Search Results

Search found 6159 results on 247 pages for 'compile'.

Page 34/247 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

  • How to compile OpenGL with a python C++ extension using distutils on Mac OSX?

    - by Matthew Mitchell
    When I try it I get: ImportError: dlopen(/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.5/lib/python2.5/site-packages/cscalelib.so, 2): Symbol not found: _glBindFramebufferEXT Referenced from: /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.5/lib/python2.5/site-packages/cscalelib.so Expected in: dynamic lookup I've tried all sort of things in the setup.py file. What do I actually need to put in it to link to OpenGL properly? My code compiles fine so there's no point putting that on there.

    Read the article

  • What scenarios are possible where the VS C# compiler would not compile a reference of a reference?

    - by SuperKing
    Hello, I'm probably asking this question wrong (and that may be why Google isn't helping), but here goes: In Visual Studio I am compiling a C# project (let's call it Project A, the startup project) which has a reference to Project B. Project B has a reference to a Project C, so when A gets built, the dlls for B gets placed in the bin directory of A, as does the dll for C (because B requires C, and A requires B). However, I have apparently made some change recently so that the dll for Project C does not go into the bin directory of Project A when rebuilding the solution. I have no idea what I've done to make this happen. I have not modified the setup of the solution itself, and I have only added additional references to the project files. Code wise, I have commented out most of the actual code in Project B that references classes in Project C, but did not remove the reference from the project itself (I don't think this matters). I was told that perhaps the C# compiler was optimizing somehow so that it was not building Project C, but really I'm out of ideas. I would think someone has run into something similar before Any thoughts? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Should the code being tested compile to a DLL or an executable file?

    - by uriDium
    I have a solution with two projects. One for project for the production code and another project for the unit tests. I did this as per the suggestions I got here from SO. I noticed that in the Debug Folder that it includes the production code in executable form. I used NUnit to run the tests after removing the executable and they all fail trying to find the executable. So it definitely is trying to find it. I then did a quick read to find out which is better, a DLL or an executable. It seems that an DLL is much faster as they share memory space where communication between executables is slower. Unforunately our production code needs to be an exectuable. So the unit tests will be slightly slower. I am not too worried about that. But the project does rely on code written in another library which is also in executable format at the moment. Should the projects that expose some sort of SDK rather be compiled to an DLL and then the projects that use the SDK be compiled to executable?

    Read the article

  • How does the compile choose which template function to call?

    - by aCuria
    Regarding the below code, how does the compiler choose which template function to call? If the const T& function is omitted, the T& function is always called. If the T& function is omitted, the const T& function is always called. If both are included, the results are as below. #include <iostream> #include <typeinfo> template <typename T> void function(const T &t) { std::cout << "function<" << typeid(T).name() << ">(const T&) called with t = " << t << std::endl; } template <typename T> void function(T &t) { std::cout << "function<" << typeid(T).name() << ">(T&) called with t = " << t << std::endl; } int main() { int i1 = 57; const int i2 = -6; int *pi1 = &i1; int *const pi3 = &i1; const int *pi2 = &i2; const int *const pi4 = &i2; function(pi1); ///just a normal pointer -> T& function(pi2); ///cannot change what we point to -> T& function(pi3); ///cannot change where we point -> const T& function(pi4); ///cannot change everything -> const T& return 0; } /* g++ output: function<Pi>(T&) called with t = 0x22cd24 function<PKi>(T&) called with t = 0x22cd20 function<Pi>(const T&) called with t = 0x22cd24 function<PKi>(const T&) called with t = 0x22cd20 */ /* bcc32 output: function<int *>(T&) called with t = 0012FF50 function<const int *>(T&) called with t = 0012FF4C function<int *>(const T&) called with t = 0012FF50 function<const int *>(const T&) called with t = 0012FF4C */ /* cl output: function<int *>(T&) called with t = 0012FF34 function<int const *>(T&) called with t = 0012FF28 function<int *>(const T&) called with t = 0012FF34 function<int const *>(const T&) called with t = 0012FF28 */

    Read the article

  • How can I compile a GUI executable with ghc?

    - by martingw
    I ported a little Haskell program I wrote from Mac to Windows. It's a GUI application (wxHaskell, compiled with ghc 6.12.1), so it does not need the command prompt window to open. It does so, anyway, so my question: What must I do so that the program starts without opening a prompt window first? Is there some ghc switch for this?

    Read the article

  • Jave JIT compiler compiles at compile time or runtime ?

    - by Tony
    From wiki: In computing, just-in-time compilation (JIT), also known as dynamic translation, is a technique for improving the runtime performance of a computer program. So I guess JVM has another compiler, not javac, that only compiles bytecode to machine code at runtime, while javac compiles sources to bytecode,is that right?

    Read the article

  • Does C# compile code inside an if(false) block?

    - by aximili
    I am just wondering if these code blocks gets compiled into .dll I don't think this one gets compiled at all #if SOMETHING_UNDEFINED // some code - this is ignored by the compiler #endif Now what about these? 1. if(false) { // some code - is this compiled? } 2. const bool F = false; if(F) { // some code - is this compiled? } 3. bool F = false; if(F) { // some code - is this compiled? }

    Read the article

  • Why in the following code the output is different when I compile or run it more than once

    - by Sanjeev
    class Name implements Runnable { public void run() { for (int x = 1; x <= 3; x++) { System.out.println("Run by " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + ", x is " + x); } } } public class Threadtest { public static void main(String [] args) { // Make one Runnable Name nr = new Name(); Thread one = new Thread(nr); Thread two = new Thread(nr); Thread three = new Thread(nr); one.setName("A"); two.setName("B"); three.setName("C"); one.start(); two.start(); three.start(); } } The answer is different while compiling and running more then one time I don't know why? any idea.

    Read the article

  • Splitting a C++ class into files now won't compile.

    - by vgm64
    Hi. I am teaching myself to write classes in C++ but can't seem to get the compilation to go through. If you can help me figure out not just how, but why, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Here are my three files: make_pmt.C #include <iostream> #include "pmt.h" using namespace std; int main() { CPMT *pmt = new CPMT; pmt->SetVoltage(900); pmt->SetGain(2e6); double voltage = pmt->GetVoltage(); double gain= pmt->GetGain(); cout << "The voltage is " << voltage << " and the gain is " << gain << "." <<endl; return 0; } pmt.C #include "pmt.h" using namespace std; class CPMT { double gain, voltage; public: double GetGain() {return gain;} double GetVoltage() {return voltage;} void SetGain(double g) {gain=g;} void SetVoltage(double v) {voltage=v;} }; pmt.h #ifndef PMT_H #define PMT_H 1 using namespace std; class CPMT { double gain, voltage; public: double GetGain(); double GetVoltage(); void SetGain(double g); void SetVoltage(double v); }; #endif And for reference, I get a linker error (right?): Undefined symbols: "CPMT::GetVoltage()", referenced from: _main in ccoYuMbH.o "CPMT::GetGain()", referenced from: _main in ccoYuMbH.o "CPMT::SetVoltage(double)", referenced from: _main in ccoYuMbH.o "CPMT::SetGain(double)", referenced from: _main in ccoYuMbH.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

    Read the article

  • How do I compile on linux to share with all distributions?

    - by Andrew M
    I compiled a PHP extension on Fedora Core 12, but when I send it to someone using CentOS they get the error: "ELF file OS ABI invalid" I'm not sure what causes this running file provides the following info: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, AMD x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), not stripped An extension that loads fine provides the following from file: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped So it seems I need to generate a SYSV type file for some distributions, instead of a GNU/LINUX file, no idea how though. Any pointers? Also should I be statically linking?

    Read the article

  • Can I write a test that succeeds if and only if a statement does not compile?

    - by Billy ONeal
    I'd like to prevent clients of my class from doing something stupid. To that end, I have used the type system, and made my class only accept specific types as input. Consider the following example (Not real code, I've left off things like virtual destructors for the sake of example): class MyDataChunk { //Look Ma! Implementation! }; class Sink; class Source { virtual void Run() = 0; Sink *next_; void SetNext(Sink *next) { next_ = next; } }; class Sink { virtual void GiveMeAChunk(const MyDataChunk& data) { //Impl }; }; class In { virtual void Run { //Impl } }; class Out { }; //Note how filter and sorter have the same declaration. Concrete classes //will inherit from them. The seperate names are there to ensure only //that some idiot doesn't go in and put in a filter where someone expects //a sorter, etc. class Filter : public Source, public Sink { //Drop objects from the chain-of-command pattern that don't match a particular //criterion. }; class Sorter : public Source, public Sink { //Sorts inputs to outputs. There are different sorters because someone might //want to sort by filename, size, date, etc... }; class MyClass { In i; Out o; Filter f; Sorter s; public: //Functions to set i, o, f, and s void Execute() { i.SetNext(f); f.SetNext(s); s.SetNext(o); i.Run(); } }; What I don't want is for somebody to come back later and go, "Hey, look! Sorter and Filter have the same signature. I can make a common one that does both!", thus breaking the semantic difference MyClass requires. Is this a common kind of requirement, and if so, how might I implement a test for it?

    Read the article

  • Why won't this compile and how can it be implemented so that it does?

    - by George Edison
    Here is some C++ code I'm playing around with: #include <iostream> #include <vector> #define IN , #define FOREACH(x,y) for(unsigned int i=0;i<y.size();i++) { x=y[i]; #define ENDFOREACH } using namespace std; int main() { vector<int> ints; ints.push_back(3); ints.push_back(4); ints.push_back(5); ints.push_back(6); FOREACH(int item IN ints) cout << item; ENDFOREACH return 0; } However, I get an error: macro "FOREACH" requires 2 arguments, but only 1 given The code compiles if I change the IN to a comma. How can I get the IN to take the place of a comma?

    Read the article

  • How to compile a C project with more than one main function?

    - by Daziplqa
    Hi folks, I am new to C, and now read some textbook and going to apply its examples. The problem is, whenever I creates a new project and try to put more than one file that contains a main function, the linker (as I thougt0 explains saying: /home/mohammed/tmp/abcd/main.c:4: multiple definition of `main' (BTW, I used many IDEs, MonoDevelop, QT creator, VS2010, Codebloks, ...) I am currently uses QT Creator, It seems to be a very nice IDE. So, there's not a workaround to solve such problem??

    Read the article

  • C header file won't compile with C, but will with C++.

    - by Leif Andersen
    I have the following chunk of a header file BKE_mesh.h: /* Connectivity data */ typedef struct IndexNode { struct IndexNode *next, *prev; int index; } IndexNode; void create_vert_face_map(ListBase **map, IndexNode **mem, const struct MFace *mface, const int totvert, const int totface); void create_vert_edge_map(ListBase **map, IndexNode **mem, const struct MEdge *medge, const int totvert, const int totedge); Note that the header file was prepared for the possibility of being used in a C++ file, as it had: #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { #endif at the top of the file, and the needed finish at the bottom. But the class implementing it was written in C. Next, whenever I try to #include the header file, I get an odd error. If the file has a .cpp extension, it compiles just fine, no complaints whatsoever. However, if I do: #include "BKE_mesh.h" inside of a file with a .c extension, I get the following errors: expected ')' before '*' token for the two last functions, in specific, the variable: ListBase **map in both classes. (Note that earlier in the header file, it declared, but not defined ListBase). So, my question is: why is this valid C++ code, but not C code? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How to stop C# compile on first error in VS 2010 (VS 2008 macros don't work)!

    - by Ben Robbins
    At work we have a C# solution with over 80 projects. Is it possible in VS 2010 to automatically stop compilation as soon as an error is encountered rather than the default behaviour which is to continue as far as possible and display a list of errors in the error window? I'm happy for it to stop either as soon as an error is encountered (file-level) or as soon as a project fails to build (project-level). I'd also note that in VS 2008 we used macros similar to some of the answers below but they don't work in VS 2010 (at least I couldn't get them to as the environment events don't seem to fire in VS 2010).

    Read the article

  • How can I use the compile time constant __LINE__ in a string?

    - by John
    I can use __LINE__ as a method parameter just fine, but I would like an easy way to use it in a function that uses strings. For instance say I have this: 11 string myTest() 12 { 13 if(!testCondition) 14 return logError("testcondition failed"); 15 } And I want the result of the function to be: "myTest line 14: testcondition failed" How can I write logError? Does it have to be some monstrosity of a macro?

    Read the article

  • C# .net updates versus compile time debugging. How to stop the oddities?

    - by Fox Diller
    Are we reduced to ClickOnce to manage our application state for our users? We use Visual Patch currently. When our users update (we reproduced this) we get errors from the updated versions to our compiled versions. Since our developer state is not 'updated' with Visual Patch how can we monitor and eventual squash the various System.MethodNotFound, and System.NullReferenceException in our updated versions of our application?

    Read the article

  • Designing an API with compile-time option to remove first parameter to most functions and use a glob

    - by tomlogic
    I'm trying to design a portable API in ANSI C89/ISO C90 to access a wireless networking device on a serial interface. The library will have multiple network layers, and various versions need to run on embedded devices as small as an 8-bit micro with 32K of code and 2K of data, on up to embedded devices with a megabyte or more of code and data. In most cases, the target processor will have a single network interface and I'll want to use a single global structure with all state information for that device. I don't want to pass a pointer to that structure through the network layers. In a few cases (e.g., device with more resources that needs to live on two networks) I will interface to multiple devices, each with their own global state, and will need to pass a pointer to that state (or an index to a state array) through the layers. I came up with two possible solutions, but neither one is particularly pretty. Keep in mind that the full driver will potentially be 20,000 lines or more, cover multiple files, and contain hundreds of functions. The first solution requires a macro that discards the first parameter for every function that needs to access the global state: // network.h typedef struct dev_t { int var; long othervar; char name[20]; } dev_t; #ifdef IF_MULTI #define foo_function( x, a, b, c) _foo_function( x, a, b, c) #define bar_function( x) _bar_function( x) #else extern dev_t DEV; #define IFACE (&DEV) #define foo_function( x, a, b, c) _foo_function( a, b, c) #define bar_function( x) _bar_function( ) #endif int bar_function( dev_t *IFACE); int foo_function( dev_t *IFACE, int a, long b, char *c); // network.c #ifndef IF_MULTI dev_t DEV; #endif int bar_function( dev_t *IFACE) { memset( IFACE, 0, sizeof *IFACE); return 0; } int foo_function( dev_t *IFACE, int a, long b, char *c) { bar_function( IFACE); IFACE->var = a; IFACE->othervar = b; strcpy( IFACE->name, c); return 0; } The second solution defines macros to use in the function declarations: // network.h typedef struct dev_t { int var; long othervar; char name[20]; } dev_t; #ifdef IF_MULTI #define DEV_PARAM_ONLY dev_t *IFACE #define DEV_PARAM DEV_PARAM_ONLY, #else extern dev_t DEV; #define IFACE (&DEV) #define DEV_PARAM_ONLY void #define DEV_PARAM #endif int bar_function( DEV_PARAM_ONLY); // I don't like the missing comma between DEV_PARAM and arg2... int foo_function( DEV_PARAM int a, long b, char *c); // network.c #ifndef IF_MULTI dev_t DEV; #endif int bar_function( DEV_PARAM_ONLY) { memset( IFACE, 0, sizeof *IFACE); return 0; } int foo_function( DEV_PARAM int a, long b, char *c) { bar_function( IFACE); IFACE->var = a; IFACE->othervar = b; strcpy( IFACE->name, c); return 0; } The C code to access either method remains the same: // multi.c - example of multiple interfaces #define IF_MULTI #include "network.h" dev_t if0, if1; int main() { foo_function( &if0, -1, 3.1415926, "public"); foo_function( &if1, 42, 3.1415926, "private"); return 0; } // single.c - example of a single interface #include "network.h" int main() { foo_function( 11, 1.0, "network"); return 0; } Is there a cleaner method that I haven't figured out? I lean toward the second since it should be easier to maintain, and it's clearer that there's some macro magic in the parameters to the function. Also, the first method requires prefixing the function names with "_" when I want to use them as function pointers. I really do want to remove the parameter in the "single interface" case to eliminate unnecessary code to push the parameter onto the stack, and to allow the function to access the first "real" parameter in a register instead of loading it from the stack. And, if at all possible, I don't want to have to maintain two separate codebases. Thoughts? Ideas? Examples of something similar in existing code? (Note that using C++ isn't an option, since some of the planned targets don't have a C++ compiler available.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >