Search Results

Search found 3512 results on 141 pages for 'circular buffer'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/141 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • What sort of Circular Dependencies does Oracle allow?

    - by Neil
    Hi all, I am creating test cases and I need to cover circular dependencies. So far I have been able to create two tables such that Table A has a FK to B and B has a FK to A. What other circular dependencies exist / are allowed between objects? I tried to create cycles between Views but Oracle successfully rejected that.

    Read the article

  • How to determine the used size of device associated's buffer

    - by dubbaluga
    Hi, when mounting a device without the "sync" option, e. g. by invoking the following: mount -o async /dev/sdc1 /mnt a buffer is associated with a device to optimize (speed) read/write operations. Is there a way to determine the size of this buffer? Another question that comes into my mind is, if it's possible to find out how much of it is used currently. This can be interesting to determine the time it would take to "sync" or "umount" slow devices, such as flash-based media. Thanks in advance for your answers, Rainer

    Read the article

  • Switching to some emacs shell buffers moves the cursor to the beginning of the buffer

    - by yuvilio
    I run Emacs 24 with prelude and a few shells that i invoke at the start ( e.g.: (shell "*shell*_spare") ). When i switch to some of them (C-x b), my cursor lands at the beginning of the buffer, rather than when it last left off (typically the end of the buffer after the last command I ran). The strange thing is that this does not happen for all the shell buffers that I set up in the same way but with different names. When I switch to them, the cursor is where it last left off. Any ideas how I can make the cursor always be where it last was or at the bottom?

    Read the article

  • Creating circular generic references

    - by M. Jessup
    I am writing an application to do some distributed calculations in a peer to peer network. In defining the network I have two class the P2PNetwork and P2PClient. I want these to be generic and so have the definitions of: P2PNetwork<T extends P2PClient<? extends P2PNetwork<T>>> P2PClient<T extends P2PNetwork<? extends T>> with P2PClient defining a method of setNetwork(T network). What I am hoping to describe with this code is: A P2PNetwork is constituted of clients of a certain type A P2PClient may only belong to a network whose clients consist of the same type as this client (the circular-reference) This seems correct to me but if I try to create a non-generic version such as MyP2PClient<MyP2PNetwork<? extends MyP2PClient>> myClient; and other variants I receive numerous errors from the compiler. So my questions are as follows: Is a generic circular reference even possible (I have never seen anything explicitly forbidding it)? Is the above generic definition a correct definition of such a circular relationship? If it is valid, is it the "correct" way to describe such a relationship (i.e. is there another valid definition, which is stylistically preferred)? How would I properly define a non-generic instance of a Client and Server given the proper generic definition?

    Read the article

  • Illustration of buffer overflows for students (linux, C)

    - by osgx
    Hello My friend is teacher of first-year CS students. We want to show them buffer overflow exploitation. But modern distribs are protected from simples buffer overflows: HOME=`perl -e "print 'A'x269"` one_widely_used_utility_is_here --help on debian (blame it) Caught signal 11, on modern commercial redhat *** buffer overflow detected ***: /usr/bin/one_widely_used_utility_is_here terminated ======= Backtrace: ========= /lib/libc.so.6(__chk_fail+0x41)[0xc321c1] /lib/libc.so.6(__strcpy_chk+0x43)[0xc315e3] /usr/bin/one_widely_used_utility_is_here[0x805xxxc] /usr/bin/one_widely_used_utility_is_here[0x804xxxc] /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xdc)[0xb61e9c] /usr/bin/one_widely_used_utility_is_here[0x804xxx1] ======= Memory map: ======== 00336000-00341000 r-xp 00000000 08:02 2751047 /lib/libgcc_s-4.1.2-20080825.so.1 00341000-00342000 rwxp 0000a000 08:02 2751047 /lib/libgcc_s-4.1.2-20080825.so.1 008f3000-008f4000 r-xp 008f3000 00:00 0 [vdso] The same detector fails for more synthetic examples from the internet. How can we demonstrate buffer overflow with modern non-GPL distribs (there is no debian in classes) How can we DISABLE canary word checking in stack ? DISABLE checking variants of strcpy/strcat ? write an example (in plain C) with working buffer overrun ?

    Read the article

  • What's wrong with circular references?

    - by dash-tom-bang
    I was involved in a programming discussion today where I made some statements that basically assumed axiomatically that circular references (between modules, classes, whatever) are generally bad. Once I got through with my pitch, my coworker asked, "what's wrong with circular references?" I've got strong feelings on this, but it's hard for me to verbalize concisely and concretely. Any explanation that I may come up with tends to rely on other items that I too consider axioms ("can't use in isolation, so can't test", "unknown/undefined behavior as state mutates in the participating objects", etc.), but I'd love to hear a concise reason for why circular references are bad that don't take the kinds of leaps of faith that my own brain does, having spent many hours over the years untangling them to understand, fix, and extend various bits of code. Edit: I am not asking about homogenous circular references, like those in a doubly-linked list or pointer-to-parent. This question is really asking about "larger scope" circular references, like libA calling libB which calls back to libA. Substitute 'module' for 'lib' if you like. Thanks for all of the answers so far!

    Read the article

  • C - circular character buffer w/ pthreads

    - by Matt
    I have a homework assignment where I have to implement a circular buffer and add and remove chars with separate threads: #include <pthread.h> #include <stdio.h> #define QSIZE 10 pthread_cond_t full,/* count == QSIZE */ empty,/* count == 0 */ ready; pthread_mutex_t m, n; /* implements critical section */ unsigned int iBuf, /* tail of circular queue */ oBuf; /* head of circular queue */ int count; /* count characters */ char buf [QSIZE]; /* the circular queue */ void Put(char s[]) {/* add "ch"; wait if full */ pthread_mutex_lock(&m); int size = sizeof(s)/sizeof(char); printf("size: %d", size); int i; for(i = 0; i < size; i++) { while (count >= QSIZE) pthread_cond_wait(&full, &m);/* is there empty slot? */ buf[iBuf] = s[i]; /* store the character */ iBuf = (iBuf+1) % QSIZE; /* increment mod QSIZE */ count++; if (count == 1) pthread_cond_signal(&empty);/* new character available */ } pthread_mutex_unlock(&m); } char Get() {/* remove "ch" from queue; wait if empty */ char ch; pthread_mutex_lock(&m); while (count <= 0) pthread_cond_wait(&empty, &m);/* is a character present? */ ch = buf[oBuf]; /* retrieve from the head of the queue */ oBuf = (oBuf+1) % QSIZE; count--; if (count == QSIZE-1) pthread_cond_signal(&full);/* signal existence of a slot */ pthread_mutex_unlock(&m); return ch; } void * p1(void *arg) { int i; for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Put("hella"); } } void * p2(void *arg) { int i; for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Put("goodby"); } } int main() { pthread_t t1, t2; void *r1, *r2; oBuf = 0; iBuf = 0; count=0; /* all slots are empty */ pthread_cond_init(&full, NULL); pthread_cond_init(&empty, NULL); pthread_mutex_init(&m, NULL); pthread_create(&t1, NULL, p1, &r1); pthread_create(&t2, NULL, p2, &r2); printf("Main"); char c; int i = 0; while (i < 55) { c = Get(); printf("%c",c); i++; } pthread_join(t1, &r1); pthread_join(t2, &r2); return 0; } I shouldn't have to change the logic much at all, the requirements are pretty specific. I think my problem lies in the Put() method. I think the first thread is going in and blocking the critical section and causing a deadlock. I was thinking I should make a scheduling attribute? Of course I could be wrong. I am pretty new to pthreads and concurrent programming, so I could really use some help spotting my error.

    Read the article

  • How to prevent buffer overflow in C/C++?

    - by alexpov
    Hello, i am using the following code to redirect stdout to a pipe, then read all the data from the pipe to a buffer. I have 2 problems: first problem: when i send a string (after redirection) bigger then the pipe's BUFF_SIZE, the program stops responding (deadlock or something). second problem: when i try to read from a pipe before something was sent to stdout. I get the same response, the program stops responding - _read command stuck's ... The issue is that i don't know the amount of data that will be sent to the pipe after the redirection. The first problem, i don't know how to handle and i'll be glad for help. The second problem i solved by a simple workaround, right after the redirection i print space character to stdout. but i guess that this solution is not the correct one ... #include <fcntl.h> #include <io.h> #include <iostream> #define READ 0 #define WRITE 1 #define BUFF_SIZE 5 using namespace std; int main() { int stdout_pipe[2]; int saved_stdout; saved_stdout = _dup(_fileno(stdout)); // save stdout if(_pipe(stdout_pipe,BUFF_SIZE, O_TEXT) != 0 ) // make a pipe { exit(1); } fflush( stdout ); if(_dup2(stdout_pipe[1], _fileno(stdout)) != 0 ) //redirect stdout to the pipe { exit(1); } ios::sync_with_stdio(); setvbuf( stdout, NULL, _IONBF, 0 ); //anything sent to stdout goes now to the pipe //printf(" ");//workaround for the second problem printf("123456");//first problem char buffer[BUFF_SIZE] = {0}; int nOutRead = 0; nOutRead = _read(stdout_pipe[READ], buffer, BUFF_SIZE); //second problem buffer[nOutRead] = '\0'; // reconnect stdout if (_dup2(saved_stdout, _fileno(stdout)) != 0 ) { exit(1); } ios::sync_with_stdio(); printf("buffer: %s\n", buffer); } Thanks, Alex

    Read the article

  • BitBlting multiple images to buffer

    - by Anonymous
    So I've made a class which draws a transparant image to a buffer. the buffer is a HDC which has been used blackness on. What I am trying to do is draw three images to this buffer. Which means I am using this function three times. After that's done, I output it to the screen (using SRCCOPYing the buffer). But what I get to see is just the third image and blackness. void draw_buffer(HDC buffer, int draw_x, int draw_y) { BitBlt(this-main, draw_x, draw_y, this-img_width, this-img_height, this-image, this-mask_x, this-mask_y, SRCAND); BitBlt(this-main, draw_x, draw_y, this-img_width, this-img_height, this-image, this-img_x, this-img_y, SRCPAINT); BitBlt(buffer, 0, 0, 800, 600, this-main, 0, 0, SRCCOPY); } At initiation, this-main becomes this: this->main = CreateCompatibleDC(GetDC(0)); this->bitmap = CreateCompatibleBitmap(GetDC(0),800,600); SelectObject(this->main, this->bitmap); What is wrong with my code?

    Read the article

  • Avoiding circular project/assembly references in Visual Studio with statically typed dependency conf

