Search Results

Search found 35 results on 2 pages for 'deadmg'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

  • C++ template overloading - wrong function called

    - by DeadMG
    template<typename T> T* Push(T* ptr); template<typename T> T* Push(T& ref); template<typename T, typename T1> T* Push(T1&& ref); I have int i = 0; Push<int>(i); But the compiler calls it ambiguous. How is that ambiguous? The second function is clearly the preferred match since it's more specialized. Especially since the T1&& won't bind to an lvalue unless I explicitly forward/move it. Sorry - i is an int. Otherwise, the question would make no sense, and I thought people would infer it since it's normally the loop iterator.

    Read the article

  • Re-ordering C++ template functions

    - by DeadMG
    In C++, I have a certain template function that, on a given condition, calls a template function in another class. The trouble is that the other class requires the full definition of the first class to be implemented, as it creates the second class and stores them and manages them in similar fashions. The trouble is that naturally, they fall as one class, and thus have some tight interop, except that I need them to be two classes for threading reasons. A sort of, master for all threads, one child per thread, system. Any advice on how this can be implemented?

    Read the article

  • Unicode string handling using Windows API

    - by DeadMG
    I always assumed that Unicode string handling was some dark art. However, I've seen that the Windows API has functions for comparing Unicode strings, for example. Does that mean that it's actually feasible to write a Unicode string class that can perform simple actions like sorting, equality comparison, and extraction from a file? Or are there hidden gotchas in the use of these functions that makes it actually a really bad idea? I'm just looking at libraries like ICU and they seem incredibly over-complicated compared to what a Unicode string class backed by the Windows API could actually look like, which would resemble the Standard string classes quite closely.

    Read the article

  • Performance issue between builds

    - by DeadMG
    I've been developing a small indie game in my spare time and have run across an inexplicable issue. Some builds of the game will randomly run several hundred frames per second slower than other builds. For example, when rendering some text and no 3D scene, I can achieve 1800FPS on my own hardware. Add one 3D sphere (10k verts, pixel shaded), achieve 1700 FPS. Add two more spheres, achieve 800 FPS. Remove all spheres, achieve 1100FPS- even though the code now renders the same scene as I previously achieved at 1800FPS, which is just the FPS counter being rendered. I've tried rebuilding and cleaning the project and rebooting the compiler. This is in Release mode and I turned on all the optimizations I could find. Any suggestions as to the cause? I ran a quick profile, and Visual Studio seems to think that over 90% of my time was spent in D3D9_43.dll, suggesting that it's not a bug in my app, which doesn't explain why it manifests in only some builds. I rebooted my machine and it's back up to 1800FPS. I think it's a bug in the DirectX SDK tools (amongst many others). Going to delete this question.

    Read the article

  • enable_shared_from_this and inheritance

    - by DeadMG
    I've got a type which inherits from enable_shared_from_this<type>, and another type that inherits from this type. Now I can't use the shared_from_this method because it returns the base type and in a specific derived class method I need the derived type. Is it valid to just construct a shared_ptr from this directly? Edit: In a related question, how can I move from an rvalue of type shared_ptr<base> to a type of shared_ptr<derived>? I used dynamic_cast to verify that it really was the correct type, but now I can't seem to accomplish the actual move.

    Read the article

  • Problem with non-copyable classes

    - by DeadMG
    I've got some non-copyable classes. I don't invoke any of the copy operators or constructor, and this code compiles fine. But then I upgraded to Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate instead of Professional. Now the compiler is calling the copy constructor- even when the move constructor should be invoked. For example, in the following snippet: inline D3D9Mesh CreateSphere(D3D9Render& render, float radius, float slices) { D3D9Mesh retval(render); /* ... */ return std::move(retval); } Error: Cannot create copy constructor, because the class is non-copyable. However, I quite explicitly moved it.

    Read the article

  • Pointer aliasing- in C++0x

    - by DeadMG
    I'm thinking about (just as an idea) disjointed pointer aliasing in C++0x. I was thinking about seeing if it could be implemented similarly to const correctness- that is, enforced by the compiler. What would be the requirements for such a thing? As this is more of a thought experiment, I'm perfectly happy to look at solutions that destroy legacy code or redefine half the language and that kind of thing. What I'd really rather not do is have, say, restrict from C99 where the programmer just promises it. It should be enforced.

    Read the article

  • Catch test case order [on hold]

    - by DeadMG
    Can I guarantee the order of execution with multiple TEST_CASEs with Catch? I am testing some code using LLVM, and they have some despicable global state that I need to explicitly initialize. Right now I have one test case that's like this: TEST_CASE("", "") { // Initialize really shitty LLVM global variables. llvm::InitializeAllTargets(); llvm::InitializeAllTargetMCs(); llvm::InitializeAllAsmPrinters(); llvm::InitializeNativeTarget(); llvm::InitializeAllAsmParsers(); // Some per-test setup I can make into its own function CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Interpret(...)); CHECK_THROWS(Compile(...)); CHECK_THROWS(Compile(...)); } What I want is to refactor it into three TEST_CASE, one for tests that should pass compilation, one for tests that should fail, and -one for tests that should pass interpretation (and in the future, further such divisions, perhaps). But I can't simply move the test contents into another TEST_CASE because if that TEST_CASE is called before the one that sets up the inconvenient globals, then they won't be initialized and the testing will spuriously fail.

    Read the article

  • SDL & Windows 8 Metro WinRT

    - by Adrian
    I am just beginning to dip my tow into game programming and have been reading up on SDL, SFML, OpenGL, XNA, MonoGame and of course DirectX. (Needless to say there are a lot of choices out there) As much as I like SFMLs syntax I have chosen to read up and start with SDL as it is pretty ubiquitous and available on every platform (Windows, Linux, Mac) and also available on portable devices (Android, iOS) with the current exception of WinPhone 7 After that pre-amble here is my question. I notice that the docs say that for the windows platform the SDL API calls through to DirectX for higher perf. ( http://www.libsdl.org/intro.en/whatplatforms.html ) Microsoft have said that for Metro Game Apps you can only use DirectX (which means no XNA, no OpenGL, no SFML, etc, etc) My question is: If SDL just wraps DirectX calls will I (we) be able to use SDL to bring games to the new Metro WinRT environment and Windows 8 marketplace? This would be great if possible. Additionally as WinPhone 8 is supposedly built on Win8 then this could mean SDL would be available on the win phone in the future too. Thanks for your time in responding to this question and I look forward to hearing your response. EDIT: Based on DeadMG's answer I have installed Visual Studio 11 (beta) in Windows 8 Consumer Preview (CP) and went file-New to check project types. The project types: "Blank Application", "Direct2D Application" and "Direct3D Application" look of interest. I have selected "Direct2D App" but SDL generates its own window when you call: SDL_INIT Is it possible to link/setup the SDL window to point to the Direct2D surface in the this project?

    Read the article

  • Implementing comparision operators via 'tuple' and 'tie', a good idea?

    - by Xeo
    (Note: tuple and tie can be taken from Boost or C++11.) When writing small structs with only two elements, I sometimes tend to choose a std::pair, as all important stuff is already done for that datatype, like operator< for strict-weak-ordering. The downsides though are the pretty much useless variable names. Even if I myself created that typedef, I won't remember 2 days later what first and what second exactly was, especially if they are both of the same type. This gets even worse for more than two members, as nesting pairs pretty much sucks. The other option for that is a tuple, either from Boost or C++11, but that doesn't really look any nicer and clearer. So I go back to writing the structs myself, including any needed comparision operators. Since especially the operator< can be quite cumbersome, I thought of circumventing this whole mess by just relying on the operations defined for tuple: Example of operator<, e.g. for strict-weak-ordering: bool operator<(MyStruct const& lhs, MyStruct const& rhs){ return std::tie(lhs.one_member, lhs.another, lhs.yet_more) < std::tie(rhs.one_member, rhs.another, rhs.yet_more); } (tie makes a tuple of T& references from the passed arguments.) Edit: The suggestion from @DeadMG to privately inherit from tuple isn't a bad one, but it got quite some drawbacks: If the operators are free-standing (possibly friends), I need to inherit publicly With casting, my functions / operators (operator= specifically) can be easily bypassed With the tie solution, I can leave out certain members if they don't matter for the ordering Are there any drawbacks in this implementation that I need to consider?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2