Search Results

Search found 10055 results on 403 pages for 'what do i like most in 11'.

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 37/403 | < Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >

  • HSM - cryptoki - opening sessions overhead

    - by Raj
    I am having a query regarding sessions with HSM. I am aware that there is an overhead if you initialise and finalise the cryptoki api for every file you want to encrypt/decrypt. My queries are, Is there an overhead in opening and closing individual sessions for every file, you want to encrypt/decrypt.(C_Initialize/C_Finalize) How many maximum number of sessions can i have for a HSM simultaneously, with out affecting the performance? Is opening and closing the session for processing individual files the best approach or opening a session and processing multiple files and then closing the session the best approach? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Which is faster: creating a detailed mesh before execution or tessellating?

    - by Nick Udell
    For simplicity of the problem let's consider spheres. Let's say I have a sphere, and before execution I know the radius, the position and the triangle count. Let's also say the triangle count is sufficiently large (e.g. ~50k triangles). Would it be faster generally to create this sphere mesh before hand and stream all 50k triangles to the graphics card, or would it be faster to send a single point (representing the centre of the sphere) and use tessellation and geometry shaders to build the sphere on the GPU? Would it still be faster if I had 100 of these spheres in different positions? Can I use hull/geometry shaders to create something which I can then combine with instancing?

    Read the article

  • Impossible to be const-correct when combining data and it's lock?

    - by Graeme
    I've been looking at ways to combine a piece of data which will be accessed by multiple threads alongside the lock provisioned for thread-safety. I think I've got to a point where I don't think its possible to do this whilst maintaining const-correctness. Take the following class for example: template <typename TType, typename TMutex> class basic_lockable_type { public: typedef TMutex lock_type; public: template <typename... TArgs> explicit basic_lockable_type(TArgs&&... args) : TType(std::forward<TArgs...>(args)...) {} TType& data() { return data_; } const TType& data() const { return data_; } void lock() { mutex_.lock(); } void unlock() { mutex_.unlock(); } private: TType data_; mutable TMutex mutex_; }; typedef basic_lockable_type<std::vector<int>, std::mutex> vector_with_lock; In this I try to combine the data and lock, marking mutex_ as mutable. Unfortunately this isn't enough as I see it because when used, vector_with_lock would have to be marked as mutable in order for a read operation to be performed from a const function which isn't entirely correct (data_ should be mutable from a const). void print_values() const { std::lock_guard<vector_with_lock>(values_); for(const int val : values_) { std::cout << val << std::endl; } } vector_with_lock values_; Can anyone see anyway around this such that const-correctness is maintained whilst combining data and lock? Also, have I made any incorrect assumptions here?

    Read the article

  • Output is different for R-value and L-value. Why?

    - by Leonid Volnitsky
    Can someone explain to me why output for R-value is different from L-value? #include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; template<typename Ct> struct ct_wrapper { Ct&& ct; // R or L ref explicit ct_wrapper(Ct&& ct) : ct(std::forward<Ct>(ct)) { std::cout << this->ct[1];}; }; int main() { // L-val vector<int> v{1,2,3}; ct_wrapper<vector<int>&> lv(v); cout << endl << lv.ct[0] << lv.ct[1] << lv.ct[2] << endl; // R-val ct_wrapper<vector<int>&&> rv(vector<int>{1,2,3}); cout << endl << rv.ct[0] << rv.ct[1] << rv.ct[2] << endl; } Output (same for gcc48 and clang32): 2 123 2 003

    Read the article

  • std::conditional compile-time branch evaluation

    - by cmannett85
    Compiling this: template < class T, class Y, class ...Args > struct isSame { static constexpr bool value = std::conditional< sizeof...( Args ), typename std::conditional< std::is_same< T, Y >::value, isSame< Y, Args... >, // Error! std::false_type >::type, std::is_same< T, Y > >::type::value; }; int main() { qDebug() << isSame< double, int >::value; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Gives me this compiler error: error: wrong number of template arguments (1, should be 2 or more) The issue is that isSame< double, int > has an empty Args parameter pack, so isSame< Y, Args... > effectively becomes isSame< Y > which does not match the signature. But my question is: Why is that branch being evaluated at all? sizeof...( Args ) is false, so the inner std:conditional should not be evaluated. This isn't a runtime piece of code, the compiler knows that sizeof..( Args ) will never be true with the given template types. If you're curious, it's supposed to be a variadic version of std::is_same, not that it works...