    - by svnpttrssn
    First, I want to say that I am not interested in debating about any non-helpful "answers" to my question, with suggestions to putting everything in one assembly, i.e. there is no need for anyone to provide webpages such as the page titled with "Separate Assemblies != Loose Coupling". Now, my question is if it somehow (maybe with some Visual Studio configuration to allow for circular project dependencies?) is possible to use one project/assembly (I am here calling it the "ServiceLocator" assembly) for retrieving concrete implementation classes, (e.g. with StructureMap) which can be referred to from other projects, while it of course is also necessary for the the ServiceLocator itself to refer to other projects with the interfaces and the implementations ? Visual Studio project example, illustrating the kind of dependency structure I am talking about: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8838/testingdependencyinject.png Please note in the above picture, the problem is how to let the classes in "ApplicationLayerServiceImplementations" retrieve and instantiate classes that implement the interfaces in "DomainLayerServiceInterfaces". The goal is here to not refer directly to the classes in "DomainLayerServiceImplementations", but rather to try using the project "ServiceLocator" to retrieve such classes, but then the circular dependency problem occurrs... For example, a "UserInterfaceLayer" project/assembly might contain this kind of code: ContainerBootstrapper.BootstrapStructureMap(); // located in "ServiceLocator" project/assembly MyDomainLayerInterface myDomainLayerInterface = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<MyDomainLayerInterface>(); // refering to project/assembly "DomainLayerServiceInterfaces" myDomainLayerInterface.MyDomainLayerMethod(); MyApplicationLayerInterface myApplicationLayerInterface = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<MyApplicationLayerInterface>(); // refering to project/assembly "ApplicationLayerServiceInterfaces" myApplicationLayerInterface.MyApplicationLayerMethod(); The above code do not refer to the implementation projects/assemblies ApplicationLayerServiceImplementations and DomainLayerServiceImplementations, which contain this kind of code: public class MyApplicationLayerImplementation : MyApplicationLayerInterface and public class MyDomainLayerImplementation : MyDomainLayerInterface The "ServiceLocator" project/assembly might contain this code: using ApplicationLayerServiceImplementations; using ApplicationLayerServiceInterfaces; using DomainLayerServiceImplementations; using DomainLayerServiceInterfaces; using StructureMap; namespace ServiceLocator { public static class ContainerBootstrapper { public static void BootstrapStructureMap() { ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => { // The two interfaces and the two implementations below are located in four different Visual Studio projects x.ForRequestedType<MyDomainLayerInterface>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<MyDomainLayerImplementation>(); x.ForRequestedType<MyApplicationLayerInterface>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<MyApplicationLayerImplementation>(); }); } } } So far, no problem, but the problem occurs when I want to let the class "MyApplicationLayerImplementation" in the project/assembly "ApplicationLayerServiceImplementations" use the "ServiceLocator" project/assembly for retrieving an implementation of "MyDomainLayerInterface". When I try to do that, i.e. add a reference from "MyApplicationLayerImplementation" to "ServiceLocator", then Visual Studio complains about circular dependencies between projects. Is there any nice solution to this problem, which does not imply using refactoring-unfriendly string based xml-configuration which breaks whenever an interface or class or its namespace is renamed ? / Sven

    Read the article

  • who free's setvbuf buffer?

    - by Evan Teran
    So I've been digging into how the stdio portion of libc is implemented and I've come across another question. Looking at man setvbuf I see the following: When the first I/O operation occurs on a file, malloc(3) is called, and a buffer is obtained. This makes sense, your program should have a malloc in it for I/O unless you actually use it. My gut reaction to this is that libc will clean up its own mess here. Which I can only assume it does because valgrind reports no memory leaks (they could of course do something dirty and not allocate it via malloc directly... but we'll assume that it literally uses malloc for now). But, you can specify your own buffer too... int main() { char *p = malloc(100); setvbuf(stdio, p, _IOFBF, 100); puts("hello world"); } Oh no, memory leak! valgrind confirms it. So it seems that whenever stdio allocates a buffer on its own, it will get deleted automatically (at the latest on program exit, but perhaps on stream close). But if you specify the buffer explicitly, then you must clean it up yourself. There is a catch though. The man page also says this: You must make sure that the space that buf points to still exists by the time stream is closed, which also happens at program termination. For example, the following is invalid: Now this is getting interesting for the standard streams. How would one properly clean up a manually allocated buffer for them, since they are closed in program termination? I could imagine a "clean this up when I close flag" inside the file struct, but it get hairy because if I read this right doing something like this: setvbuf(stdio, 0, _IOFBF, 100); printf("hello "); setvbuf(stdio, 0, _IOLBF, 100); printf("world\n"); would cause 2 allocations by the standard library because of this sentence: If the argument buf is NULL, only the mode is affected; a new buffer will be allocated on the next read or write operation.

    Read the article

  • [ebp + 6] instead of +8 in a JIT compiler

    - by David Titarenco
    I'm implementing a simplistic JIT compiler in a VM I'm writing for fun (mostly to learn more about language design) and I'm getting some weird behavior, maybe someone can tell me why. First I define a JIT "prototype" both for C and C++: #ifdef __cplusplus typedef void* (*_JIT_METHOD) (...); #else typedef (*_JIT_METHOD) (); #endif I have a compile() function that will compile stuff into ASM and stick it somewhere in memory: void* compile (void* something) { // grab some memory unsigned char* buffer = (unsigned char*) malloc (1024); // xor eax, eax // inc eax // inc eax // inc eax // ret -> eax should be 3 /* WORKS! buffer[0] = 0x67; buffer[1] = 0x31; buffer[2] = 0xC0; buffer[3] = 0x67; buffer[4] = 0x40; buffer[5] = 0x67; buffer[6] = 0x40; buffer[7] = 0x67; buffer[8] = 0x40; buffer[9] = 0xC3; */ // xor eax, eax // mov eax, 9 // ret 4 -> eax should be 9 /* WORKS! buffer[0] = 0x67; buffer[1] = 0x31; buffer[2] = 0xC0; buffer[3] = 0x67; buffer[4] = 0xB8; buffer[5] = 0x09; buffer[6] = 0x00; buffer[7] = 0x00; buffer[8] = 0x00; buffer[9] = 0xC3; */ // push ebp // mov ebp, esp // mov eax, [ebp + 6] ; wtf? shouldn't this be [ebp + 8]!? // mov esp, ebp // pop ebp // ret -> eax should be the first value sent to the function /* WORKS! */ buffer[0] = 0x66; buffer[1] = 0x55; buffer[2] = 0x66; buffer[3] = 0x89; buffer[4] = 0xE5; buffer[5] = 0x66; buffer[6] = 0x66; buffer[7] = 0x8B; buffer[8] = 0x45; buffer[9] = 0x06; buffer[10] = 0x66; buffer[11] = 0x89; buffer[12] = 0xEC; buffer[13] = 0x66; buffer[14] = 0x5D; buffer[15] = 0xC3; // mov eax, 5 // add eax, ecx // ret -> eax should be 50 /* WORKS! buffer[0] = 0x67; buffer[1] = 0xB8; buffer[2] = 0x05; buffer[3] = 0x00; buffer[4] = 0x00; buffer[5] = 0x00; buffer[6] = 0x66; buffer[7] = 0x01; buffer[8] = 0xC8; buffer[9] = 0xC3; */ return buffer; } And finally I have the main chunk of the program: void main (int argc, char **args) { DWORD oldProtect = (DWORD) NULL; int i = 667, j = 1, k = 5, l = 0; // generate some arbitrary function _JIT_METHOD someFunc = (_JIT_METHOD) compile(NULL); // windows only #if defined _WIN64 || defined _WIN32 // set memory permissions and flush CPU code cache VirtualProtect(someFunc,1024,PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE, &oldProtect); FlushInstructionCache(GetCurrentProcess(), someFunc, 1024); #endif // this asm just for some debugging/testing purposes __asm mov ecx, i // run compiled function (from wherever *someFunc is pointing to) l = (int)someFunc(i, k); // did it work? printf("result: %d", l); free (someFunc); _getch(); } As you can see, the compile() function has a couple of tests I ran to make sure I get expected results, and pretty much everything works but I have a question... On most tutorials or documentation resources, to get the first value of a function passed (in the case of ints) you do [ebp+8], the second [ebp+12] and so forth. For some reason, I have to do [ebp+6] then [ebp+10] and so forth. Could anyone tell me why?

    Read the article

  • Usage of current-buffer in emacs?

    - by Zubair
    I'm using emacs and I have written a script which uses "current-buffer". However the emacs system doesn't recognise "current-buffer". When I try "M - x current-buffer" i get the response: no match : Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • StructureMap problems with bidirectional/circular dependencies

    - by leozilla
    I am currently integrating StructureMap within our business layer but have problems because of bidirectional dependencies. The layer contains multiple manager where each manager can call methods on each other, there are no restrictions or rules for communication. This also includes possible circular dependencies like in the example below. I know the design itself is questionable but currently we just want StructureMap to work and will focus on further refactoring in the future. Every manager implements the IManager interface internal interface IManager { bool IsStarted { get; } void Start(); void Stop(); } And does also have his own specific interface. internal interface IManagerA : IManager { void ALogic(); } internal interface IManagerB : IManager { void BLogic(); } Here are to dummy manager implementations. internal class ManagerA : IManagerA { public IManagerB ManagerB { get; set; } public void ALogic() { } public bool IsStarted { get; private set; } public void Start() { } public void Stop() { } } internal class ManagerB : IManagerB { public IManagerA ManagerA { get; set; } public void BLogic() { } public bool IsStarted { get; private set; } public void Start() { } public void Stop() { } } Here is the StructureMap configuration i use atm. I am still not sure how i should register the managers so currently i use a manual registration. Maybee someone could help me with this too. For<IManagerA>().Singleton().Use<ManagerA>(); For<IManagerB>().Singleton().Use<ManagerB>(); SetAllProperties(convention => { // configure the property injection for all managers convention.Matching(prop => typeof(IManager).IsAssignableFrom(prop.PropertyType)); }); After all i cannot create IManagerA because StructureMap complians about the circular dependency between ManagerA and ManagerB. Is there an easy and clean solution to solve this problem but keep to current design? br David

    Read the article

  • typedef struct, circular dependency, forward definitions

    - by BlueChip
    The problem I have is a circular dependency issue in C header files ...Having looked around I suspect the solution will have something to do with Forward Definitions, but although there are many similar problems listed, none seem to offer the information I require to resolve this one... I have the following 5 source files: // fwd1.h #ifndef __FWD1_H #define __FWD1_H #include "fwd2.h" typedef struct Fwd1 { Fwd2 *f; } Fwd1; void fwd1 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) ; #endif // __FWD1_H . // fwd1.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" void fwd1 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) { return; } . // fwd2.h #ifndef __FWD2_H #define __FWD2_H #include "fwd1.h" typedef struct Fwd2 { Fwd1 *f; } Fwd2; void fwd2 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) ; #endif // __FWD2_H . // fwd2.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" void fwd2 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) { return; } . // fwdMain.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" int main (int argc, char** argv, char** env) { Fwd1 *f1 = (Fwd1*)0; Fwd2 *f2 = (Fwd2*)0; fwd1(f1, f2); fwd2(f1, f2); return 0; } Which I am compiling with the command: gcc fwdMain.c fwd1.c fwd2.c -o fwd -Wall I have tried several ideas to resolve the compile errors, but have only managed to replace the errors with other errors ...How do I resolve the circular dependency issue with the least changes to my code? ...Ideally, as a matter of coding style, I would like to avoid putting the word "struct" all over my code.

    Read the article

  • Make circular joystick

    - by Jaba
    How do I make a joystick like the one in i dig it, using UIImageView's that the smaller one can be used to move around, I just really would like to know how I would get the smaller UIImageView to stay inside the larger one, I just don't know how I would do this because they are both circular. I have an Image below:

    Read the article

  • iPhone Circular Progress Indicator

    - by Ward
    I'm trying to create a circular progress indicator like Shazam. It will represent progress during recording. There will be a finite amount of time and I want it to react to the sound level like Shazam's does. Any clues where to begin? Thanks

    Read the article

  • a design to avoid circular reference in this scenario

    - by BDotA
    Here is our dependency tree: BigApp - Child Apps - Libraries ALL of our components are HEAVILY using one of the Libraries as above ( LibA). But it has a ‘few’ public methods that require classes from ‘higher-level’ assemblies and we want to avoid CIRCULAR references. What do you propose as a good design for this?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >