Search Results

Search found 73 results on 3 pages for 'sharptooth'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 3/3 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 

  • What traits can hint a teenager he should pursue software development career?

    - by sharptooth
    We're gonna have a day when employees' kids will visit our company office. The idea is that they will come see "how parents work", "how cool stuff is done", have fun, etc. Kids will be up to 17 years old. Now I suppose some of the teenagers already think of what they wanna do when they finally grow up and will ask questions like "how can I tell I should get a degree in software engineering and not in logistics/finances/whatever?" So I think we better be prepared and ready to answer those questions so that those who really fit don't waste time but use their potential to the full. What traits that already emerge in teenage years indicate that a person could become a very good software developer?

    Read the article

  • Is a C++ compiler allowed to emit different machine code compiling the same program?

    - by sharptooth
    Consider a situation. We have some specific C++ compiler, a specific set of compiler settings and a specific C++ program. We compile that specific programs with that compiler and those settings two times, doing a "clean compile" each time. Should the machine code emitted be the same (I don't mean timestamps and other bells and whistles, I mean only real code that will be executed) or is it allowed to vary from one compilation to another?

    Read the article

  • How do I upload a file, process it and return a result file in a single request to a REST WCF service?

    - by sharptooth
    I need to implement the following scenario in a REST service implemented in WCF: the user submits a binary file and a set of parameters the server consumes the file, does some clever work and generates a binary output file the user retrieves that binary result file and all that is done in a single operation from the client perspective. It's pretty easy in a non-REST service. How do I do that in a REST service? Where do I get started?

    Read the article

  • Why exactly is calling the destructor for the second time undefined behavior in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    As mentioned in this answer simply calling the destructor for the second time is already undefined behavior 12.4/14(3.8). For example: class Class { public: ~Class() {} }; // somewhere in code: { Class* object = new Class(); object->~Class(); delete object; // UB because at this point the destructor call is attempted again } In this example the class is designed in such a way that the destructor could be called multiple times - no things like double-deletion can happen. The memory is still allocated at the point where delete is called - the first destructor call doesn't call the ::operator delete() to release memory. For example, in Visual C++ 9 the above code looks working. Even C++ definition of UB doesn't directly prohibit things qualified as UB from working. So for the code above to break some implementation and/or platform specifics are required. Why exactly would the above code break and under what conditions?

    Read the article

  • Will this make the object thread-safe?

    - by sharptooth
    I have a native Visual C++ COM object and I need to make it completely thread-safe to be able to legally mark it as "free-threaded" in th system registry. Specifically I need to make sure that no more than one thread ever accesses any member variable of the object simultaneously. The catch is I'm almost sure that no sane consumer of my COM object will ever try to simultaneously use the object from more than one thread. So I want the solution as simple as possible as long as it meets the requirement above. Here's what I came up with. I add a mutex or critical section as a member variable of the object. Every COM-exposed method will acquire the mutex/section at the beginning and release before returning control. I understand that this solution doesn't provide fine-grained access and this might slow execution down, but since I suppose simultaneous access will not really occur I don't care of this. Will this solution suffice? Is there a simpler solution?

    Read the article

  • How to default-initialize local variables of built-in types in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    How do I default-initialize a local variable of primitive type in C++? For example if a have a typedef: typedef unsigned char boolean;//that's Microsoft RPC runtime typedef I'd like to change the following line: boolean variable = 0; //initialize to some value to ensure reproduceable behavior retrieveValue( &variable ); // do actual job into something that would automagically default-initialize the variable - I don't need to assign a specific value to it, but instead I only need it to be intialized to the same value each time the program runs - the same stuff as with a constructor initializer list where I can have: struct Struct { int Value; Struct() : Value() {} }; and the Struct::Value will be default-initialized to the same value every time an instance is cinstructed, but I never write the actual value in the code. How can I get the same behavior for local variables?

    Read the article

  • Can I use part of MD5 hash for data identification?

    - by sharptooth
    I use MD5 hash for identifying files with unknown origin. No attacker here, so I don't care that MD5 has been broken and one can intendedly generate collisions. My problem is I need to provide logging so that different problems are diagnosed easier. If I log every hash as a hex string that's too long, inconvenient and looks ugly, so I'd like to shorten the hash string. Now I know that just taking a small part of a GUID is a very bad idea - GUIDs are designed to be unique, but part of them are not. Is the same true for MD5 - can I take say first 4 bytes of MD5 and assume that I only get collision probability higher due to the reduced number of bytes compared to the original hash?

    Read the article

  • Does using functional languages help against computing values repeatedly?

    - by sharptooth
    Consider a function f(x,y): f(x,0) = x*x; f(0,y) = y*(y + 1); f(x,y) = f(x,y-1) + f(x-1,y); If one tries to implement that recursively in some language like C++ he will encounter a problem. Suppose the function is first called with x = x0 and y = y0. Then for any pair (x,y) where 0 <= x < x0 and 0 <= y < y0 the intermediate values will be computed multiple times - recursive calls will form a huge tree in which multiple leaves will in fact contain the same pairs (x,y). For pairs (x,y) where x and y are both close to 0 values will be computed numerous times. For instance, I tested a similar function implemented in C++ - for x=20 and y=20 its computation takes about 4 hours (yes, four Earth hours!). Obviously the implementation can be rewritten in such way that repeated computation doesn't occur - either iteratively or with a cache table. The question is: will functional languages perform any better and avoid repeated computations when implementing a function like above recursively?

    Read the article

  • How to deal with accelerators for disabled controls?

    - by sharptooth
    I have a dialog created from a template. It has controls listed in the template in the following order: some irrelevant controls a label with an accelerator (let's pretend it's Alt-A) an edit box OK and Cancel buttons Normally when I hit Alt-A the keybord focus is transferred to the edit box - just as needed. However I sometimes need to disable to edit box. If I hit Alt-A when the edit box is disabled the effect is that the OK button is pressed and that is definitely not what I want. I would prefer to have no action taken in this case. What could I do to workaround this?

    Read the article

  • How to prevent VC++ 9 linker from linking unnecessary global variables?

    - by sharptooth
    I'm playing with function-level linking in VC++. I've enabled /OPT:REF and /OPT:ICF and the linker is happy to eliminate all unused functions. Not so with variables. The following code is to demonstrate the problem only, I fully understand that actually having code structured that way is suboptimal. //A.cpp SomeType variable1; //B.cpp extern SomeType variable1; SomeType variable2; class ClassInB { //actually uses variable1 }; //C.cpp extern SomeType variable2; class ClassInC { //actually uses variable2; }; All those files are compiled into a static lib. The consumer project only uses ClassInC and links to the static library. Now comes the VC++ 9 linker. First the linker sees that C.obj references variable2 and includes B.obj. B.obj references variable1, so it includes A.obj. Then the unreferenced stuff elimination phase starts. It removes all functions in A.obj and B.obj, but not the variables. Both variable and variable2 are preserved together with their static initializers and deinitializers. That inflates the image size and introduces a delay for running the initializers and deinitializes. The code above is oversimplified, in actual code I really can't move variable2 into C.cpp easily. I could put it into a separate .cpp file, but that looks really dumb. Is there any better option to resolve the problem with Visual C++ 9?

    Read the article

  • Could this C cast to avoid a signed/unsigned comparison make any sense?

    - by sharptooth
    I'm reviewing a C++ project and see effectively the following: std::vector<SomeType> objects; //then later int size = (int)objects.size(); for( int i = 0; i < size; ++i ) { process( objects[i] ); } Here's what I see. std::vector::size() returns size_t that can be of some size not related to the size of int. Even if sizeof(int) == sizeof(size_t) int is signed and can't hold all possible values of size_t. So the code above could only process the lower part of a very long vector and contains a bug. That said I'm curious of why the author might have written this? My only guess is that first he omitted the (int) cast and the compiler emitted something like Visual C++ C4018 warning: warning C4018: '<' : signed/unsigned mismatch so the author though that the best way to avoid the compiler warning would be to simply cast the size_t to int thus making the compiler shut up. Is there any other possible sane reason for that C cast?

    Read the article

  • Can I switch the Visual C++ runtime to another heap?

    - by sharptooth
    My program uses a third party dynamic link library that has huge memory leaks inside. Both my program and the library are Visual C++ native code. Both link to the Visual C++ runtime dynamically. I'd like to force the library into another heap so that all allocations that are done through the Visual C++ runtime while the library code is running are done on that heap. I can call HeapCreate() and later HeapDestroy(). If I somehow ensure that all allocations are done in the new heap I don't care of the leaks anymore - they all go when I destroy the second heap. Is it possible to force the Visual C++ runtime to make all allocations on a specified heap?

    Read the article

  • Why are some strings displayed as garbage when I scroll my read-only multiline Win32 edit control ve

    - by sharptooth
    In my native C+ Win32 GUI application I have a property sheet with two property pages. One of the property pages contains an edit box: EDITTEXT IDC_EDIT_ID,x,y,width,height,ES_MULTILINE | ES_READONLY | NOT WS_BORDER | WS_VSCROLL | WS_HSCROLL | NOT WS_TABSTOP,WS_EX_STATICEDGE I set a multiline text to this edit box. The text has more lines than the edit can fit, so some of the text is clipped and a vertical scroll bar appears. When I scroll up with the mouse the lines that come "from under clip area" are drawn as garbage - it looks like first one line is drawn, then some other line is drawn on the same place without first painting the background. The lines that just move up - ones that were visible before scrolling and remain visible after scrolling are displayed allright. What's the reason and workaround for this behavior?

    Read the article

  • Which to use - "operator new" or "operator new[]" - to allocate a block of raw memory in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    My C++ program needs a block of uninitialized memory. In C I would use malloc() and later free(). In C++ I can either call ::operator new or ::operator new[] and ::operator delete or operator delete[] respectively later. Looks like both ::operator new and ::operator new[] have exactly the same signature and exactly the same behavior. The same for ::operator delete and ::operator delete[]. The only thing I shouldn't do is pairing operator new with operator delete[] and vice versa - undefined behavior. Other than that which pair do I choose and why?

    Read the article

  • Which do I select - Windows Azure or Amazon EC2 - for hosting unmanaged C++ code?

    - by sharptooth
    We have a server solution written entirely in unmanaged Visual C++. It contains complicated methods for really heavy data processing. The whole thing contains millions lines of code, so rewritning it all in some other language is not an option. We could write some extra code or make isolated changes, but rewriting everything is out of the question. Now we'd like to put it on a cloud. Which platform do we choose - Amazon EC2 or Windows Azure - and why?

    Read the article

  • How to address thread-safety of service data used for maintaining static local variables in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    Consider the following scenario. We have a C++ function with a static local variable: void function() { static int variable = obtain(); //blahblablah } the function needs to be called from multiple threads concurrently, so we add a critical section to avoid concurrent access to the static local: void functionThreadSafe() { CriticalSectionLockClass lock( criticalSection ); static int variable = obtain(); //blahblablah } but will this be enough? I mean there's some magic that makes the variable being initialized no more than once. So there's some service data maintained by the runtime that indicates whether each static local has already been initialized. Will the critical section in the above code protect that service data as well? Is any extra protection required for this scenario?

    Read the article

  • How to conduct an interview for a development position remotely?

    - by sharptooth
    Usually we run interviews in office. We have a room with a table, the interviewee and one or two interviewers sit at the table, interviewers ask questions, often accompanied with code snippets on paper, the interviewee (hopefully) answers them, writes code snippets to illustrate his point. Usually it's something like an interviewer writes about five lines of C++ code and asks some specific question - quite a little code. Now we need to do the same remotely. We will be in our office and the interviewee will be far away - we are asked to help hire a person for another office located abroad. Of course we can use some technology for voice calls, but I'm afraid it's the most we can count on. I see a whole set of obstacles here: how to write illustration code snippets and exchange them efficiently? what to do to compensate for the fact that we're not native English speakers and the interviewees might or might be not native English speakers (I'm afraid this can make conversation significantly harder)? Are there any best practices for this situation? How could we address the obstacles listed? What other things should we consider to run the interview most efficiently?

    Read the article

  • Are unspecified and undefined behavior required to be consistent between compiles?

    - by sharptooth
    Let's pretend my program contains a specific construct the C++ Standard states to be unspecified behavior. This basically means the implementation has to do something reasonable but is allowed not to document it. But is the implementation required to produce the same behavior every time it compiles a specific construct with unspecified behavior or is it allowed to produce different behavior in different compiles? What about undefined behavior? Let's pretend my program contains a construct that is UB according to the Standard. The implementation is allowed to exhibit any behavior. But can this behavior differ between compiles of the same program on the same compiler with same settings in the same environment? In other words, if I dereference a null pointer on line 78 in file X.cpp and the implementation formats the drive in such case does it mean that it will do the same after the program is recompiled?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3