Search Results

Search found 7666 results on 307 pages for 'pointer to member'.

Page 2/307 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Dereferencing the null pointer

    - by zilgo
    The standard says that dereferencing the null pointer leads to undefined behaviour. But what is "the null pointer"? In the following code, what we call "the null pointer": struct X { static X* get() { return reinterpret_cast<X*>(1); } void f() { } }; int main() { X* x = 0; (*x).f(); // the null pointer? (1) x = X::get(); (*x).f(); // the null pointer? (2) x = reinterpret_cast<X*>( X::get() - X::get() ); (*x).f(); // the null pointer? (3) (*(X*)0).f(); // I think that this the only null pointer here (4) } My thought is that dereferencing of the null pointer takes place only in the last case. Am I right? Is there difference between compile time null pointers and runtime according to C++ Standard?

    Read the article

  • [C++]Advantage of using a static member function instead of an equivalent non-static member function

    - by jonathanasdf
    I was wondering whether there's any advantages to using a static member function when there is a non-static equivalent. Will it result in faster execution (because of not having to care about all of the member variables), or maybe less use of memory (because of not being included in all instances)? Basically, the function I'm looking at is an utility function to rotate an integer array representing pixel colours an arbitrary number of degrees around an arbitrary centre point. It is placed in my abstract Bullet base class, since only the bullets will be using it and I didn't want the overhead of calling it in some utility class. It's a bit too long and used in every single derived bullet class, making it probably not a good idea to inline. How would you suggest I define this function? As a static member function of Bullet, of a non-static member function of Bullet, or maybe not as a member of Bullet but defined outside of the class in Bullet.h? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

    Read the article

  • How to manage member variable in C++

    - by rhapsodyn
    In brief, my question is about member variables as pointers in unmanaged C++. In java or c#, we have "advanced pointer". In fact, we can't aware the "pointer" in them. We usually initialize the member of a class like this: member = new Member(); or member = null; But in c++, it becomes more confusing. I have seen many styles: using new, or leave the member variable in stack. In my point of view, using boost::shared_ptr seems friendly, but in boost itself source code there are news everywhere. It's the matter of efficiency,isn't it? Is there a guildline like "try your best to avoid new" or something?

    Read the article

  • C++ Conceptual problem with (Pointer) Pointers

    - by Ptr
    I have a structure usually containing a pointer to an int. However, in some special cases, it is necessary that this int pointer points to another pointer which then points to an int. Wow: I mentioned the word pointer 5 times so far! Is this even possible? I thought about it that way: Instead of using a second int pointer, which is most likely not possible as my main int pointer can only point to an int and not to another int pointer, I could make it a reference like this: int intA = 1; int intB = 2; int& intC = intB; int* myPointers[ 123 ]; myPointers[ 0 ] = &intA; myPointers[ 1 ] = &intB; myPointers[ 3 ] = &intC; So the above would do what I want: The reference to intB (intC) behaves quite like I want it to (If it gets changed it also changes intB) The problem: I can't change references once they are set, right? Or is there a way? Everything in short: How do I get a value to work with * (pointers) and ** (pointers to pointers)?

    Read the article

  • Pointer Arithmetic & Signed / Unsigned Conversions!

    - by Jay
    Incase of pointer arithmetic, are the integers automatically converted to their signed variants? If yes, why? Suppose I do pointer + uiVal where pointer is a pointer to int and uiVal is initialized to -1, then I find that the address in pointers get decremented by 4. Why is the unsigned value of -1 not considered here?

    Read the article

  • Disable raid member check upon mount to mount damaged nvidia raid1 member

    - by Halfgaar
    Hi, A friend of mine destroyed his Nvidia RAID1 array somehow and in trying to fix it, he ended up with a non-working array. Because of the RAID metadata, the actual disk data was stored at an offset from the beginning. I was able to identify this offset with dd and a hexeditor and then I used losetup to create a loop device with the proper offset, so that I could mount the partition. It was then that I ran into problems, namely that mount says: "mount: unknown filesystem type 'nvidia_raid_member'". I also had this when trying to mount a Linux MD component the other day, and because I can remember that doing that in the past worked, I surmised that it may be some kind of protection. I therefore booted an old Sysrescue CD and tried it there, which worked (because of the older version of mount/libc/kernel/whatever). I still need to try to get more data, and because I don't want to keep using that SysrecueCD, I'd like to be able to mount the disk on my normal system. So, my question is: can the check for a disk being a raid member be disabled? I guess I could also zero out blocks that look like the raid block, but I'd rather not... I made an image of the disk with par2 data, so it's revertable, but still...

    Read the article

  • Can someone explain how pointer to pointer works?

    - by user3549560
    I don't really understand how the pointer to pointer works. Any way to do the same work without using pointer to pointer? struct customer{ char name[20]; char surname[20]; int code; float money; }; typedef struct customer customer; void inserts(customer **tmp) { *tmp = (customer*)malloc(sizeof(customer)); puts("Give me a customer name, surname code and money"); scanf("%s %s %d %f", (*tmp)->name, (*tmp)->surname, &(*tmp)->code,&(*tmp)->money); }

    Read the article

  • pointer pointer

    - by gcc
    why we using double pointer like char **p; are there any purpose ,if there is please tell me i read some books but none of them tells purpose(s) of pointer to pointer if we can write char *p; and char **p; i think we may write char ***p; or char ****p; am i wrong

    Read the article

  • Pointer Implementation Details in C

    - by Will Bickford
    I would like to know architectures which violate the assumptions I've listed below. Also I would like to know if any of the assumptions are false for all architectures (i.e. if any of them are just completely wrong). sizeof(int *) == sizeof(char *) == sizeof(void *) == sizeof(func_ptr *) The in-memory representation of all pointers for a given architecture is the same regardless of the data type pointed to. The in-memory representation of a pointer is the same as an integer of the same bit length as the architecture. Multiplication and division of pointer data types are only forbidden by the compiler. NOTE: Yes I know this is nonsensical. What I mean is - is there hardware support to forbid this incorrect usage? All pointer values can be casted to a single integer. In other words, what architectures still make use of segments and offsets? Incrementing a pointer is equivalent to adding sizeof(the pointed data type) to the memory address stored by the pointer. If p is an int32* then p+1 is equal to the memory address 4 bytes after p. I'm most used to pointers being used in a contiguous, virtual memory space. For that usage, I can generally get by thinking of them as addresses on a number line. See (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1350471/pointer-comparison/1350488#1350488).

    Read the article

  • Mouse pointer strange problem...

    - by pask
    Hi all, i have last ubuntu installed (10.10), but from an year and thousand updates, video drivers updates, an hundreds of tricks, the mouse pointer is showed like an UGLY square... These are the screenshots: http://www.albertopasca.it/temp/ubuntu_mouse_1.jpg http://www.albertopasca.it/temp/ubuntu_mouse_2.jpg I have no idea what to do to solve this problem. Anyone of you have an idea to solve it? thanks, A

    Read the article

  • why pointer to pointer is needed to allocate memory in function

    - by skydoor
    Hi I have a segmentation fault in the code below, but after I changed it to pointer to pointer, it is fine. Could anybody give me any reason? void memory(int * p, int size) { try{ p = (int *) malloc(size*sizeof(int)); } catch( exception& e) { cout<<e.what()<<endl; } } it does not work in the main function as blow int *p = 0; memory(p, 10); for(int i = 0 ; i < 10; i++) p[i] = i; however, it works like this . void memory(int ** p, int size) { `//pointer to pointer` try{ *p = (int *) malloc(size*sizeof(int)); } catch( exception& e) { cout<<e.what()<<endl; } } int main() { int *p = 0; memory(&p, 10); //get the address of the pointer for(int i = 0 ; i < 10; i++) p[i] = i; for(int i = 0 ; i < 10; i++) cout<<*(p+i)<<" "; return 0; }

    Read the article

  • C++: calling non-member functions with the same syntax of member ones

    - by peoro
    One thing I'd like to do in C++ is to call non-member functions with the same syntax you call member functions: class A { }; void f( A & this ) { /* ... */ } // ... A a; a.f(); // this is the same as f(a); Of course this could only work as long as f is not virtual (since it cannot appear in A's virtual table. f doesn't need to access A's non-public members. f doesn't conflict with a function declared in A (A::f). I'd like such a syntax because in my opinion it would be quite comfortable and would push good habits: calling str.strip() on a std::string (where strip is a function defined by the user) would sound a lot better than calling strip( str );. most of the times (always?) classes provide some member functions which don't require to be member (ie: are not virtual and don't use non-public members). This breaks encapsulation, but is the most practical thing to do (due to point 1). My question here is: what do you think of such feature? Do you think it would be something nice, or something that would introduce more issues than the ones it aims to solve? Could it make sense to propose such a feature to the next standard (the one after C++0x)? Of course this is just a brief description of this idea; it is not complete; we'd probably need to explicitly mark a function with a special keyword to let it work like this and many other stuff.

    Read the article

  • Get pointer to member function from within member function in C++

    - by Eli
    Currently in the program I am attempting to write I need to be able to get a pointer to a member function within a member function of the same class. The pointer needs to be passed to a function as a void (*)(). Example: //CallFunc takes a void (*)() argument class testClass { public: void aFunc2; void aFunc1; } void testClass:aFunc2(){ callFunc(this.*aFunc1); // How should this be done? } void testClass:aFunc1(){ int someVariable = 1; } I'm trying to do this in GCC 4.0.1. Also, the member function being called can't be static because it references non-static variables in the class that it is part of.

    Read the article

  • GCC, functions, and pointer arguments, warning behaviour

    - by James Morris
    I've recently updated to a testing distribution, which is now using GCC 4.4.3. Now I've set everything up, I've returned to coding and have built my project and I get one of these horrible messages: *** glibc detected *** ./boxyseq: free(): invalid pointer: 0x0000000001d873e8 *** I absolutely know what is wrong here, but was rather confused as to when I saw my C code where I call a function which frees a dynamically allocated data structure - I had passed it an incompatible pointer type - a pointer to a completely different data structure. warning: passing argument 1 of 'data_A_free' from incompatible pointer type note: expected 'struct data_A *' but argument is of type 'struct data_B *' I'm confused because I'm sure this would have been an error before and compilation would never have completed. Is this not just going to make life more difficult for C programmers? Can I change it back to an error without making a whole bunch of other warnings errors too? Or am I loosing the plot and it's always been a warning?

    Read the article

  • How many instructions to access pointer in C?

    - by Derek
    Hi All, I am trying to figure out how many clock cycles or total instructions it takes to access a pointer in C. I dont think I know how to figure out for example, p-x = d-a + f-b i would assume two loads per pointer, just guessing that there would be a load for the pointer, and a load for the value. So in this operations, the pointer resolution would be a much larger factor than the actual addition, as far as trying to speed this code up, right? This may depend on the compiler and architecture implemented, but am I on the right track? I have seen some code where each value used in say, 3 additions, came from a f2->sum = p1->p2->p3->x + p1->p2->p3->a + p1->p2->p3->m type of structure, and I am trying to define how bad this is

    Read the article

  • C Pointer Question: &(*struct->struct)

    - by NTek
    I have a struct defined with the structure as follows (names are different) struct str1 { int field1; struct str2; } And I have a *str1 in a function. I'd like to get a pointer to str2. So I tried &(str1->str2) and was hoping this would return a pointer to str2. Is this incorrect? It doesn't seem to be working. How would I get a pointer to str2 if given a pointer to str1?

    Read the article

  • What is "null pointer assignment error"?

    - by sharptooth
    One of job interview questions on C pointer here is the following: what is null pointer assignment error? I've googled for a while and don't see any reasonable explanation. What is that? Trying to write through a null pointer? Something architecture- or environment-specific? What exactly is that error?

    Read the article

  • How to const declare the this pointer sent as parameter

    - by Tomas
    Hi, I want to const declare the this pointer received as an argument. static void Class::func(const OtherClass *otherClass) { // use otherClass pointer to read, but not write to it. } It is being called like this: void OtherClass::func() { Class::func(this); } This does not compile nad if i dont const declare the OtherClass pointer, I can change it. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Start a thread using a method pointer

    - by Michael
    Hi ! I'm trying to develop a thread abstraction (POSIX thread and thread from the Windows API), and I would very much like it to be able to start them with a method pointer, and not a function pointer. What I would like to do is an abstraction of thread being a class with a pure virtual method "runThread", which would be implanted in the future threaded class. I don't know yet about the Windows thread, but to start a POSIX thread, you need a function pointer, and not a method pointer. And I can't manage to find a way to associate a method with an instance so it could work as a function. I probably just can't find the keywords (and I've been searching a lot), I think it's pretty much what Boost::Bind() does, so it must exist. Can you help me ?

    Read the article

  • [C++] Start a thread using a method pointer

    - by Michael
    Hi ! I'm trying to develop a thread abstraction (POSIX thread and thread from the Windows API), and I would very much like it to be able to start them with a method pointer, and not a function pointer. What I would like to do is an abstraction of thread being a class with a pure virtual method "runThread", which would be implanted in the future threaded class. I don't know yet about the Windows thread, but to start a POSIX thread, you need a function pointer, and not a method pointer. And I can't manage to find a way to associate a method with an instance so it could work as a function. I probably just can't find the keywords (and I've been searching a lot), I think it's pretty much what Boost::Bind() does, so it must exist. Can you help me ?

    Read the article

  • pointer as second argument instead of returning pointer?

    - by Tyler
    I noticed that it is a common idiom in C to accept an un-malloced pointer as a second argument instead of returning a pointer. Example: /*function prototype*/ void create_node(node_t* new_node, void* _val, int _type); /* implementation */ node_t* n; create_node(n, &someint, INT) Instead of /* function prototype */ node_t* create_node(void* _val, int _type) /* implementation */ node_t* n = create_node(&someint, INT) What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of both approaches? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Base class pointer vs inherited class pointer?

    - by Goose Bumper
    Suppose I have a class Dog that inherits from a class Animal. What is the difference between these two lines of code? Animal *a = new Dog(); Dog *d = new Dog(); In one, the pointer is for the base class, and in the other, the pointer is for the derived class. But when would this distinction become important? For polymorphism, either one would work exactly the same, right?

    Read the article

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