Search Results

Search found 1733 results on 70 pages for 'boost asio'.

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 31/70 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

  • Safe way for getting/finding a vertex in a graph with custom properties -> good programming practice

    - by Shadow
    Hi, I am writing a Graph-class using boost-graph-library. I use custom vertex and edge properties and a map to store/find the vertices/edges for a given property. I'm satisfied with how it works, so far. However, I have a small problem, where I'm not sure how to solve it "nicely". The class provides a method Vertex getVertex(Vertexproperties v_prop) and a method bool hasVertex(Vertexproperties v_prop) The question now is, would you judge this as good programming practice in C++? My opinion is, that I have first to check if something is available before I can get it. So, before getting a vertex with a desired property, one has to check if hasVertex() would return true for those properties. However, I would like to make getVertex() a bit more robust. ATM it will segfault when one would directly call getVertex() without prior checking if the graph has a corresponding vertex. A first idea was to return a NULL-pointer or a pointer that points past the last stored vertex. For the latter, I haven't found out how to do this. But even with this "robust" version, one would have to check for correctness after getting a vertex or one would also run into a SegFault when dereferencing that vertex-pointer for example. Therefore I am wondering if it is "ok" to let getVertex() SegFault if one does not check for availability beforehand?

    Read the article

  • I don't understand how work call_once

    - by SABROG
    Please help me understand how work call_once Here is thread-safe code. I don't understand why this need Thread Local Storage and global_epoch variables. Variable _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch can be changed to constant/enum like {FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT, BEING_INITIALIZED, FINISH_INITIALIZED}. Why needed count calls in global_epoch? I think this code can be rewriting with logc: if flag FINISH_INITIALIZED do nothing, else go to block with mutexes and this all. #ifndef FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_H #define FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_H #include #include typedef sig_atomic_t fast_pthread_once_t; #define FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT SIG_ATOMIC_MAX extern __thread fast_pthread_once_t _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch; #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { #endif extern void fast_pthread_once( pthread_once_t *once, void (*func)(void) ); inline static void fast_pthread_once_inline( fast_pthread_once_t *once, void (*func)(void) ) { fast_pthread_once_t x = *once; /* unprotected access */ if ( x _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch ) { fast_pthread_once( once, func ); } } #ifdef __cplusplus } #endif #endif FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_H Source fast_pthread_once.c The source is written in C. The lines of the primary function are numbered for reference in the subsequent correctness argument. #include "fast_pthread_once.h" #include static pthread_mutex_t mu = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; /* protects global_epoch and all fast_pthread_once_t writes */ static pthread_cond_t cv = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER; /* signalled whenever a fast_pthread_once_t is finalized */ #define BEING_INITIALIZED (FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT - 1) static fast_pthread_once_t global_epoch = 0; /* under mu */ __thread fast_pthread_once_t _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch; static void check( int x ) { if ( x == 0 ) abort(); } void fast_pthread_once( fast_pthread_once_t *once, void (*func)(void) ) { /*01*/ fast_pthread_once_t x = *once; /* unprotected access */ /*02*/ if ( x _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch ) { /*03*/ check( pthread_mutex_lock(µ) == 0 ); /*04*/ if ( *once == FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT ) { /*05*/ *once = BEING_INITIALIZED; /*06*/ check( pthread_mutex_unlock(µ) == 0 ); /*07*/ (*func)(); /*08*/ check( pthread_mutex_lock(µ) == 0 ); /*09*/ global_epoch++; /*10*/ *once = global_epoch; /*11*/ check( pthread_cond_broadcast(&cv;) == 0 ); /*12*/ } else { /*13*/ while ( *once == BEING_INITIALIZED ) { /*14*/ check( pthread_cond_wait(&cv;, µ) == 0 ); /*15*/ } /*16*/ } /*17*/ _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch = global_epoch; /*18*/ check (pthread_mutex_unlock(µ) == 0); } } This code from BOOST: #ifndef BOOST_THREAD_PTHREAD_ONCE_HPP #define BOOST_THREAD_PTHREAD_ONCE_HPP // once.hpp // // (C) Copyright 2007-8 Anthony Williams // // Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See // accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at // http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) #include #include #include #include "pthread_mutex_scoped_lock.hpp" #include #include #include namespace boost { struct once_flag { boost::uintmax_t epoch; }; namespace detail { BOOST_THREAD_DECL boost::uintmax_t& get_once_per_thread_epoch(); BOOST_THREAD_DECL extern boost::uintmax_t once_global_epoch; BOOST_THREAD_DECL extern pthread_mutex_t once_epoch_mutex; BOOST_THREAD_DECL extern pthread_cond_t once_epoch_cv; } #define BOOST_ONCE_INITIAL_FLAG_VALUE 0 #define BOOST_ONCE_INIT {BOOST_ONCE_INITIAL_FLAG_VALUE} // Based on Mike Burrows fast_pthread_once algorithm as described in // http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2444.html template void call_once(once_flag& flag,Function f) { static boost::uintmax_t const uninitialized_flag=BOOST_ONCE_INITIAL_FLAG_VALUE; static boost::uintmax_t const being_initialized=uninitialized_flag+1; boost::uintmax_t const epoch=flag.epoch; boost::uintmax_t& this_thread_epoch=detail::get_once_per_thread_epoch(); if(epoch #endif I right understand, boost don't use atomic operation, so code from boost not thread-safe?

    Read the article

  • Uses of a C++ Arithmetic Promotion Header

    - by OlduvaiHand
    I've been playing around with a set of templates for determining the correct promotion type given two primitive types in C++. The idea is that if you define a custom numeric template, you could use these to determine the return type of, say, the operator+ function based on the class passed to the templates. For example: // Custom numeric class template <class T> struct Complex { Complex(T real, T imag) : r(real), i(imag) {} T r, i; // Other implementation stuff }; // Generic arithmetic promotion template template <class T, class U> struct ArithmeticPromotion { typedef typename X type; // I realize this is incorrect, but the point is it would // figure out what X would be via trait testing, etc }; // Specialization of arithmetic promotion template template <> class ArithmeticPromotion<long long, unsigned long> { typedef typename unsigned long long type; } // Arithmetic promotion template actually being used template <class T, class U> Complex<typename ArithmeticPromotion<T, U>::type> operator+ (Complex<T>& lhs, Complex<U>& rhs) { return Complex<typename ArithmeticPromotion<T, U>::type>(lhs.r + rhs.r, lhs.i + rhs.i); } If you use these promotion templates, you can more or less treat your user defined types as if they're primitives with the same promotion rules being applied to them. So, I guess the question I have is would this be something that could be useful? And if so, what sorts of common tasks would you want templated out for ease of use? I'm working on the assumption that just having the promotion templates alone would be insufficient for practical adoption. Incidentally, Boost has something similar in its math/tools/promotion header, but it's really more for getting values ready to be passed to the standard C math functions (that expect either 2 ints or 2 doubles) and bypasses all of the integral types. Is something that simple preferable to having complete control over how your objects are being converted? TL;DR: What sorts of helper templates would you expect to find in an arithmetic promotion header beyond the machinery that does the promotion itself?

    Read the article

  • c++ class member functions selected by traits

    - by Jive Dadson
    I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched stackoverflow, and come up empty. The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate non-virtual member functions? The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago. The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating. There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples. The original version instatiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way. If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits. I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state info was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that. Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice?

    Read the article

  • c++ class member functions instatiated by traits

    - by Jive Dadson
    I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched stackoverflow, and come up empty. The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate non-virtual member functions? The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago. The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating. There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples. The original version instantiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits that are tested at runtime. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way. If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits. I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state info was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. The compiler (vc++ 2008) always complained that things didn't match. I would yell, "SFINAE, you moron!" but the moron is probably me. Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that. Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice?

    Read the article

  • C++ class member functions instantiated by traits

    - by Jive Dadson
    I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched Stack Overflow, and come up empty. The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate non-virtual member functions? The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago. The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating. There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples. The original version instantiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits that are tested at runtime. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way. If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits. I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state information was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. The compiler (VC++ 2008) always complained that things didn't match. I would yell, "SFINAE, you moron!" but the moron is probably me. Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that. Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice?

    Read the article

  • How to boost playback volume in real time on media recorded with a very low volume.

    - by L Marksman
    I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this often misunderstood question, let me explain. Lets say I have a sound card and earphones/speakers that can play back audio loud enough in most cases. This is great but the problem is that you always find people who do not know how to record audio, from Youtube video's to music. So now you end up with a audio playback that only uses 10% or less of the capacity of your sound hardware, in vista/win 7 you will see this frequently in the mixer with the volume pushed up to max but the green sound level only goes up a millimeter or two. I am looking for (preferably free) software or a method to boost the sound level of any audio from any source in real time to use more of my hardware capacity similar to what VLC media player can do. Oh and please, do not tell me it is impossible. I am not trying to boost the volume past what my hardware is capable of, I am just trying to use my hardware's full capacity. Also please do not tell met to buy new hardware, I know I can use hardware amplification, I don't want to (like many others) spend money on a simple little problem like this. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Specify an inline callback function as an argument.

    - by Matthias Vance
    LS, Let me first explain what I'm trying to achieve using some pseudo-code (JavaScript). // Declare our function that takes a callback as as an argument, and calls the callback with true. B(func) { func(true); } // Call the function B(function(bool success) { /* code that uses success */ }); I hope this says it all. If not, please comment on my question so I can write a little more to clarify my issue. What I want is to have code like this in C++. I have tried to use lambda functions, but I was unable to specify a parameter type for those. Kind regards, Matthias Vance

    Read the article

  • Serialization with Qt

    - by Narek
    I am programming a GUI with Qt. In my GUI I have a huge std::map. And "MyType" is a class that has different kinds of filds. So, in a word, I want to serialize the std::map. How can I do that? Does Qt provides us with neccesary features? P.S. I would like to use std::map, NOT QMap.

    Read the article

  • bitset to dynamic bitset

    - by mr.bio
    Hi.. I have a function where i use bitset.Now i need to convert it to a dynamic bitset.. but i don't know how. Can somebody help me ? set<string> generateCandidates(set<string> ck,unsigned int k){ set<string> nk ; for (set<string>::const_iterator p = ck.begin( );p != ck.end( ); ++p){ for (set<string>::const_iterator q = ck.begin( );q != ck.end( ); ++q){ bitset<4> bs1(*p); bitset<4> bs2(*q); bs1|= bs2 ; if(bs1.count() == k){ nk.insert(bs1.to_string<char,char_traits<char>,allocator<char> >()); } } } return nk; }

    Read the article

  • What's the future of std::valarray look like?

    - by andand
    Up until fairly recently I hadn't been keeping up with the C++0x deliberations. As I try to become more familiar with it the issues being worked, I've come across sites like this which seems to be advocating for deprecating or removing std::valarray since most people are using Blitz++ in any event. I guess I'm probably one of the few people out there who uses std::valarray (and yes I know the class has a sordid past, a tarnished present, and a questionable future). For me they work, and perhaps more important, they're part of the standard (for now any way). Aside from the one site above, I've been able to find very little on what is actually happening with std::valarray in the new standard, and was hoping that somebody on SO might be able to provide some insight and / or references where Google, Wikipedia and even the C++ Standards Committee Web Site have so far failed me. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • C++ imitating ls like commands

    - by Arman
    Hi, How to implement the ls "filename_[0-5][3-4]?" like class? The result I would like to store in the vector. Currently I am using system() which is calling ls, but this is not portable under MS. thanks, Arman.

    Read the article

  • Wrapping allocated output parameters with a scoped_ptr/array

    - by Danra
    So, I have some code which looks like this: byte* ar; foo(ar) // Allocates a new[] byte array for ar ... delete[] ar; To make this safer, I used a scoped_array: byte* arRaw; scoped_array ar; foo(arRaw); ar.reset(arRaw); ... // No delete[] The question is, Is there any existing way to do this using just the scoped_array, without using a temporary raw array? I can probably write an in-place "resetter" class, just wondering if the functionality exists and I'm missing it. Thanks, Dan

    Read the article

  • Difference between BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE and BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION?

    - by Rhys Ulerich
    Can anyone describe the difference in behavior between BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE and BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION? The documentation implies the that both macros treat their third parameter identically, which makes me suspect the documentation is wrong. In particular, BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION gives me some odd looking results: error in "...": difference between *expected{0} and *actual{-1.7763568394002506e-16} exceeds 9.9999999999999995e-07 Is there a gotcha because I expect a zero result? I've not been successful at reading through the underlying macro declarations. Please note BOOST_CHECK_SMALL isn't appropriate for my use case (comparing two vectors after a linear algebra operation).

    Read the article

  • Regular expression quantifier questions

    - by Josemalive
    Hello, Im trying to find a regular expression that matches this kind of URL: http://sub.domain.com/selector/F/13/K/100546/sampletext/654654/K/sampletext_sampletext.html and dont match this: http://sub.domain.com/selector/F/13/K/10546/sampletext/5987/K/sample/K/101/sample_text.html only if the number of /K/ is minimum 1 and maximum 2 (something with a quantifier like {1,2}) Until this moment i have the following regexp: http://sub\.domain\.com/selector/F/[0-9]{1,2}/[a-z0-9_-]+/ Now i would need a hand to add any kind of condition like: Match this if in the text appears the /K/ from 1 to 2 times at most. Thanks in advance. Best Regards. Josema

    Read the article

  • When should I use temporary variables?

    - by Kyle
    Specifically, I'm wondering which of these I should write: shared_ptr<GuiContextMenu> subMenu = items[j].subMenu.lock(); if (subMenu) subMenu->setVisible(false); or: if (items[j].subMenu.lock() items[j].subMenu.lock()->setVisible(false); I am not required to follow any style guidelines. After optimization, I don't think either choice makes a difference in performance. What is generally the preferred style and why?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Private Method in Resource Managing Class (C++)

    - by BillyONeal
    I previously asked this question under another name but deleted it because I didn't explain it very well. Let's say I have a class which manages a file. Let's say that this class treats the file as having a specific file format, and contains methods to perform operations on this file: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. //Return the checksum. } }; Let's say I'd like to be able to unit test the part of this class that calculates the checksum. Unit testing the parts of the class that load in the file and such is impractical, because to test every part of the getChecksum() method I might need to construct 40 or 50 files! Now lets say I'd like to reuse the checksum method elsewhere in the class. I extract the method so that it now looks like this: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; static int calculateChecksum(const std::vector<unsigned char> &fileBytes) { //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. } public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it return calculateChecksum( something ); } void modifyThisFileSomehow() { //Perform modification int newChecksum = calculateChecksum( something ); //Apply the newChecksum to the file } }; Now I'd like to unit test the calculateChecksum() method because it's easy to test and complicated, and I don't care about unit testing getChecksum() because it's simple and very difficult to test. But I can't test calculateChecksum() directly because it is private. Does anyone know of a solution to this problem?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to generate a .h macros file from bjam?

    - by Gnurou
    I need to dynamically generate some macros into a .h configuration file that C programs can include in order to check which options are enabled, in a fashion similar to what is possible with CMake's CONFIGURE_FILE macro. But after looking in the doc and the web, I could not find something useful. Is it possible to generate such a file from bjam and have the dependencies handled correctly? If so, how would you do it?

    Read the article

  • recursive_directory_iterator exception

    - by Jon
    I'm writing a simple program which moves files on my desktop to new location. I don't understand why it crashes after the file has been moved. for(recursive_directory_iterator it(desktop), end; it != end; ++it) { if(it->path().leaf() == fileToMove) { rename(*it, newPath); } } A point in the right direction would be appropriated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What's the performance penalty of weak_ptr?

    - by Kornel Kisielewicz
    I'm currently designing a object structure for a game, and the most natural organization in my case became a tree. Being a great fan of smart pointers I use shared_ptr's exclusively. However, in this case, the children in the tree will need access to it's parent (example -- beings on map need to be able to access map data -- ergo the data of their parents. The direction of owning is of course that a map owns it's beings, so holds shared pointers to them. To access the map data from within a being we however need a pointer to the parent -- the smart pointer way is to use a reference, ergo a weak_ptr. However, I once read that locking a weak_ptr is a expensive operation -- maybe that's not true anymore -- but considering that the weak_ptr will be locked very often, I'm concerned that this design is doomed with poor performance. Hence the question: What is the performance penalty of locking a weak_ptr? How significant is it?

    Read the article

  • Micro Second resolution timestamps on windows.

    - by Nikhil
    How to get micro second resolution timestamps on windows? I am loking for something better than QueryPerformanceCounter, QueryPerformanceFrequency (these can only give you an elapsed time since boot, and are not necessarily accurate if they are called on different threads - ie QueryPerformanceCounter may return different results on different CPUs. There are also some processors that adjust their frequency for power saving, which apparently isn't always reflected in their QueryPerformanceFrequency result.) There is this, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx but it does not seem to be solid. This looks great but its not available for download any more. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/i-seconds/ This is another resource. http://www.lochan.org/2005/keith-cl/useful/win32time.html But requires a number of steps, running a helper program plus some init stuff also, I am not sure if it works on multiple CPUs Also looked at the Wikipedia link on the subject which is interesting but not that useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Stamp_Counter If the answer is just do this with BSD or Linux, its a lot easier thats fine, but I would like to confirm this and get some explanation as to why this is so hard in windows and so easy in linux and bsd. Its the same damm hardware...

    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 | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >