clear idea as to what I need to do. Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • Effecient data structure design

    - by Sway
    Hi there, I need to match a series of user inputed words against a large dictionary of words (to ensure the entered value exists). So if the user entered: "orange" it should match an entry "orange' in the dictionary. Now the catch is that the user can also enter a wildcard or series of wildcard characters like say "or__ge" which would also match "orange" The key requirements are: * this should be as fast as possible. * use the smallest amount of memory to achieve it. If the size of the word list was small I could use a string containing all the words and use regular expressions. however given that the word list could contain potentially hundreds of thousands of enteries I'm assuming this wouldn't work. So is some sort of 'tree' be the way to go for this...? Any thoughts or suggestions on this would be totally appreciated! Thanks in advance, Matt

    Read the article

  • Measuring debug vs release of ASP.NET applications

    - by Alex Angas
    A question at work came up about building ASP.NET applications in release vs debug mode. When researching further (particularly on SO), general advice is that setting <compilation debug="true"> in web.config has a much bigger impact. Has anyone done any testing to get some actual numbers about this? Here's the sort of information I'm looking for (which may give away my experience with testing such things): Execution time | Debug build | Release build -------------------+---------------+--------------- Debug web.config | average 1 | average 2 Retail web.config | average 3 | average 4 Max memory usage | Debug build | Release build -------------------+---------------+--------------- Debug web.config | average 1 | average 2 Retail web.config | average 3 | average 4 Output file size | Debug build | Release build -------------------+---------------+--------------- | size 1 | size 2

    Read the article

  • Is this a correct implementation of singleton C++?

    - by Kamal
    class A{ static boost::shared_ptr<A> getInstance(){ if(pA==NULL){ pA = new A(); } return boost::shared_ptr(pA); } //destructor ~A(){ delete pA; pA=NULL; } private: A(){ //some initialization code } //private assigment and copy constructors A(A const& copy); // Not Implemented A& operator=(A const& copy); // Not Implemented static A* pA; }; A* A::pA = NULL;

    Read the article

  • Why freed struct in C still has data?

    - by kliketa
    When I run this code: #include <stdio.h> typedef struct _Food { char name [128]; } Food; int main (int argc, char **argv) { Food *food; food = (Food*) malloc (sizeof (Food)); snprintf (food->name, 128, "%s", "Corn"); free (food); printf ("%d\n", sizeof *food); printf ("%s\n", food->name); } I still get 128 Corn although I have freed food. Why is this? Is memory really freed?

    Read the article

  • Garbage Collection in Java

    - by simion
    On the slides I am revising from it says the following: Live objects can be identified either by maintaining a count of the number of references to each object, or by tracing chains of references from the roots. Reference counting is expensive – it needs action every time a reference changes and it doesn’t spot cyclical structures, but it can reclaim space incrementally. Tracing involves identifying live objects only when you need to reclaim space – moving the cost from general access to the time at which the GC runs, typically only when you are out of memory. I understand the principles of why reference counting is expensive but do not understand what "doesn’t spot cyclical structures, but it can reclaim space incrementally." means. Could anyone help me out a little bit please? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is boost shared_ptr <XXX> thread safe?

    - by sxingfeng
    I have a question about boost :: shared_ptr. There are lots of thread. class CResource { xxxxxx } class CResourceBase { public: void SetResource(shared_ptr<CResource> res) { m_Res = res; } shared_ptr<CResource> GetResource() { return m_Res; } private: shared_ptr<CResource> m_Res; } CResourceBase base; //---------------------------------------------- Thread A: while (true) { ...... shared_ptr<CResource> nowResource = base.GetResource(); nowResource.doSomeThing(); ... } Thread B: shared_ptr<CResource> nowResource; base.SetResource(nowResource); ... //----------------------------------------------------------- If thread A do not care the nowResource is the newest . Will this part of code have problem? I mean when ThreadB do not SetResource completely, Thread A get a wrong smart point by GetResource? Another question : what does thread-safe mean? If I do not care about whether the resource is newest, will the shared_ptr nowResource crash the program when the nowResource is released or will the problem destroy the shared_point?

    Read the article

  • Trouble assigning a tr1::shared_ptr

    - by Max
    I've got a class that has a tr1::shared_ptr as a member, like so: class Foo { std::tr1::shared_ptr<TCODBsp> bsp; void Bar(); } In member function Bar, I try to assign it like this: bsp = newTCODBsp(x,y,w,h); g++ then gives me this error no match for ‘operator=’ in ‘((yarl::mapGen::MapGenerator*)this)->yarl::mapGen::MapGenerator::bsp = (operator new(40u), (<statement>, ((TCODBsp*)<anonymous>)))’ /usr/include/c++/4.4/tr1/shared_ptr.h:834: note: candidates are: std::tr1::shared_ptr<TCODBsp>& std::tr1::shared_ptr<TCODBsp>::operator=(const std::tr1::shared_ptr<TCODBsp>&) in my code, Foo is actually yarl::mapGen::MapGenerator. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • If free() knows the length of my array, why can't I ask for it in my own code?

    - by Chris Cooper
    I know that it's a common convention to pass the length of dynamically allocated arrays to functions that manipulate them: void initializeAndFree(int* anArray, int length); int main(){ int arrayLength = 0; scanf("%d", &arrayLength); int* myArray = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)*arrayLength); initializeAndFree(myArray, arrayLength); } void initializeAndFree(int* anArray, int length){ int i = 0; for (i = 0; i < length; i++) { anArray[i] = 0; } free(anArray); } but if there's no way for me to get the length of the allocated memory from a pointer, how does free() "automagically" know what to deallocate? Why can't I get in on the magic, as a C programmer? Where does free() get its free (har-har) knowledge from?

    Read the article

  • Casting a container of shared_ptr

    - by Jamie Cook
    Hi all, I have a method void foo(list<shared_ptr<Base>>& myList); Which I'm trying to call with a two different types of lists, one of DerivedClass1 and one of DerivedClass2 list<shared_ptr<DerivedClass1>> myList1; foo(myList1); list<shared_ptr<DerivedClass2>> myList2; foo(myList2); However this obviously generates a compiler error error: a reference of type "std::list<boost::shared_ptr<Base>, std::allocator<boost::shared_ptr<Base>>> &" (not const-qualified) cannot be initialized with a value of type "std::list<boost::shared_ptr<DerivedClass1>, std::allocator<boost::shared_ptr<DerivedClass1>>>" Is there any easy way to cast a container of shared_ptr? Of alternate containers that can accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • Using CreateFileMapping between to programs - C

    - by Jamie Keeling
    Hello, I have two window form applications written in C, one holds a struct consisting of two integers, another will receive it using the CreateFileMapping. Although not directly related I want to have three events in place so each of the processes can "speak" to each other, one saying that the first program has something to pass to the second, one saying the first one has closed and another saying the second one has closed. What would be the best way about doing this exactly? I've looked at the MSDN entry for the CreateFileMapping operation but I'm still not sure as to how it should be done. I didn't want to start implementing it without having some sort of clear idea as to what I need to do. Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • Using WPF class in a web application, problem with hosting permission

    - by tanathos
    I'm developing a DLL that uses WPF classes to make image manipulation. It works fine in my local environment, but when I try to use it in an hosted web site I retrieve this error: Request for the permission of type 'System.Security.Permissions.MediaPermission, WindowsBase, Version=3.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35' failed. exactly when I try to call the EndInit() of a BitmapImage object: BitmapImage originalImage = new BitmapImage(); originalImage.BeginInit(); originalImage.CacheOption = BitmapCacheOption.OnLoad; originalImage.UriSource = new Uri(physical_imagepath); originalImage.EndInit(); Any suggestion?

    Read the article

  • How can I compile an autotools project with statically linked dependancies?

    - by flyx
    There's an open source library I want to use. As I want to spread my software as binary package, I do not want the library to have dependancies on other libraries, so I need to link the dependancies statically. Now as the library is open source and there are no binaries provided, I compile it myself. The library uses autotools, and I didn't find any useful documentation on how to link dependancies statically. What I did try is to call the configure script with --enable-static, but this apparently only tells configure to compile a static version of the library - but what I need is a dynamic library that includes all the libraries it depends on. So, I need a way to either tell configure to link against dependancies statically, or a way to post-process the built library to include all dependancies. Can anyone tell me how to do this? Oh, and if it matters: I'm on 64bit Snow Leopard.

    Read the article

  • Allocated Private Bytes keeps going up in one computer but not the other

    - by Jacob
    OK, this may sound weird, but here goes. There are 2 computers, A (Pentium D) and B (Quad Core) with almost the same amount of RAM. If I run the same code on both computers, the allocated private bytes in A never goes down resulting in a crash later on. In B it looks like the private bytes is constantly deallocated and everything looks fine. In both computers, the working set is deallocated and allocated similarly. Could this be an issue with manifests or DLLs (system)? I'm clueless. Note: I observed the utilized memory with Process Explorer.

    Read the article

  • in java, which is better - three arrays of booleans or 1 array of bytes?

    - by joe_shmoe
    I know the question sounds silly, but consider this: I have an array of items and a labelling algorithm. at any point the item is in one of three states. The current version holds these states in a byte array, where 0, 1 and 2 represent the three states. alternatively, I could have three arrays of boolean - one for each state. which is better (consumes less memory) depends on how jvm (sun's version) stores the arrays - is a boolean represented by 1 bit? (p.s. don't start with all that "this is not the way OO/Java works" - I know, but here performance comes in front. plus the algorithm is simple and perfectly readable even in such form). Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • Advice for keeping large C++ project modular?

    - by Jay
    Our team is moving into much larger projects in size, many of which use several open source projects within them. Any advice or best practices to keep libraries and dependancies relatively modular and easily upgradable when new releases for them are out? To put it another way, lets say you make a program that is a fork of an open source project. As both projects grow, what is the easiest way to maintain and share updates to the core? Advice regarding what I'm asking only please...I don't need "well you should do this instead" or "why are you"..thanks.

    Read the article

  • `enable_shared_from_this` has a non-virtual destructor

    - by Shtééf
    I have a pet project with which I experiment with new features of the upcoming C++0x standard. While I have experience with C, I'm fairly new to C++. To train myself into best practices, (besides reading a lot), I have enabled some strict compiler parameters (using GCC 4.4.1): -std=c++0x -Werror -Wall -Winline -Weffc++ -pedantic-errors This has worked fine for me. Until now, I have been able to resolve all obstacles. However, I have a need for enable_shared_from_this, and this is causing me problems. I get the following warning (error, in my case) when compiling my code (probably triggered by -Weffc++): base class ‘class std::enable_shared_from_this<Package>’ has a non-virtual destructor So basically, I'm a bit bugged by this implementation of enable_shared_from_this, because: A destructor of a class that is intended for subclassing should always be virtual, IMHO. The destructor is empty, why have it at all? I can't imagine anyone would want to delete their instance by reference to enable_shared_from_this. But I'm looking for ways to deal with this, so my question is really, is there a proper way to deal with this? And: am I correct in thinking that this destructor is bogus, or is there a real purpose to it?

    Read the article

  • Multiset of shared_ptrs as a dynamic priority queue: Concept and practice

    - by Sarah
    I was using a vector-based priority queue typedef std::priority_queue< Event, vector< Event >, std::greater< Event > > EventPQ; to manage my Event objects. Now my simulation has to be able to find and delete certain Event objects not at the top of the queue. I'd like to know if my planned work-around can do what I need it to, and if I have the syntax right. I'd also like to know if dramatically better solutions exist. My plan is to make EventPQ a multiset of smart pointers to Event objects: typedef std::multi_set< boost::shared_ptr< Event > > EventPQ; I'm borrowing functions of the Event class from a related post on a multimap priority queue. // Event.h #include <cstdlib> using namespace std; #include <set> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> class Event; typedef std::multi_set< boost::shared_ptr< Event > > EventPQ; class Event { public: Event( double t, int eid, int hid ); ~Event(); void add( EventPQ& q ); void remove(); bool operator < ( const Event & rhs ) const { return ( time < rhs.time ); } bool operator > ( const Event & rhs ) const { return ( time > rhs.time ); } double time; int eventID; int hostID; EventPQ* mq; EventPQ::iterator mIt; }; // Event.cpp Event::Event( double t, int eid, int hid ) { time = t; eventID = eid; hostID = hid; } Event::~Event() {} void Event::add( EventPQ& q ) { mq = &q; mIt = q.insert( boost::shared_ptr<Event>(this) ); } void Event::remove() { mq.erase( mIt ); mq = 0; mIt = EventPQ::iterator(); } I was hoping that by making EventPQ a container of pointers, I could avoid wasting time copying Events into the container and avoid accidentally editing the wrong copy. Would it be dramatically easier to store the Events themselves in EventPQ instead? Does it make more sense to remove the time keys from Event objects and use them instead as keys in a multimap? Assuming the current implementation seems okay, my questions are: Do I need to specify how to sort on the pointers, rather than the objects, or does the multiset automatically know to sort on the objects pointed to? If I have a shared_ptr ptr1 to an Event that also has a pointer in the EventPQ container, how do I find and delete the corresponding pointer in EventPQ? Is it enough to .find( ptr1 ), or do I instead have to find by the key (time)? Is the Event::remove() sufficient for removing the pointer in the EventPQ container? There's a small chance multiple events could be created with the same time (obviously implied in the use of multiset). If the find() works on event times, to avoid accidentally deleting the wrong event, I was planning to throw in a further check on eventID and hostID. Does this seem reasonable? (Dumb syntax question) In Event.h, is the declaration of dummy class Event;, then the EventPQ typedef, and then the real class Event declaration appropriate? I'm obviously an inexperienced programmer with very spotty background--this isn't for homework. Would love suggestions and explanations. Please let me know if any part of this is confusing. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • release viewcontroller after presenting modally

    - by Jonathan
    I was watching CS193P Stanford course on Itunes, and in one of the lectures a demo was given and There it was said you could present the viewcontroller modally and then release it. Roughly like this (I know this isn't perfect but I'm on my PC atm) [self.view presentcontentmodally:myVC] [myVC release]; However this seems to produce problems. If I put a NSLog(@"%d", [myVC retainCount]) between those two lines then it returns 2 implying it is ok to release. However when I dismiss the myVC the app crashes. Nothing in the NSlog and the debugger won't show where it stopped. But I used malloc-history or something that some blog said would help. And found that it was the myVC. So should I be releasing myVC? (also when the modalVC has been dissmissed should the app's memory usuage go back to before the modalVC was presented?)

    Read the article

  • How to install the program depending on libstdc++ library

    - by Alex Farber
    My program is written in C++, using GCC on Ubuntu 9.10 64 bit. If depends on /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 which actually points to /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13. Now I copy this program to virgin Ubuntu 7.04 system and try to run it. It doesn't run, as expected. Then I add to the program directory the following files: libstdc++.so.6.0.13 libstdc++.so.6 (links to libstdc++.so.6.0.13) and execute command: LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./myprogram Now everything is OK. The question: how can I write installation script for such program? myprogram file itself should be placed to /usr/local/bin. What can I do with dependencies? For example, on destination computer, /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 link points to /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.8. What can I do with this? Note: the program is closed-source, I cannot provide source code and makefile.

    Read the article

  • Same address, multiple shared_ptr counters, is it forbidden by C++ standard?

    - by icando
    Suppose I have some needs to do the following (This is just some imaginative code for discussion of the C++ standard, thus I won't discuss why I design it this way, so don't bother me something like: your design is wrong.) T* ptr = new T; shared_ptr<T> p(ptr); shared_ptr<T> q(ptr, SomeDeleterThatDoesnotDeleteButDoSomeOtherStuff()); Suppose the logic guarantees that p or some of its copies lives longer than any copies of q, so practically there won't be any problem. My question is, is it forbidden by C++ standard, e.g. explicitly stated as UB by C++ standard, that different shared_ptr counters share the same address? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the boost::shared_ptr -> operator inlined?

    - by Alan
    Since boost::shared_ptr could be called very frequently and simply returns a pointer, isn't the -> operator a good candidate for being inlined? T * operator-> () const // never throws { BOOST_ASSERT(px != 0); return px; } Would a good compiler automatically inline this anyway? Should I lose any sleep over this? :-)

    Read the article

  • In what circumstances can large pages produce a speedup ?

    - by timday
    Modern x86 CPUs have the ability to support larger page sizes than the legacy 4K (ie 2MB or 4MB), and there are OS facilities (Linux, Windows) to access this functionality. The Microsoft link above states large pages "increase the efficiency of the translation buffer, which can increase performance for frequently accessed memory". Which isn't very helpful in predicting whether large pages will improve any given situation. I'm interested in concrete, preferably quantified, examples of where moving some program logic (or a whole application) to use huge pages has resulted in some performance improvement. Anyone got any success stories ? There's one particular case I know of myself: using huge pages can dramatically reduce the time needed to fork a large process (presumably as the number of TLB records needing copying is reduced by a factor on the order of 1000). I'm interested in whether huge pages can also benefit more mundane applications though.

    Read the article

  • How do I release an object allocated in a different AutoReleasePool ?

    - by ajcaruana
    Hi, I have a problem with the memory management in Objective-C. Say I have a method that allocates an object and stores the reference to this object as a member of the class. If I run through the same function a second time, I need to release this first object before creating a new one to replace it. Supposing that the first line of the function is: NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; This means that a different auto-release pool will be in place. The code to allocate the object is as follows: if (m_object != nil) [m_object release]; m_object = [[MyClass alloc] init]; [m_object retain]; The problem is that the program crashes when running the last line of the method: [pool release]; What am I doing wrong ? How can I fix this ? Regards Alan

    Read the article

  • Which libraries use the "We Know Where You Live" optimization for std::make_shared?

    - by KnowItAllWannabe
    Over two years ago, Stephan T. Lavavej described a space-saving optimization he implemented in Microsoft's implementation of std::make_shared, and I know from speaking with him that Microsoft has nothing against other library implementations adopting this optimization. If you know for sure whether other libraries (e.g., for Gnu C++, Clang, Intel C++, plus Boost (for boost::make_shared)) have adopted this implementation, please contribute an answer. I don't have ready access to that many make_shared implementations, nor am I wild about digging into the bowels of the ones I have to see if they've implemented the WKWYL optimization, but I'm hoping that SO readers know the answers for some libraries off-hand. I know from looking at the code that as of Boost 1.52, the WKWYL optimization had not been implemented, but Boost is now up to version 1.55. Note that this optimization is different from std::make_shared's ability to avoid a dedicated heap allocation for the reference count used by std::shared_ptr. For a discussion of the difference between WKWYL and that optimication, consult this question.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >