Search Results

Search found 2237 results on 90 pages for 'msp430 gcc'.

Page 24/90 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• How to list library dependencies of a non-native binary?

  - by lvella

  When developing for native platform, I can use ldd to list all the shared libraries (.so files) a binary executable I build will try to load upon start-up. But when cross-compiling, I don't know how to get the same information. The ldd is not a normal binutils utility, like strip or ar, that can be built alongside gcc for cross compiling, but instead, it is a cryptic shell script that apparently can only run on native platform. So, using the cross-target binutils tools, is there any way to get a list of the dynamically linked dependency for of a foreign binary?

  Read the article

• Eliminating inherited overlong MACRO

  - by ExpatEgghead

  I have inherited a very long set of macros from some C algorithm code.They basically call free on a number of structures as the function exits either abnormally or normally. I would like to replace these with something more debuggable and readable. A snippet is shown below #define FREE_ALL_VECS {FREE_VEC_COND(kernel);FREE_VEC_COND(cirradCS); FREE_VEC_COND(pixAccum)..... #define FREE_ALL_2D_MATS {FREE_2D_MAT_COND(circenCS); FREE_2D_MAT_COND(cirradCS_2); } #define FREE_ALL_IMAGES {immFreeImg(&imgC); immFreeImg(&smal..... #define COND_FREE_ALLOC_VARS {FREE_ALL_VECS FREE_ALL_2D_MATS FREE_ALL_IMAGES} What approach would be best? Should I just leave well alone if it works? This macro set is called twelve times in one function. I'm on Linux with gcc.

  Read the article

• Is this a valid C statement ?

  - by Philando Gullible

  Lets say I write char c[99] = {'Stack Overflow'}; in C or C++ it does compiles fine but does this valid? By valid I meant not invoking any kind of undefined or unspecified behavior. Again if I write char c[99] = 'Stack Overflow'; gcc complains about multicharacter constant which is obvious but in the above when I am enclosing within curly brackets compiler is happy! why is it so ? I also notice that puts(c); after the first statement will output 'w' precisely the last character of a general string in-place of Stack Overflow. why so ? Could somebody explain this behavior may be separately.

  Read the article

• warning: '0' flag ignored with precision and ‘%i’ gnu_printf format

  - by morpheous

  I am getting the following warning when compiling some legacy C code on Ubuntu Karmic, using gcc 4.4.1 The warning is: src/filename.c:385: warning: '0' flag ignored with precision and ‘%i’ gnu_printf format The snippet which causes the warning to be emitted is: char buffer[256] ; long fnum ; /* some initialization code here ... */ sprintf(buffer, "F%03.3i.DTA", (int)fnum); /* <- warning emitted here */ I think I understand the warning, but I would like to check in here to see if I am right, and also the (definite) correct way of resolving this.

  Read the article

• Linking to MSVC DLL from MinGW

  - by IndigoFire

  I'm trying to link the LizardTech GeoExpress DSDK into my own application. I use gcc so that we can compile on for platforms. On Linux and Mac this works easily: they provide a static library (libltidsdk.a) and headers and all that we have to do is use them. Compiling for windows isn't so easy. They've built the library using Microsoft Visual Studio, and we use MinGW. I've read the MinGW FAQ, and I'm running into the problems below. The library is all C++, so my first question: is this even possible? Just linking against the dll as provided yields "undefined reference" errors for all of the C++ calls (constructors, desctructors, methods, etc). Based on the MinGW Wiki: http://www.mingw.org/wiki/MSVC%5Fand%5FMinGW%5FDLLs I should be able to use the utility reimp to convert a .lib into something useable. I've tried all of the .lib files provided by LizardTech, and they all give "invalid or corrupt import library". I've tried both version 0.4 and 0.3 of the reimp utility. Using the second method described in the wiki, I've run pexport and dlltool over the dll to get a .a archive, but that produces the same undefined references. BTW: I have read the discussion below. It left some ambiguity as to whether this is possible, and given the MinGW Wiki page it seems like this should be doable. If it is impossible, that's all I need to know. If it can be done, I'd like to know how I can get this to happen. stackoverflow.com/questions/1796209/how-to-link-to-vs2008-generated-libs-from-g Thanks!

  Read the article

• What is weird about wrapping setjmp and longjmp?

  - by Max

  Hello. I am using setjmp and longjmp for the first time, and I ran across an issue that comes about when I wrap setjmp and longjmp. I boiled the code down to the following example: #include <stdio.h> #include <setjmp.h> jmp_buf jb; int mywrap_save() { int i = setjmp(jb); return i; } int mywrap_call() { longjmp(jb, 1); printf("this shouldn't appear\n"); } void example_wrap() { if (mywrap_save() == 0){ printf("wrap: try block\n"); mywrap_call(); } else { printf("wrap: catch block\n"); } } void example_non_wrap() { if (setjmp(jb) == 0){ printf("non_wrap: try block\n"); longjmp(jb, 1); } else { printf("non_wrap: catch block\n"); } } int main() { example_wrap(); example_non_wrap(); } Initially I thought example_wrap() and example_non_wrap() would behave the same. However, the result of running the program (GCC 4.4, Linux): wrap: try block non_wrap: try block non_wrap: catch block If I trace the program in gdb, I see that even though mywrap_save() returns 1, the else branch after returning is oddly ignored. Can anyone explain what is going on?

  Read the article

• How does one properly redefine self while avoiding the "Multiple methods named ..." warning?

  - by Elise van Looij

  In Apple's The Objective-C Programming Language: Defining a Class the section named "Redifining self" recommends that that class methods allocate and return instances use 'self' only to allocate an instance and then refer only to that instance. Thus, I have a number of subclasses, that have class methods along the lines of: + (id)scrollViewWithFrame: (NSRect)rectFrame { id newInstance = [[[self alloc] initWithFrame:rectFrame] autorelease]; [newInstance setHasHorizontalScroller: YES]; [newInstance setHasVerticalScroller: YES]; [newInstance setBorderType: NSNoBorder]; [newInstance setAutoresizingMask: (NSViewWidthSizable | NSViewHeightSizable)]; return newInstance; } The above is, of course, a subclass of NSScrollView. Unfortunately, Xcode 3.x all these NSView subclasses now raise warnings: "Warning: Multiple methods named '-setAutoresizingMask' found". I believe it has something to do with GCC 4.2, the settings of which I have not changed. The warning is correct, of course, since NSView and its various subclasses all implement setAutoresizingMask, but it is also unnecessary. Since they're only warnings, I ignore them but there is a risk that in between the thirty or so unnecessary ones, a really useful warning lurks which I simply don't see. So, what to do? I do want to adhere to good coding practices and I want to build warning-free apps -- how can I do both?

  Read the article

• Trying to compile x264 and ffmpeg for iPhone - "missing required architecture arm in file"

  - by jtrim

  I'm trying to compile x264 for use in an iPhone application. I see there are instructions on how to compile ffmpeg for use on the platform here: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-October/076618.html , but I can't seem to find anything this complete for compiling x264 on the iPhone. I've found this source tree: http://gitorious.org/x264-arm that seems to have support for the ARM platform. Here is my config line: ./configure --cross-prefix=/usr/bin/ --host=arm-apple-darwin10 --extra-cflags="-B /Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/Developer/SDKs/iPhoneOS3.2.sdk/usr/lib/ -I /Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/Developer/SDKs/iPhoneOS3.2.sdk/usr/lib/" ...and inside configure I'm using the gas-preprocessor script (first link above) as my assembler: gas-preprocessor.pl gcc When I start compiling, it chunks away for a little while, then it spits out these warnings and a huge list of undefined symbols: ld: warning: option -s is obsolete and being ignored ld: warning: -force_cpusubtype_ALL will become unsupported for ARM architectures ld: warning: in /usr/lib/crt1.o, missing required architecture arm in file ld: warning: in /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.dylib, missing required architecture arm in file ld: warning: in /usr/lib/libm.dylib, missing required architecture arm in file ld: warning: in /usr/lib/libpthread.dylib, missing required architecture arm in file ld: warning: in /usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib, missing required architecture arm in file ld: warning: in /usr/lib/libSystem.dylib, missing required architecture arm in file Undefined symbols: My guess would be that the problem has to do with the "missing required architecture arm in file" warning...any ideas?

  Read the article

• C malloc assertion help

  - by Chris

  I am implementing a divide and conquer polynomial algorithm so i can bench it against an opencl implementation, but i can't seem to get malloc to work. When I run the program it allocates a bunch of stuff, checks some things, then sends the size/2 to the algorithm. Then when I hit the malloc line again it spits out this: malloc.c:3096: sYSMALLOc: Assertion `(old_top == (((mbinptr) (((char *) &((av)-bins[((1) - 1) * 2])) - __builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd)))) && old_size == 0) || ((unsigned long) (old_size) = (unsigned long)((((__builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd_nextsize))+((2 * (sizeof(size_t))) - 1)) & ~((2 * (sizeof(size_t))) - 1))) && ((old_top)-size & 0x1) && ((unsigned long)old_end & pagemask) == 0)' failed. Aborted The line in question is: int *out, .....other vars....; out = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int) * size * 2); I have checked size with fprintf and it is a positive int (usually 50 at that point). I have tried calling malloc with a plain number as well and i still get the error. I'm just stumped at what's going on, and nothing from google that I have found so far has been too helpful. Any ideas what's going on? I'm trying to figure out how to compile a newer GCC in case it's a compiler error, but i really doubt it.

  Read the article

• Compile and optimize for different target architectures

  - by Peter Smit

  Summary: I want to take advantage of compiler optimizations and processor instruction sets, but still have a portable application (running on different processors). Normally I could indeed compile 5 times and let the user choose the right one to run. My question is: how can I can automate this, so that the processor is detected at runtime and the right executable is executed without the user having to chose it? I have an application with a lot of low level math calculations. These calculations will typically run for a long time. I would like to take advantage of as much optimization as possible, preferably also of (not always supported) instruction sets. On the other hand I would like my application to be portable and easy to use (so I would not like to compile 5 different versions and let the user choose). Is there a possibility to compile 5 different versions of my code and run dynamically the most optimized version that's possible at execution time? With 5 different versions I mean with different instruction sets and different optimizations for processors. I don't care about the size of the application. At this moment I'm using gcc on Linux (my code is in C++), but I'm also interested in this for the Intel compiler and for the MinGW compiler for compilation to Windows. The executable doesn't have to be able to run on different OS'es, but ideally there would be something possible with automatically selecting 32 bit and 64 bit as well. Edit: Please give clear pointers how to do it, preferably with small code examples or links to explanations. From my point of view I need a super generic solution, which is applicable on any random C++ project I have later. Edit I assigned the bounty to ShuggyCoUk, he had a great number of pointers to look out for. I would have liked to split it between multiple answers but that is not possible. I'm not having this implemented yet, so the question is still 'open'! Please, still add and/or improve answers, even though there is no bounty to be given anymore. Thanks everybody!

  Read the article

• 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

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