Search Results

Search found 2220 results on 89 pages for 'gcc'.

Page 24/89 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • Binder and variadic template ends up in a segmentation fault

    - by phlipsy
    I wrote the following program #include <iostream> template<typename C, typename Res, typename... Args> class bind_class_t { private: Res (C::*f)(Args...); C *c; public: bind_class_t(Res (C::*f)(Args...), C* c) : f(f), c(c) { } Res operator() (Args... args) { return (c->*f)(args...); } }; template<typename C, typename Res, typename... Args> bind_class_t<C, Res, Args...> bind_class(Res (C::*f)(Args...), C* c) { return bind_class<C, Res, Args...>(f, c); } class test { public: int add(int x, int y) { return x + y; } }; int main() { test t; // bind_class_t<test, int, int, int> b(&test::add, &t); bind_class_t<test, int, int, int> b = bind_class(&test::add, &t); std::cout << b(1, 2) << std::endl; return 0; } compiled it with gcc 4.3.3 and got a segmentation fault. After spending some time with gdb and this program it seems to me that the addresses of the function and the class are mixed up and a call of the data address of the class isn't allowed. Moreover if I use the commented line instead everything works fine. Can anyone else reproduce this behavior and/or explain me what's going wrong here?

    Read the article

  • Unable to find reference to std library math function inside library

    - by Alex Marshall
    Hello, I've got several programs that use shared libraries. Those shared libraries in turn use various standard C libraries. ie Program A and Program B both use Shared Library S. Shared Library S uses std C math. I want to be able to statically link Shared Library S against the standard library, and then statically link Programs A and B against S so that I don't have to be dragging around the library files, because these programs are going to be running on an embedded system running BusyBox 0.61. However, when I try to statically link the programs against Shared Library S, I get an error message from GCC stating : ../lib/libgainscalecalc.a(gainscalecalc.): In function 'float2gs': [path to my C file].c:73: undefined reference to 'log' Can somebody please help me out ? The make commands I'm using are below : CFLAGS += -Wall -g -W INCFLAGS = -I$(CROSS_INCLUDE)/usr/include LIBFLAGS += -L$(CROSS_LIB)/usr/lib -lm gainscalecalc_static.o: gainscalecalc.c $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c $< -I. $(INCFLAGS) -o $@ gainscalecalc_dynamic.o: gainscalecalc.c $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -fPIC -c $< -o $@ all: staticlib dynamiclib static_driver dynamic_driver clean: $(RM) *.o *.a *.so *~ driver core $(OBJDIR) static_driver: driver.c staticlib $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -static driver.c $(INCFLAGS) $(LIBFLAGS) -I. -L. -lgainscalecalc -o $@ dynamic_driver: driver.c dynamiclib $(CC) $(CFLAGS) driver.c -o $@ -L. -lgainscalecalc staticlib: gainscalecalc_static.o $(AR) $(ARFLAGS) libgainscalecalc.a gainscalecalc_static.o $(RANLIB) libgainscalecalc.a chmod 777 libgainscalecalc.a dynamiclib: gainscalecalc_dynamic.o $(CC) -shared -o libgainscalecalc.so gainscalecalc_dynamic.o chmod 777 libgainscalecalc.so Edit: Linking against the shared libraries compiles fine, I just haven't tested them out yet

    Read the article

  • C & MinGW: Hello World gives me the error "programm too big to fit in memory"

    - by user1692088
    I'm new here. Here's my problem: I installed MinGW on my Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit Netbook with Intel Atom CPU N550, 1.50GHz and 2GB RAM. Now I made a file named hello.h and tried to compile it via CMD with the following command: "gcc c:\workspace\c\helloworld\hello.h -o out.exe" It compiles with no error, but when I try to run out.exe, it gives me following error: "program too big to fit in memory" Things I have checked: I have added "C:\MinGW\bin" to the Windows PATH Variable I have googled for about one hour, but ever since I'm a newbie, I can't really figure out what the problem is. I have compiled the same code on my 64-bit machine, compiles perfectly, but cannot be run due to 64-bit <- 16-bit problematic. I'd really appreciate, if someone could figure out, what the problem is. Btw, here's my hello.h: #include <stdio.h> int main(void){ printf("Hello, World\n"); } ... That's it. Thanks for your replies. Cheers, Boris

    Read the article

  • non-copyable objects and value initialization: g++ vs msvc

    - by R Samuel Klatchko
    I'm seeing some different behavior between g++ and msvc around value initializing non-copyable objects. Consider a class that is non-copyable: class noncopyable_base { public: noncopyable_base() {} private: noncopyable_base(const noncopyable_base &); noncopyable_base &operator=(const noncopyable_base &); }; class noncopyable : private noncopyable_base { public: noncopyable() : x_(0) {} noncopyable(int x) : x_(x) {} private: int x_; }; and a template that uses value initialization so that the value will get a known value even when the type is POD: template <class T> void doit() { T t = T(); ... } and trying to use those together: doit<noncopyable>(); This works fine on msvc as of VC++ 9.0 but fails on every version of g++ I tested this with (including version 4.5.0) because the copy constructor is private. Two questions: Which behavior is standards compliant? Any suggestion of how to work around this in gcc (and to be clear, changing that to T t; is not an acceptable solution as this breaks POD types). P.S. I see the same problem with boost::noncopyable.

    Read the article

  • When to use certain optimizations such as -fwhole-program and -fprofile-generate with several shared libraries

    - by James
    Probably a simple answer; I get quite confused with the language used in the GCC documentation for some of these flags! Anyway, I have three libraries and a programme which uses all these three. I compile each of my libraries seperately with individual (potentially) different sets of warning flags. However, I compile all three libraries with the same set of optimisation flags. I then compile my main programme linking in these three libraries with its own set of warning flags and the same optimisation flags used during the libraries' compilation. 1) Do I have to compile the libraries with optimisation flags present or can I just use these flags when compiling the final programme and linking to the libraries? If the latter, will it then optimise all or just some (presumably that which is called) of the code in these libraries? 2) I would like to use -fwhole-program -flto -fuse-linker-plugin and the linker plugin gold. At which stage do I compile with these on ... just the final compilation or do these flags need to be present during the compilation of the libraries? 3) Pretty much the same as 2) however with, -fprofile-generate -fprofile-arcs and -fprofile-use. I understand one first runs a programme with generate, and then with use. However, do I have to compile each of the libraries with generate/use etc. or just the final programme? And if it is just the last programme, when I then compeil with -fprofile-use will it also optimise the libraries functionality? Many thanks, James

    Read the article

  • Compile time float packing/punning

    - by detly
    I'm writing C for the PIC32MX, compiled with Microchip's PIC32 C compiler (based on GCC 3.4). My problem is this: I have some reprogrammable numeric data that is stored either on EEPROM or in the program flash of the chip. This means that when I want to store a float, I have to do some type punning: typedef union { int intval; float floatval; } IntFloat; unsigned int float_as_int(float fval) { IntFloat intf; intf.floatval = fval; return intf.intval; } // Stores an int of data in whatever storage we're using void StoreInt(unsigned int data, unsigned int address); void StoreFPVal(float data, unsigned int address) { StoreInt(float_as_int(data), address); } I also include default values as an array of compile time constants. For (unsigned) integer values this is trivial, I just use the integer literal. For floats, though, I have to use this Python snippet to convert them to their word representation to include them in the array: import struct hex(struct.unpack("I", struct.pack("f", float_value))[0]) ...and so my array of defaults has these indecipherable values like: const unsigned int DEFAULTS[] = { 0x00000001, // Some default integer value, 1 0x3C83126F, // Some default float value, 0.005 } (These actually take the form of X macro constructs, but that doesn't make a difference here.) Commenting is nice, but is there a better way? It's be great to be able to do something like: const unsigned int DEFAULTS[] = { 0x00000001, // Some default integer value, 1 COMPILE_TIME_CONVERT(0.005), // Some default float value, 0.005 } ...but I'm completely at a loss, and I don't even know if such a thing is possible. Notes Obviously "no, it isn't possible" is an acceptable answer if true. I'm not overly concerned about portability, so implementation defined behaviour is fine, undefined behaviour is not (I have the IDB appendix sitting in front of me). As fas as I'm aware, this needs to be a compile time conversion, since DEFAULTS is in the global scope. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

    Read the article

  • Valgrind 'noise', what does it mean?

    - by Chris Huang-Leaver
    When I used valgrind to help debug an app I was working on I notice a huge about of noise which seems to be complaining about standard libraries. As a test I did this; echo 'int main() {return 0;}' | gcc -x c -o test - Then I did this; valgrind ./test ==1096== Use of uninitialised value of size 8 ==1096== at 0x400A202: _dl_new_object (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x400607F: _dl_map_object_from_fd (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x4007A2C: _dl_map_object (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x400199A: map_doit (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x400D495: _dl_catch_error (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x400189E: do_preload (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x4003CCD: dl_main (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x401404B: _dl_sysdep_start (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x4001471: _dl_start (in /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x4000BA7: (within /lib64/ld-2.10.1.so) * large block of similar snipped * ==1096== Use of uninitialised value of size 8 ==1096== at 0x4F35FDD: (within /lib64/libc-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x4F35B11: (within /lib64/libc-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x4A1E61C: _vgnU_freeres (vg_preloaded.c:60) ==1096== by 0x4E5F2E4: __run_exit_handlers (in /lib64/libc-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x4E5F354: exit (in /lib64/libc-2.10.1.so) ==1096== by 0x4E48A2C: (below main) (in /lib64/libc-2.10.1.so) ==1096== ==1096== ERROR SUMMARY: 3819 errors from 298 contexts (suppressed: 876 from 4) ==1096== malloc/free: in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==1096== malloc/free: 0 allocs, 0 frees, 0 bytes allocated. ==1096== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v ==1096== Use --track-origins=yes to see where uninitialised values come from ==1096== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible. You can see the full result here: http://pastebin.com/gcTN8xGp I have two questions; firstly is there a way to suppress all the noise? --show-below-main is set to no by default, but there doesn't appear to be a --show-after-main equivalent.

    Read the article

  • C89, Mixing Variable Declarations and Code

    - by rutski
    I'm very curious to know why exactly C89 compilers will dump on you when you try to mix variable declarations and code, like this for example: rutski@imac:~$ cat test.c #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { printf("Hello World!\n"); int x = 7; printf("%d!\n", x); return 0; } rutski@imac:~$ gcc -std=c89 -pedantic test.c test.c: In function ‘main’: test.c:7: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code rutski@imac:~$ Yes, you can avoid this sort of thing by staying away from -pedantic. But then your code is no longer standards compliant. And as anybody capable of answering this post probably already knows, this is not just a theoretical concern. Platforms like Microsoft's C compiler enforce this quick in the standard under any and all circumstances. Given how ancient C is, I would imagine that this feature is due to some historical issue dating back to the extraordinary hardware limitations of the 70's, but I don't know the details. Or am I totally wrong there?

    Read the article

  • adding virtual function to the end of the class declaration avoids binary incompatibility?

    - by bob
    Could someone explain to me why adding a virtual function to the end of a class declaration avoids binary incompatibility? If I have: class A { public: virtual ~A(); virtual void someFuncA() = 0; virtual void someFuncB() = 0; virtual void other1() = 0; private: int someVal; }; And later modify this function to: class A { public: virtual ~A(); virtual void someFuncA(); virtual void someFuncB(); virtual void someFuncC(); virtual void other1() = 0; private: int someVal; }; I get a coredump from another .so compiled against the previous declaration. But if I put someFuncC() at the end of the class declaration (after "int someVal"), I don't see coredump anymore. Could someone tell me why this is? And does this trick always work? PS. compiler is gcc, does this work with other compilers?

    Read the article

  • Linker error: wants C++ virtual base class destructor

    - by jdmuys
    Hi, I have a link error where the linker complains that my concrete class's destructor is calling its abstract superclass destructor, the code of which is missing. This is using GCC 4.2 on Mac OS X from XCode. I saw http://stackoverflow.com/questions/307352/g-undefined-reference-to-typeinfo but it's not quite the same thing. Here is the linker error message: Undefined symbols: "ConnectionPool::~ConnectionPool()", referenced from: AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool::~AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool()in RKConnector.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Here is the abstract base class declaration: class ConnectionPool { public: static ConnectionPool* newPool(std::string h, short p, std::string u, std::string pw, std::string b); virtual ~ConnectionPool() =0; virtual int keepAlive() =0; virtual int disconnect() =0; virtual sql::Connection * getConnection(char *compression_scheme = NULL) =0; virtual void releaseConnection(sql::Connection * theConnection) =0; }; Here is the concrete class declaration: class AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool: public ConnectionPool { protected: <snip data members> public: AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool(std::string h, short p, std::string u, std::string pw, std::string b); virtual ~AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool(); virtual int keepAlive(); // will make sure the connection doesn't time out. Call regularly virtual int disconnect(); // disconnects/destroys all connections. virtual sql::Connection * getConnection(char *compression_scheme = NULL); virtual void releaseConnection(sql::Connection * theConnection); }; Needless to say, all those members are implemented. Here is the destructor: AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool::~AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool() { printf("AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool destructor call"); // nothing to destruct in fact } and also maybe the factory routine: ConnectionPool* ConnectionPool::newPool(std::string h, short p, std::string u, std::string pw, std::string b) { return new AlwaysConnectedConnectionZPool(h, p, u, pw, b); } I can fix this by artificially making my abstract base class concrete. But I'd rather do something better. Any idea? Thanks

    Read the article

  • "variable tracking" is eating my compile time!

    - by wowus
    I have an auto-generated file which looks something like this... static void do_SomeFunc1(void* parameter) { // Do stuff. } // Continues on for another 4000 functions... void dispatch(int id, void* parameter) { switch(id) { case ::SomeClass1::id: return do_SomeFunc1(parameter); case ::SomeClass2::id: return do_SomeFunc2(parameter); // This continues for the next 4000 cases... } } When I build it like this, the build time is enormous. If I inline all the functions automagically into their respective cases using my script, the build time is cut in half. GCC 4.5.0 says ~50% of the build time is being taken up by "variable tracking" when I use -ftime-report. What does this mean and how can I speed compilation while still maintaining the superior cache locality of pulling out the functions from the switch? EDIT: Interestingly enough, the build time has exploded only on debug builds, as per the following profiling information of the whole project (which isn't just the file in question, but still a good metric; the file in question takes the most time to build): Debug: 8 minutes 50 seconds Release: 4 minutes, 25 seconds

    Read the article

  • GNU C++ how to check when -std=c++0x is in effect?

    - by TerryP
    My system compiler (gcc42) works fine with the TR1 features that I want, but trying to support newer compiler versions other than the systems, trying to accessing TR1 headers an #error demanding the -std=c++0x option because of how it interfaces with library or some hub bub like that. /usr/local/lib/gcc45/include/c++/bits/c++0x_warning.h:31:2: error: #error This file requires compiler and library support for the upcoming ISO C++ standard, C++0x. This support is currently experimental, and must be enabled with the -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x compiler options. Having to supply an extra switch is no problem, to support GCC 4.4 and 4.5 under this system (FreeBSD), but obviously it changes the picture! Using my system compiler (g++ 4.2 default dialect): #include <tr1/foo> using std::tr1::foo; Using newer (4.5) versions of the compiler with -std=c++0x: #include <foo> using std::foo; Is there anyway using the pre processor, that I can tell if g++ is running with C++0x features enabled? Something like this is what I'm looking for: #ifdef __CXX0X_MODE__ #endif but I have not found anything in the manual or off the web. At this rate, I'm starting to think that life would just be easier, to use Boost as a dependency, and not worry about a new language standard arriving before TR4... hehe.

    Read the article

  • Freestanding ARM C++ Code - empty .ctors section

    - by Matthew Iselin
    I'm writing C++ code to run in a freestanding environment (basically an ARM board). It's been going well except I've run into a stumbling block - global static constructors. To my understanding the .ctors section contains a list of addresses to each static constructor, and my code simply needs to iterate this list and make calls to each function as it goes. However, I've found that this section in my binary is in fact completely empty! Google pointed towards using ".init_array" instead of ".ctors" (an EABI thing), but that has not changed anything. Any ideas as to why my static constructors don't exist? Relevant linker script and objdump output follows: .ctors : { . = ALIGN(4096); start_ctors = .; *(.init_array); *(.ctors); end_ctors = .; } .dtors : { . = ALIGN(4096); start_dtors = .; *(.fini_array); *(.dtors); end_dtors = .; } -- 2 .ctors 00001000 8014c000 8014c000 00054000 2**2 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA <snip> 8014d000 g O .ctors 00000004 start_ctors <snip> 8014d000 g O .ctors 00000004 end_ctors I'm using an arm-elf targeted GCC compiler (4.4.1).

    Read the article

  • Problems with variadic function

    - by morpheous
    I have the following function from some legacy code that I am maintaining. long getMaxStart(long start, long count, const myStruct *s1, ...) { long i1, maxstart; myStruct *s2; va_list marker; maxstart = start; /*BUGFIX: 003 */ /*(va_start(marker, count);*/ va_start(marker, s1); for (i1 = 1; i1 <= count; i1++) { s2 = va_arg(marker, myStruct *); /* <- s2 is assigned null here */ maxstart = MAX(maxstart, s2->firstvalid); /* <- SEGV here */ } va_end(marker); return (maxstart); } When the function is called with only one myStruct argument, it causes a SEGV. The code compiled and run without crashing on Windows XP when I compiled it using VS2005. I have now moved the code to Ubuntu Karmic and I am having problems with the stricter compiler on Linux. Is anyone able to spot what is causing the parameter not to be read correctly in the var_arg() statement? I am compiling using gcc version 4.4.1 Edit The statement that causes the SEGV is this one: start = getMaxStart(start, 1, ms1); The variables 'start' and 'ms1' have valid values when the code execution first reaches this line.

    Read the article

  • `enable_shared_from_this` has a non-virtual destructor

    - by Shtééf
    I have a pet project with which I experiment with new features of the upcoming C++0x standard. While I have experience with C, I'm fairly new to C++. To train myself into best practices, (besides reading a lot), I have enabled some strict compiler parameters (using GCC 4.4.1): -std=c++0x -Werror -Wall -Winline -Weffc++ -pedantic-errors This has worked fine for me. Until now, I have been able to resolve all obstacles. However, I have a need for enable_shared_from_this, and this is causing me problems. I get the following warning (error, in my case) when compiling my code (probably triggered by -Weffc++): base class ‘class std::enable_shared_from_this<Package>’ has a non-virtual destructor So basically, I'm a bit bugged by this implementation of enable_shared_from_this, because: A destructor of a class that is intended for subclassing should always be virtual, IMHO. The destructor is empty, why have it at all? I can't imagine anyone would want to delete their instance by reference to enable_shared_from_this. But I'm looking for ways to deal with this, so my question is really, is there a proper way to deal with this? And: am I correct in thinking that this destructor is bogus, or is there a real purpose to it?

    Read the article

  • #include - brackets vs quotes in XCode?

    - by Chris Becke
    In MSVC++ #include files are searched for differently depending on whether the file is enclosed in "" or <. The quoted form searches first in the local folder, then in /I specified locations, The angle bracket form avoids the local folder. This means, in MSVC++, its possible to have header files with the same name as runtime and SDK headers. So, for example, I need to wrap up the windows sdk windows.h file to undefine some macro's that cause trouble. With MSVS I can just add a (optional) windows.h file to my project as long as I include it using the quoted form :- // some .cpp file #include "windows.h" // will include my local windows.h file And in my windows.h, I can pull in the real one using the angle bracket form: // my windows.h #include <windows.h> // will load the real one #undef ConflictingSymbol Trying this trick with GCC in XCode didn't work. angle bracket #includes in system header files in fact are finding my header files with similar names in my local folder structure. The MSVC system means its quite safe to have a "String.h" header file in my own folder structre. On XCode this seems to be a major no no. Is there some way to control this search path behaviour in XCode to be more like MSVC's? Or do I just have to avoid naming any of my headers anything that might possibly conflict with a system header. Writing cross platform code and using lots of frameworks means the possibility of incidental conflicts seems large.

    Read the article

  • Strange error(dereferencing pointer to incomplete type)

    - by SMiX
    void get_cwd(char* buf) { char *result; current->fs->pwd; result = get_dentry_path(current->fs->pwd); memcpy(buf, result, strlen(result)+1); kfree(result); } error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type The error points to current-fs-pwd; includes: #include <asm/stat.h> #include <linux/fs.h> #include <linux/file.h> #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/string.h> #include <linux/dirent.h> #include <linux/sched.h> #include <asm/uaccess.h> #include <asm/current.h> #include <linux/path.h> If I type current-fs; on 5th line gcc don't give error on this line. The problem is with pwd field.

    Read the article

  • How to catch unintentional function interpositioning?

    - by SiegeX
    Reading through my book Expert C Programming, I came across the chapter on function interpositioning and how it can lead to some serious hard to find bugs if done unintentionally. The example given in the book is the following: my_source.c mktemp() { ... } main() { mktemp(); getwd(); } libc mktemp(){ ... } getwd(){ ...; mktemp(); ... } According to the book, what happens in main() is that mktemp() (a standard C library function) is interposed by the implementation in my_source.c. Although having main() call my implementation of mktemp() is intended behavior, having getwd() (another C library function) also call my implementation of mktemp() is not. Apparently, this example was a real life bug that existed in SunOS 4.0.3's version of lpr. The book goes on to explain the fix was to add the keyword static to the definition of mktemp() in my_source.c; although changing the name altogether should have fixed this problem as well. This chapter leaves me with some unresolved questions that I hope you guys could answer: Does GCC have a way to warn about function interposition? We certainly don't ever intend on this happening and I'd like to know about it if it does. Should our software group adopt the practice of putting the keyword static in front of all functions that we don't want to be exposed? Can interposition happen with functions introduced by static libraries? Thanks for the help. EDIT I should note that my question is not just aimed at interposing over standard C library functions, but also functions contained in other libraries, perhaps 3rd party, perhaps ones created in-house. Essentially, I want to catch any instance of interpositioning regardless of where the interposed function resides.

    Read the article

  • Questions regarding detouring by modifying the virtual table

    - by Elliott Darfink
    I've been practicing detours using the same approach as Microsoft Detours (replace the first five bytes with a jmp and an address). More recently I've been reading about detouring by modifying the virtual table. I would appreciate if someone could shed some light on the subject by mentioning a few pros and cons with this method compared to the one previously mentioned! I'd also like to ask about patched vtables and objects on the stack. Consider the following situation: // Class definition struct Foo { virtual void Call(void) { std::cout << "FooCall\n"; } }; // If it's GCC, 'this' is passed as the first parameter void MyCall(Foo * object) { std::cout << "MyCall\n"; } // In some function Foo * foo = new Foo; // Allocated on the heap Foo foo2; // Created on the stack // Arguments: void ** vtable, uint offset, void * replacement PatchVTable(*reinterpret_cast<void***>(foo), 0, MyCall); // Call the methods foo->Call(); // Outputs: 'MyCall' foo2.Call(); // Outputs: 'FooCall' In this case foo->Call() would end up calling MyCall(Foo * object) whilst foo2.Call() call the original function (i.e Foo::Call(void) method). This is because the compiler will try to decide any virtual calls during compile time if possible (correct me if I'm wrong). Does that mean it does not matter if you patch the virtual table or not, as long as you use objects on the stack (not heap allocated)?

    Read the article

  • Problems with variadic function (C)

    - by morpheous
    I have the following function from some legacy code that I am maintaining. long getMaxStart(long start, long count, const myStruct *s1, ...) { long i1, maxstart; myStruct *s2; va_list marker; maxstart = start; /*BUGFIX: 003 */ /*(va_start(marker, count);*/ va_start(marker, s1); for (i1 = 1; i1 <= count; i1++) { s2 = va_arg(marker, myStruct *); /* <- s2 is assigned null here */ maxstart = MAX(maxstart, s2->firstvalid); /* <- SEGV here */ } va_end(marker); return (maxstart); } When the function is called with only one myStruct argument, it causes a SEGV. The code compiled and run without crashing on an XP, when I compiled it using VS2005. I have now moved the code to Ubuntu Karmic and I am having problems with the stricter compiler on Linux. Is anyone able to spot what is causing the parameter not to be read correctly in the var_arg() statement? I am compiling using gcc version 4.4.1

    Read the article

  • C++ : integer constant is too large for its type

    - by user38586
    I need to bruteforce a year for an exercise. The compiler keep throwing this error: bruteforceJS12.cpp:8:28: warning: integer constant is too large for its type [enabled by default] My code is: #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main(){ unsigned long long year(0); unsigned long long result(318338237039211050000); unsigned long long pass(1337); while (pass != result) { for (unsigned long long i = 1; i<= year; i++) { pass += year * i * year; } cout << "pass not cracked with year = " << year << endl; ++year; } cout << "pass cracked with year = " << year << endl; } Note that I already tried with unsigned long long result(318338237039211050000ULL); I'm using gcc version 4.8.1 EDIT: Here is the corrected version using InfInt library http://code.google.com/p/infint/ #include <iostream> #include "InfInt.h" using namespace std; int main(){ InfInt year = "113"; InfInt result = "318338237039211050000"; InfInt pass= "1337"; while (pass != result) { for (InfInt i = 1; i<= year; i++) { pass += year * i * year; } cout << "year = " << year << " pass = " << pass << endl; ++year; } cout << "pass cracked with year = " << year << endl; }

    Read the article

  • How can I generate a list of #define values from C code?

    - by djs
    I have code that has a lot of complicated #define error codes that are not easy to decode since they are nested through several levels. Is there any elegant way I can get a list of #defines with their final numerical values (or whatever else they may be)? As an example: <header1.h> #define CREATE_ERROR_CODE(class, sc, code) ((class << 16) & (sc << 8) & code)) #define EMI_MAX 16 <header2.h> #define MI_1 EMI_MAX <header3.h> #define MODULE_ERROR_CLASS MI_1 #define MODULE_ERROR_SUBCLASS 1 #define ERROR_FOO CREATE_ERROR_CODE(MODULE_ERROR_CLASS, MODULE_ERROR_SUBCLASS, 1) I would have a large number of similar #defines matching ERROR_[\w_]+ that I'd like to enumerate so that I always have a current list of error codes that the program can output. I need the numerical value because that's all the program will print out (and no, it's not an option to print out a string instead). Suggestions for gcc or any other compiler would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • C++ : Declaring the array size with a non-constant variable

    - by Jérôme
    I always thought that when declaring an array in C++, the size has to be a constant integer value. For instance : int MyArray[5]; // correct or const int ARRAY_SIZE = 6; int MyArray[ARRAY_SIZE]; // correct but int ArraySize = 5; int MyArray[ArraySize]; // incorrect Here is also what is explained in The C++ Programming Language, by Bjarne Stroustrup : The number of elements of the array, the array bound, must be a constant expression (§C.5). If you need variable bounds, use a vector(§3.7.1, §16.3). For example: void f(int i) { int v1[i]; // error : array size not a constant expression vector<int> v2[i]; // ok } But to my big surprise, the code above does compile fine on my system ! Here is what I tried to compile : void f(int i) { int v2[i]; } int main() { int i = 3; int v1[i]; f(5); } I got no error ! I'm using GCC v4.4.0. Is there something I'm missing ?

    Read the article

  • What is causing this template-related compile error? (c++)

    - by Setien
    When I try to compile this: #include <map> #include <string> template <class T> class ZUniquePool { typedef std::map< int, T* > ZObjectMap; ZObjectMap m_objects; public: T * Get( int id ) { ZObjectMap::const_iterator it = m_objects.find( id ); if( it == m_objects.end() ) { T * p = new T; m_objects[ id ] = p; return p; } return m_objects[ id ]; } }; int main( int argc, char * args ) { ZUniquePool< std::string > pool; return 0; } I get this: main.cpp: In member function ‘T* ZUniquePool<T>::Get(int)’: main.cpp:12: error: expected `;' before ‘it’ main.cpp:13: error: ‘it’ was not declared in this scope I'm using GCC 4.2.1 on Mac OS X. It works in VS2008. I'm wondering whether it might be a variation of this problem: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1364837/why-doesnt-this-c-template-code-compile But as my error output is only partially similar, and my code works in VS2008, I am not sure. Can anyone shed some light on what I am doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • warning: format ‘%s’ expects type ‘char *’, but argument 2 has type ‘int’

    - by pyz
    code: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <netdb.h> #include <sys/socket.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *ptr, **pptr; struct hostent *hptr; char str[32]; //ptr = argv[1]; ptr = "www.google.com"; if ((hptr = gethostbyname(ptr)) == NULL) { printf("gethostbyname error for host:%s\n", ptr); } printf("official hostname:%s\n", hptr->h_name); for (pptr = hptr->h_aliases; *pptr != NULL; pptr++) printf(" alias:%s\n", *pptr); switch (hptr->h_addrtype) { case AF_INET: case AF_INET6: pptr = hptr->h_addr_list; for (; *pptr != NULL; pptr++) printf(" address:%s\n", inet_ntop(hptr->h_addrtype, *pptr, str, sizeof(str))); break; default: printf("unknown address type\n"); break; } return 0; } compiler output below: zhumatoMacBook:CProjects zhu$ gcc gethostbynamedemo.c gethostbynamedemo.c: In function ‘main’: gethostbynamedemo.c:31: warning: format ‘%s’ expects type ‘char *’, but argument 2 has type ‘int’

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >