Search Results

Search found 2264 results on 91 pages for 'avr gcc'.

Page 25/91 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

• 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

• wrong operator() overload called

  - by user313202

  okay, I am writing a matrix class and have overloaded the function call operator twice. The core of the matrix is a 2D double array. I am using the MinGW GCC compiler called from a windows console. the first overload is meant to return a double from the array (for viewing an element). the second overload is meant to return a reference to a location in the array (for changing the data in that location. double operator()(int row, int col) const ; //allows view of element double &operator()(int row, int col); //allows assignment of element I am writing a testing routine and have discovered that the "viewing" overload never gets called. for some reason the compiler "defaults" to calling the overload that returns a reference when the following printf() statement is used. fprintf(outp, "%6.2f\t", testMatD(i,j)); I understand that I'm insulting the gods by writing my own matrix class without using vectors and testing with C I/O functions. I will be punished thoroughly in the afterlife, no need to do it here. Ultimately I'd like to know what is going on here and how to fix it. I'd prefer to use the cleaner looking operator overloads rather than member functions. Any ideas? -Cal the matrix class: irrelevant code omitted class Matrix { public: double getElement(int row, int col)const; //returns the element at row,col //operator overloads double operator()(int row, int col) const ; //allows view of element double &operator()(int row, int col); //allows assignment of element private: //data members double **array; //pointer to data array }; double Matrix::getElement(int row, int col)const{ //transform indices into true coordinates (from sorted coordinates //only row needs to be transformed (user can only sort by row) row = sortedArray[row]; result = array[usrZeroRow+row][usrZeroCol+col]; return result; } //operator overloads double Matrix::operator()(int row, int col) const { //this overload is used when viewing an element return getElement(row,col); } double &Matrix::operator()(int row, int col){ //this overload is used when placing an element return array[row+usrZeroRow][col+usrZeroCol]; } The testing program: irrelevant code omitted int main(void){ FILE *outp; outp = fopen("test_output.txt", "w+"); Matrix testMatD(5,7); //construct 5x7 matrix //some initializations omitted fprintf(outp, "%6.2f\t", testMatD(i,j)); //calls the wrong overload }

  Read the article

• Switch case assembly level code

  - by puffadder

  Hi All, I am programming C on cygwin windows. After having done a bit of C programming and getting comfortable with the language, I wanted to look under the hood and see what the compiler is doing for the code that I write. So I wrote down a code block containing switch case statements and converted them into assembly using: gcc -S foo.c Here is the C source: switch(i) { case 1: { printf("Case 1\n"); break; } case 2: { printf("Case 2\n"); break; } case 3: { printf("Case 3\n"); break; } case 4: { printf("Case 4\n"); break; } case 5: { printf("Case 5\n"); break; } case 6: { printf("Case 6\n"); break; } case 7: { printf("Case 7\n"); break; } case 8: { printf("Case 8\n"); break; } case 9: { printf("Case 9\n"); break; } case 10: { printf("Case 10\n"); break; } default: { printf("Nothing\n"); break; } } Now the resultant assembly for the same is: movl $5, -4(%ebp) cmpl $10, -4(%ebp) ja L13 movl -4(%ebp), %eax sall $2, %eax movl L14(%eax), %eax jmp *%eax .section .rdata,"dr" .align 4 L14: .long L13 .long L3 .long L4 .long L5 .long L6 .long L7 .long L8 .long L9 .long L10 .long L11 .long L12 .text L3: movl $LC0, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L4: movl $LC1, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L5: movl $LC2, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L6: movl $LC3, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L7: movl $LC4, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L8: movl $LC5, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L9: movl $LC6, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L10: movl $LC7, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L11: movl $LC8, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L12: movl $LC9, (%esp) call _printf jmp L2 L13: movl $LC10, (%esp) call _printf L2: Now, in the assembly, the code is first checking the last case (i.e. case 10) first. This is very strange. And then it is copying 'i' into 'eax' and doing things that are beyond me. I have heard that the compiler implements some jump table for switch..case. Is it what this code is doing? Or what is it doing and why? Because in case of less number of cases, the code is pretty similar to that generated for if...else ladder, but when number of cases increases, this unusual-looking implementation is seen. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• C++ addition overload ambiguity

  - by Nate

  I am coming up against a vexing conundrum in my code base. I can't quite tell why my code generates this error, but (for example) std::string does not. class String { public: String(const char*str); friend String operator+ ( const String& lval, const char *rval ); friend String operator+ ( const char *lval, const String& rval ); String operator+ ( const String& rval ); }; The implementation of these is easy enough to imagine on your own. My driver program contains the following: String result, lval("left side "), rval("of string"); char lv[] = "right side ", rv[] = "of string"; result = lv + rval; printf(result); result = (lval + rv); printf(result); Which generates the following error in gcc 4.1.2: driver.cpp:25: error: ISO C++ says that these are ambiguous, even though the worst conversion for the first is better than the worst conversion for the second: String.h:22: note: candidate 1: String operator+(const String&, const char*) String.h:24: note: candidate 2: String String::operator+(const String&) So far so good, right? Sadly, my String(const char *str) constructor is so handy to have as an implicit constructor, that using the explicit keyword to solve this would just cause a different pile of problems. Moreover... std::string doesn't have to resort to this, and I can't figure out why. For example, in basic_string.h, they are declared as follows: template<typename _CharT, typename _Traits, typename _Alloc> basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc> operator+(const basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>& __lhs, const basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>& __rhs) template<typename _CharT, typename _Traits, typename _Alloc> basic_string<_CharT,_Traits,_Alloc> operator+(const _CharT* __lhs, const basic_string<_CharT,_Traits,_Alloc>& __rhs); and so on. The basic_string constructor is not declared explicit. How does this not cause the same error I'm getting, and how can I achieve the same behavior??

  Read the article

• Use format strings that contain %1, %2 etc. instead of %d, %s etc. - Linux, C++

  - by rursw1

  Hello, As a follow-up of this question (Message compiler replacement in Linux gcc), I have the following problem: When using MC.exe on Windows for compiling and generating messages, within the C++ code I call FormatMessage, which retrieves the message and uses the va_list *Arguments parameter to send the varied message arguments. For example: messages.mc file: MessageId=1 Severity=Error SymbolicName=MULTIPLE_MESSAGE_OCCURED Language=English message %1 occured %2 times. . C++ code: void GetMsg(unsigned int errCode, wstring& message,unsigned int paramNumber, ...) { HLOCAL msg; DWORD ret; LANGID lang = GetUserDefaultLangID(); try { va_list argList; va_start( argList, paramNumber ); const TCHAR* dll = L"MyDll.dll"; _hModule = GetModuleHandle(dll); ret =::FormatMessage( FORMAT_MESSAGE_ALLOCATE_BUFFER | FORMAT_MESSAGE_FROM_HMODULE|FORMAT_MESSAGE_IGNORE_INSERTS, _hModule, errCode, lang, (LPTSTR) &msg, 0, &argList ); if ( 0 != ret ) { unsigned int count = 0 ; message = msg; if (paramNumber>0) { wstring::const_iterator iter; for (iter = message.begin();iter!=message.end();iter++) { wchar_t xx = *iter; if (xx ==L'%') count++; } } if ((count == paramNumber) && (count >0)) { ::LocalFree( msg ); ret =::FormatMessage( FORMAT_MESSAGE_ALLOCATE_BUFFER | FORMAT_MESSAGE_FROM_HMODULE, _hModule, errCode, GetUserDefaultLangID(), (LPTSTR) &msg, 0, &argList ); } else if (count != paramNumber) { wstringstream tmp; wstring messNumber; tmp << (errCode & 0xFFFF); tmp >> messNumber; message = message +L"("+ messNumber + L"). Bad Format String. "; } } ::LocalFree( msg ); } catch (...) { message << L"last error: " << GetLastError(); } va_end( argList ); } Caller code: wstring message; GetMsg(MULTIPLE_MESSAGE_OCCURED, message,2, "Error message", 5); Now, I wrote a simple script to generate a .msg file from the .mc file, and then I use gencat to generate a catalog from it. But is there a way to use the formatted strings as they contain %1, %2, etc. and NOT the general (%d, %s...) format? Please note, that the solution has to be generic enough for each possible message with each posible types\ arguments order... Is it possible at all? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Is typeid of type name always evaluated at compile time in c++ ?

  - by cyril42e

  I wanted to check that typeid is evaluated at compile time when used with a type name (ie typeid(int), typeid(std::string)...). To do so, I repeated in a loop the comparison of two typeid calls, and compiled it with optimizations enabled, in order to see if the compiler simplified the loop (by looking at the execution time which is 1us when it simplifies instead of 160ms when it does not). And I get strange results, because sometimes the compiler simplifies the code, and sometimes it does not. I use g++ (I tried different 4.x versions), and here is the program: #include <iostream> #include <typeinfo> #include <time.h> class DisplayData {}; class RobotDisplay: public DisplayData {}; class SensorDisplay: public DisplayData {}; class RobotQt {}; class SensorQt {}; timespec tp1, tp2; const int n = 1000000000; int main() { int avg = 0; clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &tp1); for(int i = 0; i < n; ++i) { // if (typeid(RobotQt) == typeid(RobotDisplay)) // (1) compile time // if (typeid(SensorQt) == typeid(SensorDisplay)) // (2) compile time if (typeid(RobotQt) == typeid(RobotDisplay) || typeid(SensorQt) == typeid(SensorDisplay)) // (3) not compile time ???!!! avg++; else avg--; } clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &tp2); std::cout << "time (" << avg << "): " << (tp2.tv_sec-tp1.tv_sec)*1000000000+(tp2.tv_nsec-tp1.tv_nsec) << " ns" << std::endl; } The conditions in which this problem appear are not clear, but: - if there is no inheritance involved, no problem (always compile time) - if I do only one comparison, no problem - the problem only appears only with a disjunction of comparisons if all the terms are false So is there something I didn't get with how typeid works (is it always supposed to be evaluated at compilation time when used with type names?) or may this be a gcc bug in evaluation or optimization? About the context, I tracked down the problem to this very simplified example, but my goal is to use typeid with template types (as partial function template specialization is not possible). Thanks for your help!

  Read the article

• Help in building an 16 bit os

  - by Barshan Das

  I am trying to build an old 16 bit dos like os. My bootloader code: ; This is not my code. May be of Fritzos. I forgot the source. ORG 7c00h jmp Start drive db 0 msg db " Loader Initialization",0 msg2 db "ACos Loaded",0 print: lodsb cmp al, 0 je end mov ah, 0Eh int 10h jmp print end: ret Start: mov [ drive ], dl ; Get the floppy OS booted from ; Update the segment registers xor ax, ax ; XOR ax mov ds, ax ; Mov AX into DS mov si,msg call print ; Load Kernel. ResetFloppy: mov ax, 0x00 ; Select Floppy Reset BIOS Function mov dl, [ drive ] ; Select the floppy ADos booted from int 13h ; Reset the floppy drive jc ResetFloppy ; If there was a error, try again. ReadFloppy: mov bx, 0x9000 ; Load kernel at 9000h. mov ah, 0x02 ; Load disk data to ES:BX mov al, 17 ; Load two floppy head full's worth of data. mov ch, 0 ; First Cylinder mov cl, 2 ; Start at the 2nd Sector to load the Kernel mov dh, 0 ; Use first floppy head mov dl, [ drive ] ; Load from the drive kernel booted from. int 13h ; Read the floppy disk. jc ReadFloppy ; Error, try again. ; Clear text mode screen mov ax, 3 int 10h ;print starting message mov si,msg2 call print mov ax, 0x0 mov ss, ax mov sp, 0xFFFF jmp 9000h ; This part makes sure the bootsector is 512 bytes. times 510-($-$$) db 0 ;bootable sector signature dw 0xAA55 My example kernel code: asm(".code16\n"); void putchar(char); int main() { putchar('A'); return 0; } void putchar(char val) { asm("movb %0, %%al\n" "movb $0x0E, %%ah\n" "int $0x10\n" : :"r"(val) ) ; } This is how I compile it : nasm -f bin -o ./bin/boot.bin ./source/boot.asm gcc -nostdinc -fno-builtin -I./include -c -o ./bin/kernel.o ./source/kernel.c ld -Ttext=0x9000 -o ./bin/kernel.bin ./bin/kernel.o -e 0x0 dd if=/dev/zero of=./bin/empty.bin bs=1440K count=1 cat ./bin/boot.bin ./bin/kernel.bin ./bin/empty.bin|head -c 1440K > ./bin/os rm ./bin/empty.bin and I run it in virtual machine. When I make the putchar function ( in kernel code ) for constant value ....i.e like this: void putchar() { char val = 'A'; asm("movb %0, %%al\n" "movb $0x0E, %%ah\n" "int $0x10\n" : :"r"(val) ) ; } then it works fine. But when I pass argument to it ( That is in the previous code ) , then it prints a space for any character. What should I do?

  Read the article

• how to make shared library from a static library under ubuntu using gcc

  - by Hema Joshi

  hi , i have a static library libsrp.a, i want to make a shared library libsrp.so from it that contains all symbols . please tell me how to make a .so under ubuntu. thanks

  Read the article

• GCC/XCode equivalent of _CrtCheckMemory?

  - by Chris Becke

  When dealing with random memory overwrites, in MSVC it is possible to validate the state of the heap at various points with a call to _CrtCheckMemory, and know with at least a small level of confidence that the code up until the check was not responsible for any errors that might cause new or malloc to fail later. In XCode, whats the equivalent way to try and box in a memory overwrite? All I have at the moment is a random failure of a call to new, somewhere deep in the bowels of some code with no real idea of how long the code has been running with a corrupt heap up until that point.

  Read the article

• How can i print the compilation options on making several C files using GCC and make

  - by Renjith G

  I want to print my whole file compilation options on make in my console on build. For example on compiling test1.c test2.c test3.c using make should print like cc -g -O1 -Wall test1.c cc -g -O1 -Wall test2.c cc -g -O1 -Wall test3.c

  Read the article

• Difference in behaviour( gcc and MSVC++ )

  - by Prasoon Saurav

  Consider the following code. #include <stdio.h> #include <vector> #include <iostream> struct XYZ { int X,Y,Z; }; std::vector<XYZ> A; int rec(int idx) { int i = A.size(); A.push_back(XYZ()); if (idx >= 5) return i; A[i].X = rec(idx+1); return i; } int main(){ A.clear(); rec(0); puts("FINISH!"); } I couldn't figure out the reason why the code gives segmentation fault on Linux(IDE used: Code::Blocks) whereas on Windows(IDE used : MSVC++) it doesn't. When I used valgrind just to check what actually the problem was, I got this output. I got Invalid write of size 4 at four different places. Then why didn't the code crash when I used MSVC++? Am I missing something?

  Read the article

• Difference in behaviour (GCC and Visual C++)

  - by Prasoon Saurav

  Consider the following code. #include <stdio.h> #include <vector> #include <iostream> struct XYZ { int X,Y,Z; }; std::vector<XYZ> A; int rec(int idx) { int i = A.size(); A.push_back(XYZ()); if (idx >= 5) return i; A[i].X = rec(idx+1); return i; } int main(){ A.clear(); rec(0); puts("FINISH!"); } I couldn't figure out the reason why the code gives a segmentation fault on Linux (IDE used: Code::Blocks) whereas on Windows (IDE used: Visual C++) it doesn't. When I used Valgrind just to check what actually the problem was, I got this output. I got Invalid write of size 4 at four different places. Then why didn't the code crash when I used Visual C++? Am I missing something?

  Read the article

• Silencing GCC warnings when using an "Uncopyable" class

  - by Kazade

  I have several classes that I don't want to be copyable, some of these classes have pointer data members. To make these classes uncopyable I privately inherit the following class template: template <class T> class Uncopyable { protected: Uncopyable() {} virtual ~Uncopyable() {} private: Uncopyable(const Uncopyable &); T & operator=(const T&); }; Which I used like so: class Entity : private Uncopyable<Entity> { } This works fine, however when I compile with -Weffc++ I still get the following warning: class Entity has pointer data members but does not override Entity(const Entity&) or operator=(const Entity&) Why is it still giving me this warning?

  Read the article

• (gcc) Multi-Dim Array or Double Pointer for Warning-free Compile

  - by paul simmons

  Hi, I have a function, which is called sometimes with regular, sometimes dynamic arrays. If I define the function as function_name(int[10][10] a) and send int** as a parameter, I get a warning. Opposite, if I declare function_name(int** a) and send int[][] as a parameter (after casting) I cannot access to array elements inside function. What is the correctest way?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >