Search Results

Search found 23792 results on 952 pages for 'void pointers'.

Page 2/952 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • invasive vs non-invasive ref-counted pointers in C++

    - by anon
    For the past few years, I've generally accepted that if I am going to use ref-counted smart pointers invasive smart pointers is the way to go -- However, I'm starting to like non-invasive smart pointers due to the following: I only use smart pointers (so no Foo* lying around, only Ptr) I'm starting to build custom allocators for each class. (So Foo would overload operator new). Now, if Foo has a list of all Ptr (as it easily can with non-invasive smart pointers). Then, I can avoid memory fragmentation issues since class Foo move the objects around (and just update the corresponding Ptr). The only reason why this Foo moving objects around in non-invasive smart pointers being easier than invasive smart pointers is: In non-invasive smart pointers, there is only one pointer that points to each Foo. In invasive smart pointers, I have no idea how many objects point to each Foo. Now, the only cost of non-invasive smart pointers ... is the double indirection. [Perhaps this screws up the caches]. Does anyone have a good study of expensive this extra layer of indirection is?

    Read the article

  • How do I cast a void pointer to a struct in C?

    - by Rowhawn
    In a project I'm writing code for, I have a void pointer, "implementation", which is a member of a "Hash_map" struct, and points to an "Array_hash_map" struct. The concepts behind this project are not very realistic, but bear with me. The specifications of the project ask that I cast the void pointer "implementation" to an "Array_hash_map" before I can use it in any functions. My question, specifically is, what do I do in the functions to cast the void pointers to the desired struct? Is there one statement at the top of each function that casts them or do I make the cast every time I use "implementation"? Here are the typedefs the structs of a Hash_map and Array_hash_map as well as a couple functions making use of them. typedef struct { Key_compare_fn key_compare_fn; Key_delete_fn key_delete_fn; Data_compare_fn data_compare_fn; Data_delete_fn data_delete_fn; void *implementation; } Hash_map; typedef struct Array_hash_map{ struct Unit *array; int size; int capacity; } Array_hash_map; typedef struct Unit{ Key key; Data data; } Unit; functions: /* Sets the value parameter to the value associated with the key parameter in the Hash_map. */ int get(Hash_map *map, Key key, Data *value){ int i; if (map == NULL || value == NULL) return 0; for (i = 0; i < map->implementation->size; i++){ if (map->key_compare_fn(map->implementation->array[i].key, key) == 0){ *value = map->implementation->array[i].data; return 1; } } return 0; } /* Returns the number of values that can be stored in the Hash_map, since it is represented by an array. */ int current_capacity(Hash_map map){ return map.implementation->capacity; }

    Read the article

  • Function pointers uasage

    - by chaitanyavarma
    Hi All, Why these two codes give the same output, Case - 1: #include <stdio.h> typedef void (*mycall) (int a ,int b); void addme(int a,int b); void mulme(int a,int b); void subme(int a,int b); main() { mycall x[10]; x[0] = &addme; x[1] = &subme; x[2] = &mulme; (x[0])(5,2); (x[1])(5,2); (x[2])(5,2); } void addme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a+b)); } void mulme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a*b)); } void subme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a-b)); } Output: the value is 7 the value is 3 the value is 10 Case -2 : #include <stdio.h> typedef void (*mycall) (int a ,int b); void addme(int a,int b); void mulme(int a,int b); void subme(int a,int b); main() { mycall x[10]; x[0] = &addme; x[1] = &subme; x[2] = &mulme; (*x[0])(5,2); (*x[1])(5,2); (*x[2])(5,2); } void addme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a+b)); } void mulme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a*b)); } void subme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a-b)); } Output: the value is 7 the value is 3 the value is 10

    Read the article

  • Function pointers usage

    - by chaitanyavarma
    Hi All, Why these two codes give the same output, Case 1: #include <stdio.h> typedef void (*mycall) (int a ,int b); void addme(int a,int b); void mulme(int a,int b); void subme(int a,int b); main() { mycall x[10]; x[0] = &addme; x[1] = &subme; x[2] = &mulme; (x[0])(5,2); (x[1])(5,2); (x[2])(5,2); } void addme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a+b)); } void mulme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a*b)); } void subme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a-b)); } Output: the value is 7 the value is 3 the value is 10 Case 2 : #include <stdio.h> typedef void (*mycall) (int a ,int b); void addme(int a,int b); void mulme(int a,int b); void subme(int a,int b); main() { mycall x[10]; x[0] = &addme; x[1] = &subme; x[2] = &mulme; (*x[0])(5,2); (*x[1])(5,2); (*x[2])(5,2); } void addme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a+b)); } void mulme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a*b)); } void subme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a-b)); } Output: the value is 7 the value is 3 the value is 10

    Read the article

  • How to get rid of void-pointers.

    - by Patrick
    I inherited a big application that was originally written in C (but in the mean time a lot of C++ was also added to it). Because of historical reasons, the application contains a lot of void-pointers. Before you start to choke, let me explain why this was done. The application contains many different data structures, but they are stored in 'generic' containers. Nowadays I would use templated STL containers for it, or I would give all data structures a common base class, so that the container can store pointers to the base class, but in the [good?] old C days, the only solution was to cast the struct-pointer to a void-pointer. Additionally, there is a lot of code that works on these void-pointers, and uses very strange C constructions to emulate polymorphism in C. I am now reworking the application, and trying to get rid of the void-pointers. Adding a common base-class to all the data structures isn't that hard (few days of work), but the problem is that the code is full of constructions like shown below. This is an example of how data is stored: void storeData (int datatype, void *data); // function prototype ... Customer *myCustomer = ...; storeData (TYPE_CUSTOMER, myCustomer); This is an example of how data is fetched again: Customer *myCustomer = (Customer *) fetchData (int datatype, char *key); I actually want to replace all the void-pointers with some smart-pointer (reference-counted), but I can't find a trick to automate (or at least) help me to get rid of all the casts to and from void-pointers. Any tips on how to find, replace, or interact in any possible way with these conversions?

    Read the article

  • -(void)... does not work/appeal (iOS)

    - by user1012535
    Hi I've got a problem with my -(void) in my Xcode project for iOS. First of all here is the code ViewController.h #import <UIKit/UIKit.h> @interface ViewController : UIViewController { IBOutlet UIWebView *webview; IBOutlet UIActivityIndicatorView *active; UIAlertView *alert_start; UIAlertView *alert_error; } -(IBAction)tele_button:(id)sender; -(IBAction)mail_button:(id)sender; -(IBAction)web_button:(id)sender; -(IBAction)news_button:(id)sender; @end ViewController.m #import "ViewController.h" @implementation ViewController - (void)didReceiveMemoryWarning { [super didReceiveMemoryWarning]; // Release any cached data, images, etc that aren't in use. } #pragma mark - View lifecycle - (void)viewDidLoad { [super viewDidLoad]; //Stop Bounce for WebView for (id subview in webview.subviews) if ([[subview class] isSubclassOfClass: [UIScrollView class]]) ((UIScrollView *)subview).bounces = NO; //First Start Alert [alert_start show]; NSLog(@"first alert"); NSString *start_alert = [[NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults] objectForKey:@"alert_start"]; if(start_alert == nil) { [[NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults] setValue:@"1" forKey:@"alert_start"]; [[NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults] synchronize]; UIAlertView *alert_start = [[UIAlertView alloc] initWithTitle:@"iOptibelt" message:@"On some points this application need a internet connection." delegate:self cancelButtonTitle:@"OK" otherButtonTitles:nil]; [alert_start show]; [alert_start release]; } // Do any additional setup after loading the view, typically from a nib. [webview loadRequest:[NSURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL fileURLWithPath:[[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@"home-de" ofType:@"html"]isDirectory:NO]]]; NSLog(@"webview fertig"); } -(void)webViewDidStartLoad:(UIWebView *) webview { [UIApplication sharedApplication].networkActivityIndicatorVisible = YES; [active startAnimating]; NSLog(@"lade"); } -(void)webViewDidFinishLoad:(UIWebView *) webview { [UIApplication sharedApplication].networkActivityIndicatorVisible = NO; [active stopAnimating]; NSLog(@"fertig"); } -(void)webView: (UIWebView *) webview didFailLoadWithError:(NSError *)error{ NSLog(@"lade error"); UIAlertView *alert_error = [[UIAlertView alloc] initWithTitle:@"Error" message:@"Can't connect. Please check your internet Connection" delegate:self cancelButtonTitle:@"OK" otherButtonTitles:nil]; [alert_error show]; [alert_error release]; }; - (IBAction)tele_button:(id)sender{ NSLog(@"it's connected!"); //Local HTML Call Button NSURLRequest *theRequest = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL fileURLWithPath:[[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@"phone" ofType:@"html"]isDirectory:NO]]; [webview loadRequest:theRequest]; } - (IBAction)mail_button:(id)sender{ NSLog(@"it's connected!"); //Mail App Mail Button [[UIApplication sharedApplication] openURL:[NSURL URLWithString:@"mailto://[email protected]"]]; } - (IBAction)web_button:(id)sender{ NSLog(@"it's connected!"); //Local HTML Button NSURLRequest *theRequest = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL URLWithString: @"http://optibelt.com"]]; [webview loadRequest:theRequest]; } - (IBAction)news_button:(id)sender{ NSLog(@"it's connected!"); //local Home Button NSURLRequest *theRequest = [NSURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL fileURLWithPath:[[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@"home-de" ofType:@"html"]isDirectory:NO]]; [webview loadRequest:theRequest]; } - (void)viewDidUnload { [super viewDidUnload]; // Release any retained subviews of the main view. // e.g. self.myOutlet = nil; } - (void)viewWillAppear:(BOOL)animated { [super viewWillAppear:animated]; } - (void)viewDidAppear:(BOOL)animated { [super viewDidAppear:animated]; } - (void)viewWillDisappear:(BOOL)animated { [super viewWillDisappear:animated]; } - (void)viewDidDisappear:(BOOL)animated { [super viewDidDisappear:animated]; } - (BOOL)shouldAutorotateToInterfaceOrientation:(UIInterfaceOrientation)interfaceOrientation { // Return YES for supported orientations return (interfaceOrientation != UIInterfaceOrientationPortraitUpsideDown); } @end At last my 3. -(void) does not work and i ve no more idea what could be the problem.... -(void)webViewDidStartLoad:(UIWebView *) webview { [UIApplication sharedApplication].networkActivityIndicatorVisible = YES; [active startAnimating]; NSLog(@"lade"); } -(void)webViewDidFinishLoad:(UIWebView *) webview { [UIApplication sharedApplication].networkActivityIndicatorVisible = NO; [active stopAnimating]; NSLog(@"fertig"); } -(void)webView: (UIWebView *) webview didFailLoadWithError:(NSError *)error{ NSLog(@"lade error"); UIAlertView *alert_error = [[UIAlertView alloc] initWithTitle:@"Error" message:@"Can't connect. Please check your internet Connection" delegate:self cancelButtonTitle:@"OK" otherButtonTitles:nil]; [alert_error show]; [alert_error release];

    Read the article

  • Void in main and keeping Dos program from dying

    - by TimothyTech
    Alright, so im using bloodshed complier, first thing i should note is im using a 2001 edition C++ for the aboslute beginner, was there any changes to C++ since 2001 that would effect the validity of this book? i ask because i know php has php5 and now php6 but i havent seen any C++3. now for the reason i asked that, in this code it uses, void main (void) why would i want an arguement to be void? what does this do. But when i run the " void main (void) in my compiler it says that main must have a "int" before it. so i cant have "void" main (void); also, once the code runs through, as long as there isnt a "cin" the program closes. is this normal behavior, is there a better way to stop this besides making a cin at the end of my program.

    Read the article

  • Void pointers in C

    - by avd
    I have written this qsort: void qsort(void *a[],int low,int high, int (*compare)(void*,void*)); When I call this on char *strarr[5]; It says invalid conversion from char** to void**. Why this is wrong? This is the code:http://codepad.org/Flfm2zAE

    Read the article

  • Performance question: Inverting an array of pointers in-place vs array of values

    - by Anders
    The background for asking this question is that I am solving a linearized equation system (Ax=b), where A is a matrix (typically of dimension less than 100x100) and x and b are vectors. I am using a direct method, meaning that I first invert A, then find the solution by x=A^(-1)b. This step is repated in an iterative process until convergence. The way I'm doing it now, using a matrix library (MTL4): For every iteration I copy all coeffiecients of A (values) in to the matrix object, then invert. This the easiest and safest option. Using an array of pointers instead: For my particular case, the coefficients of A happen to be updated between each iteration. These coefficients are stored in different variables (some are arrays, some are not). Would there be a potential for performance gain if I set up A as an array containing pointers to these coefficient variables, then inverting A in-place? The nice thing about the last option is that once I have set up the pointers in A before the first iteration, I would not need to copy any values between successive iterations. The values which are pointed to in A would automatically be updated between iterations. So the performance question boils down to this, as I see it: - The matrix inversion process takes roughly the same amount of time, assuming de-referencing of pointers is non-expensive. - The array of pointers does not need the extra memory for matrix A containing values. - The array of pointers option does not have to copy all NxN values of A between each iteration. - The values that are pointed to the array of pointers option are generally NOT ordered in memory. Hopefully, all values lie relatively close in memory, but *A[0][1] is generally not next to *A[0][0] etc. Any comments to this? Will the last remark affect performance negatively, thus weighing up for the positive performance effects?

    Read the article

  • Assign C++ instance method to a global-function-pointer ?

    - by umanga
    Greetings, My project structure is as follows: \- base (C static library) callbacks.h callbacks.c paint_node.c . . * libBase.a \-app (C++ application) main.cpp In C library 'base' , I have declared global-function-pointer as: in singleheader file callbacks.h #ifndef CALLBACKS_H_ #define CALLBACKS_H_ extern void (*putPixelCallBack)(); extern void (*putImageCallBack)(); #endif /* CALLBACKS_H_ */ in single C file they are initialized as callbacks.c #include "callbacks.h" void (*putPixelCallBack)(); void (*putImageCallBack)(); Other C files access this callback-functions as: paint_node.c #include "callbacks.h" void paint_node(node *node,int index){ //Call callbackfunction . . putPixelCallBack(node->x,node->y,index); } I compile these C files and generate a static library 'libBase.a' Then in C++ application, I want to assign C++ instance method to this global function-pointer: I did something like follows : in Sacm.cpp file #include "Sacm.h" extern void (*putPixelCallBack)(); extern void (*putImageCallBack)(); void Sacm::doDetection() { putPixelCallBack=(void(*)())&paintPixel; //call somefunctions in 'libBase' C library } void Sacm::paintPixel(int x,int y,int index) { qpainter.begin(this); qpainter.drawPoint(x,y); qpainter.end(); } But when compiling it gives the error: sacmtest.cpp: In member function ‘void Sacm::doDetection()’: sacmtest.cpp:113: error: ISO C++ forbids taking the address of an unqualified or parenthesized non-static member function to form a pointer to member function. Say ‘&Sacm::paintPixel’ sacmtest.cpp:113: error: converting from ‘void (Sacm::)(int, int, int)’ to ‘void ()()’ Any tips?

    Read the article

  • Initializing and accessing a pointer from an array of pointers

    - by idealistikz
    Suppose I have the following: void **Init(int numElems) { //What is the best way to intialize 'ptrElems' to store an array of void *'s? void **ptrElems = malloc(numElems * sizeof(void *)); return ptrElems; } //What is the best way to return a pointer pointing at the index passed as a parameter? void **GetPtr(void **ptrElems, int index) { void **elem = elems + (index * sizeof(void *)); return elem; } First, what is the best way to intialize 'ptrElems' to store an array of pointers? I use malloc because assigning it to an array will not persist after the end of the function. Second, what is the best way to point to the pointer at the specified index? I tried typecasting the first line of the 'GetPtr' function to ensure proper pointer arithmetic, but I receive the warning, 'initialization from incompatible pointer type'. Is it necessary to typecast?

    Read the article

  • Call a void* as a function without declaring a function pointer

    - by ToxIk
    I've searched but couldn't find any results (my terminology may be off) so forgive me if this has been asked before. I was wondering if there is an easy way to call a void* as a function in C without first declaring a function pointer and then assigning the function pointer the address; ie. assuming the function to be called is type void(void) void *ptr; ptr = <some address>; ((void*())ptr)(); /* call ptr as function here */ with the above code, I get error C2066: cast to function type is illegal in VC2008 If this is possible, how would the syntax differ for functions with return types and multiple parameters?

    Read the article

  • How to convert a void pointer to array of classes

    - by user99545
    I am trying to convert a void pointer to an array of classes in a callback function that only supports a void pointer as a means of passing paramaters to the callback. class person { std::string name, age; }; void callback (void *val) { for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++) { std::cout << (person [])val[i].name; } } int main() { person p[10]; callback((void*)p); } My goal is to be able to pass an array of the class person to the callback which then prints out the data such as their name and age. However, the compile does not like what I am doing and complains that error: request for member 'name' in 'val', which is of non-class type 'void*' How can I go about doing this?

    Read the article

  • generic programming in C with void pointer.

    - by Nyan
    Hi everyone, even though it is possible to write generic code in C using void pointer(generic pointer), I find that it is quite difficult to debug the code since void pointer can take any pointer type without warning from compiler. (e.g function foo() take void pointer which is supposed to be pointer to struct, but compiler won't complain if char array is passed.) What kind of approach/strategy do you all use when using void pointer in C?

    Read the article

  • convert pointer to pointer to void pointer

    - by FihopZz
    When I'm learning to use qsort to sort an array of string, there is a question puzzled me. For example, to sort the following s char *s[] = { "Amit", "Garima", "Gaurav", "Vaibhav" }; To use the qsort, you must provide a comparison function like the following function cstring_cmp I guess in the qsort function, the type of parameter to be passed to the function cstring_cmp is char**. How to convert a char** to a void*? Why can we convert a char** to a void*? int cstring_cmp(const void *a, const void *b) { const char **ia = (const char **)a; const char **ib = (const char **)b; return -strcasecmp(*ia, *ib); /* return the negative of the normal comparison */ }

    Read the article

  • Need for prefixing a function with (void)...

    - by puffadder
    Hi All, I recently came across a rather unusual coding convention wherein the call for a function returning "void" is prefixed with (void). e.g. (void) MyFunction(); Is it any different from the function call like: MyFunction(); Has it got any advantage or is it yet another needless but there coding convention of some sort?

    Read the article

  • C Class Instance from Void Pointer using Ctypes

    - by g.d.d.c
    I've got a C DLL that exposes a handful of methods that return void pointers to a Class like so: void *GetLicense() { static AppLicenseImpl ipds_; return (void *) &ipds_; } In C++, after loading the DLL, I'd do this to work with it: typedef void *(* FPGetLicense)(); GetLicense_ = (FPGetLicense)GetAddress("GetLicense"); license_ = (AppLicense *) GetLicense_(); license_->GetApplicationStatus(); // Load data so that other calls don't fail I can't figure out how to parallel that in Python. This gets me the pointer: d = ctypes.cdll.LoadLibrary('license.dll') d.GetLicense.restype = ctypes.c_void_p p = d.GetLicense() # returns ptr loc, something like 8791433660848L But I obviously can't call p.GetApplicationStatus() in Python. Does anyone have a suggestion on how I'd instantiate that Class the rest of the way in Python so that I can call GetApplicationStatus()?

    Read the article

  • Smart pointers and polymorphism

    - by qwerty
    hello. I implemented reference counting pointers (called SP in the example) and im having problems with polymorphism which i think i shouldn't have. In the following code: SP<BaseClass> foo() { // Some logic... SP<DerivedClass> retPtr = new DerivedClass(); return retPtr; } DerivedClass inherits from BaseClass. With normal pointers this should have worked, but with the smart pointers it says "cannot convert from 'SP<T>' to 'const SP<T>&" and i think it refers to the copy constructor of the smart pointer. How to i allow this kind of polymorphism with reference counting pointer? I'd appreciate code samples cause obviously im doing something wrong here if im having this problem. Thanks! :) [p.s., plz don't tell me to use standart liberary with smart pointers cuz that's impossible at this moment.]

    Read the article

  • What are pointers to class members used for?

    - by srikfreak
    I have read about pointers to class members, but I have never seen them being used in any practical applications. Can someone explain what are the use cases of such pointers? Is it really necessary to have such pointers? Eg. class abc { public: int a; abc(int val) { a = val; } }; int main { int abc::*data; abc obj(5); data = &abc::a; cout << "Value of a is " << obj.*data << endl; return 0; } In the above eg. why is the value of 'a' accessed in this manner? What is the advantage of using pointers to class members?

    Read the article

  • What do people find difficult about C pointers?

    - by Paul
    From the number of questions posted here, it's clear that people have some pretty fundemental issues when getting their heads around pointers and pointer arithmetic. I'm curious to know why. They've never really caused me major problems (although I first learned about them back in the Neolithic). In order to write better answers to these questions, I'd like to know what people find difficult. So, if you're struggling with pointers, or you recently were but suddenly "got it", what were the aspects of pointers that caused you problems?

    Read the article

  • c incompatible types in assignment, problem with pointers?

    - by Fantastic Fourier
    Hi I'm working with C and I have a question about assigning pointers. struct foo { int _bar; char * _car[MAXINT]; // this is meant to be an array of char * so that it can hold pointers to names of cars } int foofunc (void * arg) { int bar; char * car[MAXINT]; struct foo thing = (struct foo *) arg; bar = arg->_bar; // this works fine car = arg->_car; // this gives compiler errors of incompatible types in assignment } car and _car have same declaration so why am I getting an error about incompatible types? My guess is that it has something to do with them being pointers (because they are pointers to arrays of char *, right?) but I don't see why that is a problem. when i declared char * car; instead of char * car[MAXINT]; it compiles fine. but I don't see how that would be useful to me later when I need to access certain info using index, it would be very annoying to access that info later. in fact, I'm not even sure if I am going about the right way, maybe there is a better way to store a bunch of strings instead of using array of char *?

    Read the article

  • Declaration, allocation and assignment of an array of pointers to function pointers

    - by manneorama
    Hello Stack Overflow! This is my first post, so please be gentle. I've been playing around with C from time to time in the past. Now I've gotten to the point where I've started a real project (a 2D graphics engine using SDL, but that's irrelevant for the question), to be able to say that I have some real C experience. Yesterday, while working on the event system, I ran into a problem which I couldn't solve. There's this typedef, //the void parameter is really an SDL_Event*. //but that is irrelevant for this question. typedef void (*event_callback)(void); which specifies the signature of a function to be called on engine events. I want to be able to support multiple event_callbacks, so an array of these callbacks would be an idea, but do not want to limit the amount of callbacks, so I need some sort of dynamic allocation. This is where the problem arose. My first attempt went like this: //initial size of callback vector static const int initial_vecsize = 32; //our event callback vector static event_callback* vec = 0; //size static unsigned int vecsize = 0; void register_event_callback(event_callback func) { if (!vec) __engine_allocate_vec(vec); vec[vecsize++] = func; //error here! } static void __engine_allocate_vec(engine_callback* vec) { vec = (engine_callback*) malloc(sizeof(engine_callback*) * initial_vecsize); } First of all, I have omitted some error checking as well as the code that reallocates the callback vector when the number of callbacks exceed the vector size. However, when I run this code, the program crashes as described in the code. I'm guessing segmentation fault but I can't be sure since no output is given. I'm also guessing that the error comes from a somewhat flawed understanding on how to declare and allocate an array of pointers to function pointers. Please Stack Overflow, guide me.

    Read the article

  • casting unused return values to void

    - by markh44
    int fn(); void whatever() { (void) fn(); } Is there any reason for casting an unused return value to void, or am I right in thinking it's a complete waste of time? Follow up: Well that seems pretty comprehensive. I suppose it's better than commenting an unused return value since self documenting code is better than comments. Personally, I'll turn these warnings off since it's unnecessary noise. I'll eat my words if a bug escapes because of it...

    Read the article

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