    Read the article

  • Specializating a template function that takes a universal reference parameter

    - by David Stone
    How do I specialize a template function that takes a universal reference parameter? foo.hpp: template<typename T> void foo(T && t) // universal reference parameter foo.cpp template<> void foo<Class>(Class && class) { // do something complicated } Here, Class is no longer a deduced type and thus is Class exactly; it cannot possibly be Class &, so reference collapsing rules will not help me here. I could perhaps create another specialization that takes a Class & parameter (I'm not sure), but that implies duplicating all of the code contained within foo for every possible combination of rvalue / lvalue references for all parameters, which is what universal references are supposed to avoid. Is there some way to accomplish this? To be more specific about my problem in case there is a better way to solve it: I have a program that can connect to multiple game servers, and each server, for the most part, calls everything by the same name. However, they have slightly different versions for a few things. There are a few different categories that these things can be: a move, an item, etc. I have written a generic sort of "move string to move enum" set of functions for internal code to call, and my server interface code has similar functions. However, some servers have their own internal ID that they communicate with, some use strings, and some use both in different situations. Now what I want to do is make this a little more generic. I want to be able to call something like ServerNamespace::server_cast<Destination>(source). This would allow me to cast from a Move to a std::string or ServerMoveID. Internally, I may need to make a copy (or move from) because some servers require that I keep a history of messages sent. Universal references seem to be the obvious solution to this problem. The header file I'm thinking of right now would expose simply this: namespace ServerNamespace { template<typename Destination, typename Source> Destination server_cast(Source && source); } And the implementation file would define all legal conversions as template specializations.

    Read the article

  • User defined literal arguments are not constexpr?

    - by Pubby
    I'm testing out user defined literals. I want to make _fac return the factorial of the number. Having it call a constexpr function works, however it doesn't let me do it with templates as the compiler complains that the arguments are not and cannot be constexpr. I'm confused by this - aren't literals constant expressions? The 5 in 5_fac is always a literal that can be evaluated during compile time, so why can't I use it as such? First method: constexpr int factorial_function(int x) { return (x > 0) ? x * factorial_function(x - 1) : 1; } constexpr int operator "" _fac(unsigned long long x) { return factorial_function(x); // this works } Second method: template <int N> struct factorial { static const unsigned int value = N * factorial<N - 1>::value; }; template <> struct factorial<0> { static const unsigned int value = 1; }; constexpr int operator "" _fac(unsigned long long x) { return factorial_template<x>::value; // doesn't work - x is not a constexpr }

    Read the article

  • Cheapest way of binding local variable to closure

    - by mmotorny
    I believe following to be a cheapest way of binding local variable to closure: void ByRValueReference(A&& a) { } std::function<void ()> CreateClosureByRValueReference() { A a; std::function<void ()> f = std::bind(&ByRValueReference, std::move(a)); // !!! return f; } However, it does not compile under Clang 3.1: error: no viable conversion from '__bind<void (*)(A &&), A>' to 'std::function<void ()>' and gcc 4.6.1: /usr/include/c++/4.6/functional:1778:2: error: no match for call to ‘(std::_Bind<void (*(A))(A&&)>) ()’ Am I violating the standard or it's just broken standard libraries?

    Read the article

  • tcl_findLibrary doesn't work.

    - by user437815
    I'm trying to run freshly compiled program, written with Tcl&Tk. When running it I get an error: felix@Astroserver:~/?????????/Simon$ sudo ./simon1 invalid command name "tcl_findLibrary" I'm running Ubuntu 11.04, I have installed Tcl&Tk (cause I was able to succesfully build the program). If I'm running wish: *% tcl_findLibrary wrong # args: should be "tcl_findLibrary basename version patch initScript enVarName varName"* Could anyone help?

    Read the article

  • Why is this std::bind not converted to std::function?

    - by dauphic
    Why is the nested std::bind in the below code not implicitly converted to an std::function<void()> by any of the major compilers (VS2010/2012, gcc, clang)? Is this standard behavior, or a bug? #include <functional> void bar(int, std::function<void()>) { } void foo() { } int main() { std::function<void(int, std::function<void()>)> func; func = std::bind(bar, 5, std::bind(foo)); std::cin.get(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Construct a variadic template of unsigned int recursively

    - by Vincent
    I need a tricky thing in a C++ 2011 code. Currently, I have a metafunction of this kind : template<unsigned int N, unsigned int M> static constexpr unsigned int myFunction() This function can generate number based on N and M. I would like to write a metafunction with input N and M, and that will recursively construct a variadic template by decrementing M. For example, by calling this function with M = 3, It will construct a variadic template called List equal to : List... = myFunction<N, 3>, myFunction<N, 2>, myFunction<N, 1>, myFunction<N, 0> How to do that (if it is possible of course) ?

    Read the article

  • Same address, multiple shared_ptr counters, is it forbidden by C++ standard?

    - by icando
    Suppose I have some needs to do the following (This is just some imaginative code for discussion of the C++ standard, thus I won't discuss why I design it this way, so don't bother me something like: your design is wrong.) T* ptr = new T; shared_ptr<T> p(ptr); shared_ptr<T> q(ptr, SomeDeleterThatDoesnotDeleteButDoSomeOtherStuff()); Suppose the logic guarantees that p or some of its copies lives longer than any copies of q, so practically there won't be any problem. My question is, is it forbidden by C++ standard, e.g. explicitly stated as UB by C++ standard, that different shared_ptr counters share the same address? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Howto read only one line via c++ from a data

    - by Markus Hupfauer
    i tryed to read the first line of a .dat data, but when i tryed to give to text, wich was saved in the .dat data, it print out the whole data, not only one line. the tool is also not looking after breaks or spaces :( Im using the following code: //Vocabel.dat wird eingelesen ifstream f; // Datei-Handle string s; f.open("Vocabeln.dat", ios::in); // Öffne Datei aus Parameter while (!f.eof()) // Solange noch Daten vorliegen { getline(f, s); // Lese eine Zeile cout << s; } f.close(); // Datei wieder schließen getchar(); . So could u help me please ? . Thanks a lot Markus

    Read the article

  • connecting clients to server with emulator on different computers

    - by prolink007
    I am writing an application that communicates using sockets. I have a server running on one android emulator on a computer, then i have 2 other clients running on android emulators on 2 other computers. I am trying to get the 2 clients to connect to the server. This works when i run the server and clients on the same computer, but when i attempt to do this on the same wifi network and on separate computers it gives me the following error. The client and server code is posted below. A lot is stripped out just to show the important stuff. Also, after the server starts i telnet into the server and run these commands redir add tcp:5000:6000 (i have also tried without doing the redir but it still says the same thing). Then i start the clients and get the error. Thanks for the help! Both the 5000 port and 6000 port are open on my router. And i have windows firewall disabled on the computer hosting the server. 11-27 18:54:02.274: W/ActivityManager(60): Activity idle timeout for HistoryRecord{44cf0a30 school.cpe434.ClassAidClient/school.cpe434.ClassAid.ClassAidClient4Activity} 11-27 18:57:02.424: W/System.err(205): java.net.SocketException: The operation timed out 11-27 18:57:02.454: W/System.err(205): at org.apache.harmony.luni.platform.OSNetworkSystem.connectSocketImpl(Native Method) 11-27 18:57:02.454: W/System.err(205): at org.apache.harmony.luni.platform.OSNetworkSystem.connect(OSNetworkSystem.java:114) 11-27 18:57:02.465: W/System.err(205): at org.apache.harmony.luni.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(PlainSocketImpl.java:245) 11-27 18:57:02.465: W/System.err(205): at org.apache.harmony.luni.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(PlainSocketImpl.java:220) 11-27 18:57:02.465: W/System.err(205): at java.net.Socket.startupSocket(Socket.java:780) 11-27 18:57:02.465: W/System.err(205): at java.net.Socket.<init>(Socket.java:314) 11-27 18:57:02.465: W/System.err(205): at school.cpe434.ClassAid.ClassAidClient4Activity.onCreate(ClassAidClient4Activity.java:102) 11-27 18:57:02.474: W/System.err(205): at android.app.Instrumentation.callActivityOnCreate(Instrumentation.java:1047) 11-27 18:57:02.474: W/System.err(205): at android.app.ActivityThread.performLaunchActivity(ActivityThread.java:2459) 11-27 18:57:02.474: W/System.err(205): at android.app.ActivityThread.handleLaunchActivity(ActivityThread.java:2512) 11-27 18:57:02.474: W/System.err(205): at android.app.ActivityThread.access$2200(ActivityThread.java:119) 11-27 18:57:02.474: W/System.err(205): at android.app.ActivityThread$H.handleMessage(ActivityThread.java:1863) 11-27 18:57:02.474: W/System.err(205): at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99) 11-27 18:57:02.474: W/System.err(205): at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:123) 11-27 18:57:02.486: W/System.err(205): at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:4363) 11-27 18:57:02.486: W/System.err(205): at java.lang.reflect.Method.invokeNative(Native Method) 11-27 18:57:02.486: W/System.err(205): at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:521) 11-27 18:57:02.486: W/System.err(205): at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:860) 11-27 18:57:02.486: W/System.err(205): at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:618) 11-27 18:57:02.486: W/System.err(205): at dalvik.system.NativeStart.main(Native Method) The server code public class ClassAidServer4Activity extends Activity { ServerSocket ss = null; String mClientMsg = ""; String mClientExtraMsg = ""; Thread myCommsThread = null; public static final int SERVERPORT = 6000; @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.main); TextView tv = (TextView) findViewById(R.id.textView1); tv.setText("Nothing from client yet"); this.myCommsThread = new Thread(new CommsThread()); this.myCommsThread.start(); } class CommsThread implements Runnable { public void run() { // Socket s = null; try { ss = new ServerSocket(SERVERPORT ); } catch (IOException e1) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e1.printStackTrace(); } while(true) { try { Socket socket = ss.accept(); connectedDeviceCount++; Thread lThread = new Thread(new ListeningThread(socket)); lThread.start(); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } class ListeningThread implements Runnable { private Socket s = null; public ListeningThread(Socket socket) { // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub this.s = socket; } @Override public void run() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) { Message m = new Message(); // m.what = QUESTION_ID; try { if (s == null) s = ss.accept(); BufferedReader input = new BufferedReader( new InputStreamReader(s.getInputStream())); String st = null; st = input.readLine(); String[] temp = parseReadMessage(st); mClientMsg = temp[1]; if(temp.length > 2) { mClientExtraMsg = temp[2]; } m.what = Integer.parseInt(temp[0]); myUpdateHandler.sendMessage(m); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } } The client code public class ClassAidClient4Activity extends Activity { //telnet localhost 5554 //redir add tcp:5000:6000 private Socket socket; private String serverIpAddress = "192.168.1.102"; private static final int REDIRECTED_SERVERPORT = 5000; @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.main); try { InetAddress serverAddr = InetAddress.getByName(serverIpAddress); socket = new Socket(serverAddr, REDIRECTED_SERVERPORT); } catch (UnknownHostException e1) { mQuestionAdapter.add("UnknownHostException"); e1.printStackTrace(); } catch (IOException e1) { mQuestionAdapter.add("IOException"); e1.printStackTrace(); } } }

    Read the article

  • How can I make the storage of C++ lambda objects more efficient?

    - by Peter Ruderman
    I've been thinking about storing C++ lambda's lately. The standard advice you see on the Internet is to store the lambda in a std::function object. However, none of this advice ever considers the storage implications. It occurred to me that there must be some seriously black voodoo going on behind the scenes to make this work. Consider the following class that stores an integer value: class Simple { public: Simple( int value ) { puts( "Constructing simple!" ); this->value = value; } Simple( const Simple& rhs ) { puts( "Copying simple!" ); this->value = rhs.value; } Simple( Simple&& rhs ) { puts( "Moving simple!" ); this->value = rhs.value; } ~Simple() { puts( "Destroying simple!" ); } int Get() const { return this->value; } private: int value; }; Now, consider this simple program: int main() { Simple test( 5 ); std::function<int ()> f = [test] () { return test.Get(); }; printf( "%d\n", f() ); } This is the output I would hope to see from this program: Constructing simple! Copying simple! Moving simple! Destroying simple! 5 Destroying simple! Destroying simple! First, we create the value test. We create a local copy on the stack for the temporary lambda object. We then move the temporary lambda object into memory allocated by std::function. We destroy the temporary lambda. We print our output. We destroy the std::function. And finally, we destroy the test object. Needless to say, this is not what I see. When I compile this on Visual C++ 2010 (release or debug mode), I get this output: Constructing simple! Copying simple! Copying simple! Copying simple! Copying simple! Destroying simple! Destroying simple! Destroying simple! 5 Destroying simple! Destroying simple! Holy crap that's inefficient! Not only did the compiler fail to use my move constructor, but it generated and destroyed two apparently superfluous copies of the lambda during the assignment. So, here finally are the questions: (1) Is all this copying really necessary? (2) Is there some way to coerce the compiler into generating better code? Thanks for reading!

    Read the article

  • clang does not compile but g++ does

    - by user1095108
    Can someone help me with this code: #include <type_traits> #include <vector> struct nonsense { }; template <struct nonsense const* ptr, typename R> typename std::enable_if<!std::is_void<R>::value, int>::type fo(void* const) { return 0; } template <struct nonsense const* ptr, typename R> typename std::enable_if<std::is_void<R>::value, int>::type fo(void* const) { return 1; } typedef int (*func_type)(void*); template <std::size_t O> void run_me() { static struct nonsense data; typedef std::pair<char const* const, func_type> pair_type; std::vector<pair_type> v; v.push_back(pair_type{ "a", fo<&data, int> }); v.push_back(pair_type{ "b", fo<&data, void> }); } int main(int, char*[]) { run_me<2>(); return 0; } clang-3.3 does not compile this code, but g++-4.8.1 does, which of the two compiler is right? Is something wrong with the code, as I suspect? The error reads: a.cpp:32:15: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'pair_type' (aka 'pair<const char *const, func_type>') v.push_back(pair_type{ "a", fo<&data, int> }); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a.cpp:33:15: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'pair_type' (aka 'pair<const char *const, func_type>') v.push_back(pair_type{ "b", fo<&data, void> }); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Read the article

  • Which libraries use the "We Know Where You Live" optimization for std::make_shared?

    - by KnowItAllWannabe
    Over two years ago, Stephan T. Lavavej described a space-saving optimization he implemented in Microsoft's implementation of std::make_shared, and I know from speaking with him that Microsoft has nothing against other library implementations adopting this optimization. If you know for sure whether other libraries (e.g., for Gnu C++, Clang, Intel C++, plus Boost (for boost::make_shared)) have adopted this implementation, please contribute an answer. I don't have ready access to that many make_shared implementations, nor am I wild about digging into the bowels of the ones I have to see if they've implemented the WKWYL optimization, but I'm hoping that SO readers know the answers for some libraries off-hand. I know from looking at the code that as of Boost 1.52, the WKWYL optimization had not been implemented, but Boost is now up to version 1.55. Note that this optimization is different from std::make_shared's ability to avoid a dedicated heap allocation for the reference count used by std::shared_ptr. For a discussion of the difference between WKWYL and that optimication, consult this question.

    Read the article

  • Can't insert a number into a C++ custom streambuf/ostream

    - by 0xbe5077ed
    I have written a custom std::basic_streambuf and std::basic_ostream because I want an output stream that I can get a JNI string from in a manner similar to how you can call std::ostringstream::str(). These classes are quite simple. namespace myns { class jni_utf16_streambuf : public std::basic_streambuf<char16_t> { JNIEnv * d_env; std::vector<char16_t> d_buf; virtual int_type overflow(int_type); public: jni_utf16_streambuf(JNIEnv *); jstring jstr() const; }; typedef std::basic_ostream<char16_t, std::char_traits<char16_t>> utf16_ostream; class jni_utf16_ostream : public utf16_ostream { jni_utf16_streambuf d_buf; public: jni_utf16_ostream(JNIEnv *); jstring jstr() const; }; // ... } // namespace myns In addition, I have made four overloads of operator<<, all in the same namespace: namespace myns { // ... utf16_ostream& operator<<(utf16_ostream&, jstring) throw(std::bad_cast); utf16_ostream& operator<<(utf16_ostream&, const char *); utf16_ostream& operator<<(utf16_ostream&, const jni_utf16_string_region&); jni_utf16_ostream& operator<<(jni_utf16_ostream&, jstring); // ... } // namespace myns The implementation of jni_utf16_streambuf::overflow(int_type) is trivial. It just doubles the buffer width, puts the requested character, and sets the base, put, and end pointers correctly. It is tested and I am quite sure it works. The jni_utf16_ostream works fine inserting unicode characters. For example, this works fine and results in the stream containing "hello, world": myns::jni_utf16_ostream o(env); o << u"hello, wor" << u'l' << u'd'; My problem is as soon as I try to insert an integer value, the stream's bad bit gets set, for example: myns::jni_utf16_ostream o(env); if (o.badbit()) throw "bad bit before"; // does not throw int32_t x(5); o << x; if (o.badbit()) throw "bad bit after"; // throws :( I don't understand why this is happening! Is there some other method on std::basic_streambuf I need to be implementing????

    Read the article

  • How to convert a lambda to an std::function using templates

    - by retep998
    Basically, what I want to be able to do is take a lambda with any number of any type of parameters and convert it to an std::function. I've tried the following and neither method works. std::function([](){});//Complains that std::function is missing template parameters template <typename T> void foo(function<T> f){} foo([](){});//Complains that it cannot find a matching candidate The following code does work however, but it is not what I want because it requires explicitly stating the template parameters which does not work for generic code. std::function<void()>([](){}); I've been mucking around with functions and templates all evening and I just can't figure this out, so any help would be much appreciated. As mentioned in a comment, the reason I'm trying to do this is because I'm trying to implement currying in C++ using variadic templates. Unfortunately, this fails horribly when using lambdas. For example, I can pass a standard function using a function pointer. template <typename R, typename...A> void foo(R (*f)(A...)) {} void bar() {} int main() { foo(bar); } However, I can't figure out how to pass a lambda to such a variadic function. Why I'm interested in converting a generic lambda into an std::function is because I can do the following, but it ends up requiring that I explicitly state the template parameters to std::function which is what I am trying to avoid. template <typename R, typename...A> void foo(std::function<R(A...)>) {} int main() { foo(std::function<void()>([](){})); }

    Read the article

  • Reordering Variadic Parameters

    - by void-pointer
    I have come across the need to reorder a variadic list of parameters that is supplied to the constructor of a struct. After being reordered based on their types, the parameters will be stored as a tuple. My question is how this can be done so that a modern C++ compiler (e.g. g++-4.7) will not generate unnecessary load or store instructions. That is, when the constructor is invoked with a list of parameters of variable size, it efficiently pushes each parameter into place based on an ordering over the parameters' types. Here is a concrete example. Assume that the base type of every parameter (without references, rvalue references, pointers, or qualifiers) is either char, int, or float. How can I make it so that all the parameters of base type char appear first, followed by all of those of base type int (which leaves the parameters of base type float last). The relative order in which the parameters were given should not be violated within sublists of homogeneous base type. Example: foo::foo() is called with arguments float a, char&& b, const float& c, int&& d, char e. The tuple tupe is std::tuple<char, char, int, float, float>, and it is constructed like so: tuple_type{std::move(b), e, std::move(d), a, c}. Consider the struct defined below, and assume that the metafunction deduce_reordered_tuple_type is already implemented. How would you write the constructor so that it works as intended? If you think that the code for deduce_reodered_tuple_type, would be useful to you, I can provide it; it's a little long. template <class... Args> struct foo { // Assume that the metafunction deduce_reordered_tuple_type is defined. typedef typename deduce_reordered_tuple_type<Args...>::type tuple_type; tuple_type t_; foo(Args&&... args) : t_{reorder_and_forward_parameters<Args>(args)...} {} }; Edit 1 The technique I describe above does have applications in mathematical frameworks that make heavy use of expression templates, variadic templates, and metaprogramming in order to perform aggressive inlining. Suppose that you wish to define an operator that takes the product of several expressions, each of which may be passed by reference, reference to const, or rvalue reference. (In my case, the expressions are conditional probability tables and the operation is the factor product, but something like matrix multiplication works suitably as well.) You need access to the data provided by each expression in order to evaluate the product. Consequently, you must move the expressions passed as rvalue references, copy the expressions passed by reference to const, and take the addresses of expressions passed by reference. Using the technique I describe above now poses several benefits. Other expressions can use uniform syntax to access data elements from this expression, since all of the heavy-lifting metaprogramming work is done beforehand, within the class. We can save stack space by grouping the pointers together and storing the larger expressions towards the end of the tuple. Implementing certain types of queries becomes much easier (e.g. check whether any of the pointers stored in the tuple aliases a given pointer). Thank you very much for your help!

    Read the article

  • How is the C++ synthesized move constructor affected by volatile and virtual members?

    - by user1827766
    Look at the following code: struct node { node(); //node(const node&); //#1 //node(node&&); //#2 virtual //#3 ~node (); node* volatile //#4 next; }; main() { node m(node()); //#5 node n=node(); //#6 } When compiled with gcc-4.6.1 it produces the following error: g++ -g --std=c++0x -c -o node.o node.cc node.cc: In constructor node::node(node&&): node.cc:3:8: error: expression node::next has side-effects node.cc: In function int main(): node.cc:18:14: note: synthesized method node::node(node&&) first required here As I understand the compiler fails to create default move or copy constructor on line #6, if I uncomment either line #1 or #2 it compiles fine, that is clear. The code compiles fine without c++0x option, so the error is related to default move constructor. However, what in the node class prevents default move constructor to be created? If I comment any of the lines #3 or #4 (i.e. make the destructor non-virtual or make data member non-volatile) it compiles again, so is it the combination of these two makes it not to compile? Another puzzle, line #5 does not cause an compilation error, what is different from line #6? Is it all specific for gcc? or gcc-4.6.1?

    Read the article

  • Perfect Forwarding to async lambda

    - by Alexander Kondratskiy
    I have a function template, where I want to do perfect forwarding into a lambda that I run on another thread. Here is a minimal test case which you can directly compile: #include <thread> #include <future> #include <utility> #include <iostream> #include <vector> /** * Function template that does perfect forwarding to a lambda inside an * async call (or at least tries to). I want both instantiations of the * function to work (one for lvalue references T&, and rvalue reference T&&). * However, I cannot get the code to compile when calling it with an lvalue. * See main() below. */ template <typename T> std::string accessValueAsync(T&& obj) { std::future<std::string> fut = std::async(std::launch::async, [](T&& vec) mutable { return vec[0]; }, std::forward<T>(obj)); return fut.get(); } int main(int argc, char const *argv[]) { std::vector<std::string> lvalue{"Testing"}; // calling with what I assume is an lvalue reference does NOT compile std::cout << accessValueAsync(lvalue) << std::endl; // calling with rvalue reference compiles std::cout << accessValueAsync(std::move(lvalue)) << std::endl; // I want both to compile. return 0; } For the non-compiling case, here is the last line of the error message which is intelligible: main.cpp|13 col 29| note: no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘std::vector<std::basic_string<char> >’ to ‘std::vector<std::basic_string<char> >&’ I have a feeling it may have something to do with how T&& is deduced, but I can't pinpoint the exact point of failure and fix it. Any suggestions? Thank you! EDIT: I am using gcc 4.7.0 just in case this could be a compiler issue (probably not)

    Read the article

  • Implicit constructor available for all types derived from Base excepted the current type?

    - by Vincent
    The following code sum up my problem : template<class Parameter> class Base {}; template<class Parameter1, class Parameter2, class Parameter> class Derived1 : public Base<Parameter> { }; template<class Parameter1, class Parameter2, class Parameter> class Derived2 : public Base<Parameter> { public : // Copy constructor Derived2(const Derived2& x); // An EXPLICIT constructor that does a special conversion for a Derived2 // with other template parameters template<class OtherParameter1, class OtherParameter2, class OtherParameter> explicit Derived2( const Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter>& x ); // Now the problem : I want an IMPLICIT constructor that will work for every // type derived from Base EXCEPT // Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter> template<class Type, class = typename std::enable_if</* SOMETHING */>::type> Derived2(const Type& x); }; How to restrict an implicit constructor to all classes derived from the parent class excepted the current class whatever its template parameters, considering that I already have an explicit constructor as in the example code ? EDIT : For the implicit constructor from Base, I can obviously write : template<class OtherParameter> Derived2(const Base<OtherParameter>& x); But in that case, do I have the guaranty that the compiler will not use this constructor as an implicit constructor for Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter> ? EDIT2: Here I have a test : (LWS here : http://liveworkspace.org/code/cd423fb44fb4c97bc3b843732d837abc) #include <iostream> template<typename Type> class Base {}; template<typename Type> class Other : public Base<Type> {}; template<typename Type> class Derived : public Base<Type> { public: Derived() {std::cout<<"empty"<<std::endl;} Derived(const Derived<Type>& x) {std::cout<<"copy"<<std::endl;} template<typename OtherType> explicit Derived(const Derived<OtherType>& x) {std::cout<<"explicit"<<std::endl;} template<typename OtherType> Derived(const Base<OtherType>& x) {std::cout<<"implicit"<<std::endl;} }; int main() { Other<int> other0; Other<double> other1; std::cout<<"1 = "; Derived<int> dint1; // <- empty std::cout<<"2 = "; Derived<int> dint2; // <- empty std::cout<<"3 = "; Derived<double> ddouble; // <- empty std::cout<<"4 = "; Derived<double> ddouble1(ddouble); // <- copy std::cout<<"5 = "; Derived<double> ddouble2(dint1); // <- explicit std::cout<<"6 = "; ddouble = other0; // <- implicit std::cout<<"7 = "; ddouble = other1; // <- implicit std::cout<<"8 = "; ddouble = ddouble2; // <- nothing (normal : default assignment) std::cout<<"\n9 = "; ddouble = Derived<double>(dint1); // <- explicit std::cout<<"10 = "; ddouble = dint2; // <- implicit : WHY ?!?! return 0; } The last line worry me. Is it ok with the C++ standard ? Is it a bug of g++ ?

    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 | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >