Search Results

Search found 23804 results on 953 pages for 'void pointer'.

Page 18/953 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

• what exactly is the danger of an uninitialized pointer in C

  - by akh2103

  I am trying get a handle on C as I work my way thru Jim Trevor's "Cyclone: A safe dialect of C" for a PL class. Trevor and his co-authors are trying to make a safe version of C, so they eliminate uninitialized pointers in their language. Googling around a bit on uninitialized pointers, it seems like un-initialized pointers point to random locations in memory. It seems like this alone makes them unsafe. If you reference an un-itilialized pointer, you jump to an unsafe part of memory. Period. But the way Trevor talks about them seems to imply that it is more complex. He cites the following code, and explains that when the function FrmGetObjectIndex dereferences f, it isn’t accessing a valid pointer, but rather an unpredictable address — whatever was on the stack when the space for f was allocated. What does Trevor mean by "whatever was on the stack when the space for f was allocated"? Are "un-initialized" pointers initialized to random locations in memory by default? Or does their "random" behavior have to do with the memory allocated for these pointers getting filled with strange values (that are then referenced) because of unexpected behavior on the stack. Form *f; switch (event->eType) { case frmOpenEvent: f = FrmGetActiveForm(); ... case ctlSelectEvent: i = FrmGetObjectIndex(f, field); ... }

  Read the article

• C programming: Dereferencing pointer to incomplete type error

  - by confusedKid

  Hi, I am pretty rusty at C, and I'm getting a dereferencing error. Hopefully someone can help me with this? ^_^ I have a struct defined as: struct { char name[32]; int size; int start; int popularity; } stasher_file; and an array of pointers to those structs: struct stasher_file *files[TOTAL_STORAGE_SIZE]; In my code, I'm making a pointer to the struct and setting its members, and adding it to the array: ... struct stasher_file *newFile; strncpy(newFile-name, name, 32); newFile-size = size; newFile-start = first_free; newFile-popularity = 0; files[num_files] = newFile; ... I'm getting a "error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type" whenever I try to access the members inside newFile. What am I doing wrong? Thanks very much for any help :)

  Read the article

• Get Function Pointer to function in a shared library I didn't directly load

  - by bdk

  My Linux application (A) links against a Third Party shared Library (B) which I don't have source code to. This library makes use of another third party shared library that I don't have source code to (C). I believe that (B) uses dlopen to access (C) instead of directly linking. My reasoning for this is that 'ldd' on (B) does not show (C) and objdump -X (B) shows references to dlopen/dlclose/dlsym. My requirement is that I need to in my code for (A) get a function pointer to a function foo() located in (C). Normally I'd use dlsym for this, but I need to pass it the handle returned from dlopen which I don't have since (B) does not expose this. - For the larger context: I need to modify the function in (C) such that everytime it calls its helper function bar() (also located in (C)), it also calls a function with the same signature located in (A) with the same parameters (Basically inject my code into the codepath of (C) foo()-bar(). I believe I've found a way to accomplish this using gdb, but in order to port my gdb command list, but I'm stuck on the step of getting the function pointer. I'm also open to alternatives to accomplish the same task rather than the exact problem as stated above Edit: After writing this I realized I can probably just do another dlopen on the file in my code and the symbols returned via dlsym on that handle should be the same as received via the original dlopen, If I'm reading the dlopen man page correctly. However I'm still interested in advice or assistance with the my larger context, If theres a better way to go about this

  Read the article

• What is the merit of the "function" type (not "pointer to function")

  - by anatolyg

  Reading the C++ Standard, i see that there are "function" types and "pointer to function" types: typedef int func(int); // function typedef int (*pfunc)(int); // pointer to function typedef func* pfunc; // same as above I have never seen the function types used outside of examples (or maybe i didn't recognize their usage?). Some examples: func increase, decrease; // declares two functions int increase(int), decrease(int); // same as above int increase(int x) {return x + 1;} // cannot use the typedef when defining functions int decrease(int x) {return x - 1;} // cannot use the typedef when defining functions struct mystruct { func add, subtract, multiply; // declares three member functions int member; }; int mystruct::add(int x) {return x + member;} // cannot use the typedef int mystruct::subtract(int x) {return x - member;} int main() { func k; // the syntax is correct but the variable k is useless! mystruct myobject; myobject.member = 4; cout << increase(5) << ' ' << decrease(5) << '\n'; // outputs 6 and 4 cout << myobject.add(5) << ' ' << myobject.subtract(5) << '\n'; // 9 and 1 } Seeing that the function types support syntax that doesn't appear in C (declaring member functions), i guess they are not just a part of C baggage that C++ has to support for backward compatibility. So is there any use for function types, other than demonstrating some funky syntax?

  Read the article

• Understanding C++ pointers (when they point to a pointer)

  - by Stephano

  I think I understand references and pointers pretty well. Here is what I (think I) know: int i = 5; //i is a primitive type, the value is 5, i do not know the address. int *ptr; //a pointer to an int. i have no way if knowing the value yet. ptr = &i; //now i have an address for the value of i (called ptr) *ptr = 10; //go get the value stored at ptr and change it to 10 Please feel free to comment or correct these statements. Now I'm trying to make the jump to arrays of pointers. Here is what I do not know: char **char_ptrs = new char *[50]; Node **node_ptrs = new Node *[50]; My understanding is that I have 2 arrays of pointers, one set of pointers to chars and one to nodes. So if I wanted to set the values, I would do something like this: char_ptrs[0] = new char[20]; node_ptrs[0] = new Node; Now I have a pointer, in the 0 position of my array, in each respective array. Again, feel free to comment here if I'm confused. So, what does the ** operator do? Likewise, what is putting a single * next to the instantiation doing (*[50])? (what is that called exactly, instantiation?)

  Read the article

• Strict pointer aliasing: is access through a 'volatile' pointer/reference a solution?

  - by doublep

  On the heels of a specific problem, a self-answer and comments to it, I'd like to understand if it is a proper solution, workaround/hack or just plain wrong. Specifically, I rewrote code: T x = ...; if (*reinterpret_cast <int*> (&x) == 0) ... As: T x = ...; if (*reinterpret_cast <volatile int*> (&x) == 0) ... with a volatile qualifier to the pointer. Let's just assume that treating T as int in my situation makes sense. Does this accessing through a volatile reference solve pointer aliasing problem? For a reference, from specification: [ Note: volatile is a hint to the implementation to avoid aggressive optimization involving the object because the value of the object might be changed by means undetectable by an implementation. See 1.9 for detailed semantics. In general, the semantics of volatile are intended to be the same in C++ as they are in C. — end note ] EDIT: The above code did solve my problem at least on GCC 4.5.

  Read the article

• Does Function pointer make the program slow?

  - by drigoSkalWalker

  Hi guys. I read about function pointers in C And everyone said that will make my program run slow. Is it true? I made a program to check it. And I got the same results on both cases. (mesure the time.) So, is it bad to use fuction pointer? Thanks in advance. To response for some guys. I said 'run slow' for the time that I have compared on a loop. like this. int end = 1000; int i = 0; while (i < end) { fp = func; fp (); } When you execute this, i got the same time if I execute this. while (i < end) { func (); } So I think that function pointer have no difference of time and it don't make a program run slow as many people said.

  Read the article

• pass a pointer of a class

  - by small_potato

  Say I have Class1 and Class2 and I want a shallow copy constructor for Class1. Class1 has a member variable, which is a pointer pointing to a Class2 instance. Also I have to be able to change the Class2 ptr is pointing at. in header file: class Class1 { Class2* ptr; ... } in source file: Class1::Class1() { ptr = new Class2(); } ...... Class2* Class1::Exchange(Class2* newClass2) { Class2* temp; ptr = newClass2; return temp; } ...... Now say Class1 original; Class1 shallowCopy(original); Class2* newClass2 = new Class2(); Class2* oldClass2; oldClass2 = orignal.Exchange(newClass2); delete oldClass2; now I want is associate original.ptr with shallowCopy.ptr, when I implement the shallow copy constructor, how do I make sure these two pointer always point at the same Class2? I mean in the class above, the oldClass2 is deleted, so ptr of shallowCopy is pointing at nothing. If I don't delete oldClass2, ptrs of original and shallowCopy are pointing at different Class2 instance.

  Read the article

• Static member function pointer to hold non static member function

  - by user1425406

  This has defeated me. I want to have a static class variable which is a pointer to a (non-static) member function. I've tried all sorts of ways, but with no luck (including using typedefs, which just seemed to give me a different set of errors). In the code below I have the static class function pointer funcptr, and I can call it successfully from outside the class, but not from within the member function CallFuncptr - which is what I want to do. Any suggestions? #include <stdio.h> class A { public: static int (A::*funcptr)(); int Four() { return 4;}; int CallFuncptr() { return (this->*funcptr)(); } // doesn't link - undefined reference to `A::funcptr' }; int (A::*funcptr)() = &A::Four; int main() { A fred; printf("four? %d\n", (fred.*funcptr)()); // This works printf("four? %d\n", fred.CallFuncptr()); // But this is the way I want to call it }

  Read the article

• Invalid Pointer Operation, advice requested with debugging

  - by Xanyx

  I appear to have created code that is trashing memory. Having never had such problems before, i am now settign an Invalid Pointer Operation. In the following the value of the const string sFilename gets trashed after my call to PromptForXYZPropertiesSettings. // Allow the user to quickly display the properties of XYZ without needing to display the full Editor function PromptForXYZProperties(const sFilename:string; var AXYZProperties: TXYZProperties): boolean; var PropEditor: TdlgEditor; begin PropEditor:= TdlgEditor.create(nil); try PropEditor.LoadFromFile(sFilename); Other Details: Delphi 2007, Windows 7 64 bit, but can reproduce when testing EXE on XP REMOVING CONST STOPS PROBLEM FROM EXHIBITING (but presumably the problem is thus just lurking) PropEditor.PromptForXYZPropertiesSettings creates and shows a form. If I disable the ShowModal call then the memory is not trashed. Even though i have REMOVED ALL CONTROLS AND CODE from the form So I would like some advice on how to debug the issue. I was thinking perhaps watching the memory pointer where the sFilename var exists to see where it gets trashed, but not sure how i would do that (obviously needs to be done within the app so is owned memory). Thanks

  Read the article

• pointer, malloc and char in C

  - by user2534078

  im trying to copy a const char array to some place in the memory and point to it . lets say im defining this var under the main prog : char *p = NULL; and sending it to a function with a string : myFunc(&p, "Hello"); now i want that at the end of this function the pointer will point to the letter H but if i puts() it, it will print Hello . here is what i tried to do : void myFunc(char** ptr , const char strng[] ) { *ptr=(char *) malloc(sizeof(strng)); char * tmp=*ptr; int i=0; while (1) { *ptr[i]=strng[i]; if (strng[i]=='\0') break; i++; } *ptr=tmp; } i know its a rubbish now, but i would like to understand how to do it right, my idea was to allocate the needed memory, copy a char and move forward with the pointer, etc.. also i tried to make the ptr argument byreferenec (like &ptr) but with no success due to a problem with the lvalue and rvalue . the only thing is changeable for me is the function, and i would like not to use strings, but chars as this is and exercise . thanks for any help in advance.

  Read the article

• C++ ulong to class method pointer and back

  - by Simone Margaritelli

  Hi guys, I'm using a hash table (source code by Google Inc) to store some method pointers defined as: typedef Object *(Executor::*expression_delegate_t)( vframe_t *, Node * ); Where obviously "Executor" is the class. The function prototype to insert some value to the hash table is: hash_item_t *ht_insert( hash_table_t *ht, ulong key, ulong data ); So basically i'm doing the insert double casting the method pointer: ht_insert( table, ASSIGN, reinterpret_cast<ulong>( (void *)&Executor::onAssign ) ); Where table is defined as a 'hash_table_t *' inside the declaration of the Executor class, ASSIGN is an unsigned long value, and 'onAssign' is the method I have to map. Now, Executor::onAssign is stored as an unsigned long value, its address in memory I think, and I need to cast back the ulong to a method pointer. But this code: hash_item_t* item = ht_find( table, ASSIGN ); expression_delegate_t delegate = reinterpret_cast < expression_delegate_t > (item->data); Gives me the following compilation error : src/executor.cpp:45: error: invalid cast from type ‘ulong’ to type ‘Object* (Executor::*)(vframe_t*, Node*)’ I'm using GCC v4.4.3 on a x86 GNU/Linux machine. Any hints?

  Read the article

• Cannot Convert from int[][] to int*

  - by cam

  I have a 3x3 array that I'm trying to create a pointer to and I keep getting this array, what gives? How do I have to define the pointer? I've tried every combination of [] and *. Is it possible to do this? int* pTemp = tempSec;

  Read the article

• How to get Ponter/Reference semantics in Scala.

  - by Lukasz Lew

  In C++ I would just take a pointer (or reference) to arr[idx]. In Scala I find myself creating this class to emulate a pointer semantic. class SetTo (val arr : Array[Double], val idx : Int) { def apply (d : Double) { arr(idx) = d } } Isn't there a simpler way? Doesn't Array class have a method to return some kind of reference to a particular field?

  Read the article

• Null Pointer Exception while using Java Compiler API

  - by java_geek

  MyClass.java: package test; public class MyClass { public void myMethod(){ System.out.println("My Method Called"); } } Listing for SimpleCompileTest.java that compiles the MyClass.java file. SimpleCompileTest.java: package test; import javax.tools.*; public class SimpleCompileTest { public static void main(String[] args) { String fileToCompile = "test" + java.io.File.separator +"MyClass.java"; JavaCompiler compiler = ToolProvider.getSystemJavaCompiler(); int compilationResult = compiler.run(null, null, null, fileToCompile); if(compilationResult == 0){ System.out.println("Compilation is successful"); }else{ System.out.println("Compilation Failed"); } } } I am executing the SimpleCompileTest class and getting a NullPointerException. The ToolProvider.getSystemJavaCompiler() is returning null. Can someone tell me what is wrong with the code

  Read the article

• pointer and reference question (linked lists)

  - by sil3nt

  Hi there, I have the following code struct Node { int accnumber; float balance; Node *next; }; Node *A, *B; int main() { A = NULL; B = NULL; AddNode(A, 123, 99.87); AddNode(B, 789, 52.64); etc… } void AddNode(Node * & listpointer, int a, float b) { // add a new node to the FRONT of the list Node *temp; temp = new Node; temp->accnumber = a; temp->balance = b; temp->next = listpointer; listpointer = temp; } in this here void AddNode(Node * & listpointer, int a, float b) { what does *& listpointer mean exactly.

  Read the article

• Mockito upgrade causes null pointer problems

  - by Ann Addicks

  We upgraded from mockito-all-1.8.5.jar to mockito-all-1.9.0.jar and now see null pointers when using annotations for the classes being mocked. Here is an example: @Mock private static IAccountManager accountManager; @Mock private static IBusinessUnitManager businessUnitManager; private static Gson parser; @InjectMocks private static DownloadController downloadController; @BeforeClass public static void setUpBeforeClass() throws Exception { parser = new Gson(); downloadController = new DownloadController(accountManager, businessUnitManager, parser); } @Before public void setUp() throws Exception { MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this); Mockito.reset(accountManager, businessUnitManager); } As soon as accountManager is referenced in the download controller, it throws a npe. This worked in 1.8.5.

  Read the article

• What wording in the C++ standard allows static_cast<non-void-type*>(malloc(N)); to work?

  - by ben

  As far as I understand the wording in 5.2.9 Static cast, the only time the result of a void*-to-object-pointer conversion is allowed is when the void* was a result of the inverse conversion in the first place. Throughout the standard there is a bunch of references to the representation of a pointer, and the representation of a void pointer being the same as that of a char pointer, and so on, but it never seems to explicitly say that casting an arbitrary void pointer yields a pointer to the same location in memory, with a different type, much like type-punning is undefined where not punning back to an object's actual type. So while malloc clearly returns the address of suitable memory and so on, there does not seem to be any way to actually make use of it, portably, as far as I have seen.

  Read the article

• Question of using static_cast on "this" pointer in a derived object to base class

  - by Johnyy

  Hi, this is an example taken from Effective C++ 3ed, it says that if the static_cast is used this way, the base part of the object is copied, and the call is invoked from that part. I wanted to understand what is happening under the hood, will anyone help? class Window { // base class public: virtual void onResize() { } // base onResize impl }; class SpecialWindow: public Window { // derived class public: virtual void onResize() { // derived onResize impl; static_cast<Window>(*this).onResize(); // cast *this to Window, // then call its onResize; // this doesn't work! // do SpecialWindow- } // specific stuff };

  Read the article

• Dangling pointer

  - by viswanathan

  Does this piece of code lead to dangling pointer. My guess is no. class Sample { public: int *ptr; Sample(int i) { ptr = new int(i); } ~Sample() { delete ptr; } void PrintVal() { cout << "The value is " << *ptr; } }; void SomeFunc(Sample x) { cout << "Say i am in someFunc " << endl; } int main() { Sample s1 = 10; SomeFunc(s1); s1.PrintVal(); }

  Read the article

• assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast

  - by mrblippy

  hi, i am trying to make a linked list and create some methods. but i am getting the error assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include "students.h" node_ptr create(void) { node_ptr students = (node_ptr) malloc(sizeof(struct node)); students->ID = 0; students->name = NULL; students->next = NULL; return students; } void insert_in_order(int n, node_ptr list) { node_ptr before = list; node_ptr new_node = (node_ptr) malloc(sizeof(struct node)); new_node->ID = n;//error is here i think while(before->next && (before->next->ID < n)) { before = before->next; } new_node->next = before->next; before->next = new_node; }

  Read the article

• Syncronizing indices of function pointer table to table contents

  - by Thomas Matthews

  In the embedded system I'm working on, we are using a table of function pointers to support proprietary Dynamic Libraries. We have a header file that uses named constants (#define) for the function pointer indices. These values are used in calculating the location in the table of the function's address. Example: *(export_table.c)* // Assume each function in the table has an associated declaration typedef void (*Function_Ptr)(void); Function_Ptr Export_Function_Table[] = { 0, Print, Read, Write, Process, }; Here is the header file: *export_table.h* #define ID_PRINT_FUNCTION 1 #define ID_READ_FUNCTION 2 #define ID_WRITE_FUNCTION 3 #define ID_PROCESS_FUNCTION 4 I'm looking for a scheme to define the named constants in terms of their location in the array so that when the order of the functions changes, the constants will also change. (Also, I would like the compiler or preprocessor to calculate the indices to avoid human mistakes like typeo's.)

  Read the article

• Pointer to another classs as a property

  - by arjacsoh

  Why I receive an error when I try to create a property to another class through a pointer like that: #ifndef SQUARE_H #define SQUARE_H #include <string> //using namespace std; #include "Player.h" class Square { public: Square(int); void process(); protected: int ID; Player* PlayerOn; <--- }; #endif and the Player class is : #ifndef PLAYER_H #define PLAYER_H #include <string> //using namespace std; #include "Square.h" class Player { public: Player(int,int); // ~Player(void); int playDice(); private: int ID; int money; }; #endif I receive: syntax error missing ; before * (on the declaration of Player* PlayerOn;) and missing type specifier (on the same line...)

  Read the article

• When convert a void pointer to a specific type pointer, which casting symbol is better, static_cast or reinterpret_cast?

  - by BugCreater

  A beginner question with poor English: Here I got a void* param and want to cast(or change) it to a specific type. But I don't know which "casting symbol" to use. Either**static_cast** and reinterpret_cast works. I want to know which one is better? which one does the Standard C++ recommend? typedef struct { int a; }A, *PA; int foo(void* a) // the real type of a is A* { A* pA = static_cast<A*>(a); // or A* pA = reinterpret_cast<A*>(a);? cout<<pA->a<<endl; return 0; } Here I use A* pA = static_cast(a); or A* pA = reinterpret_cast(a); is more proper?

  Read the article

• this pointer to base class constructor?

  - by Rolle

  I want to implement a derived class that should also implement an interface, that have a function that the base class can call. The following gives a warning as it is not safe to pass a this pointer to the base class constructor: struct IInterface { void FuncToCall() = 0; }; struct Base { Base(IInterface* inter) { m_inter = inter; } void SomeFunc() { inter->FuncToCall(); } IInterface* m_inter; }; struct Derived : Base, IInterface { Derived() : Base(this) {} FuncToCall() {} }; What is the best way around this? I need to supply the interface as an argument to the base constructor, as it is not always the dervied class that is the interface; sometimes it may be a totally different class. I could add a function to the base class, SetInterface(IInterface* inter), but I would like to avoid that.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >