Search Results

Search found 9495 results on 380 pages for 'double pointer'.

Page 4/380 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Question on Pointer Arithmetic

    - by pws5068
    Heyy Everybody! I am trying to create a memory management system, so that a user can call myMalloc, a method I created. I have a linked list keeping track of my free memory. My problem is when I am attempting to find the end of a free bit in my linked list. I am attempting to add the size of the memory free in that section (which is in the linked list) to the pointer to the front of the free space, like this. void *tailEnd = previousPlace->head_ptr + ((previousPlace->size+1)*(sizeof(int)); I was hoping that this would give me a pointer to the end of that segment. However, I keep getting the warning: "pointer of type 'void*' used in arithmetic" Is there a better way of doing this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • double checked locking - objective c

    - by bandejapaisa
    I realised double checked locking is flawed in java due to the memory model, but that is usually associated with the singleton pattern and optimizing the creation of the singleton. What about under this case in objective-c: I have a boolean flag to determine if my application is streaming data or not. I have 3 methods, startStreaming, stopStreaming, streamingDataReceived and i protect them from multiple threads using: - (void) streamingDataReceived:(StreamingData *)streamingData { if (self.isStreaming) { @synchronized(self) { if (self.isStreaming) { - (void) stopStreaming { if (self.isStreaming) { @synchronized(self) { if (self.isStreaming) { - (void) startStreaming:(NSArray *)watchlistInstrumentData { if (!self.isStreaming) { @synchronized(self) { if (!self.isStreaming) { Is this double check uneccessary? Does the double check have similar problems in objective-c as in java? What are the alternatives to this pattern (anti-pattern). Thanks

    Read the article

  • Singleton pattern and broken double checked locking in real world java application

    - by saugata
    I was reading the article Double-checked locking and the Singleton pattern, on how double checked locking is broken, and some related questions here on stackoverflow. I have used this pattern/idiom several times without any issues. Since I have been using Java 5, my first thought was that this has been rectified in Java 5 memory model. However the article says This article refers to the Java Memory Model before it was revised for Java 5.0; statements about memory ordering may no longer be correct. However, the double-checked locking idiom is still broken under the new memory model. I'm wondering if anyone has actually run into this problem in any application and under what conditions.

    Read the article

  • Using a member function pointer within a class

    - by neuviemeporte
    Given an example class: class Fred { public: Fred() { func = &Fred::fa; } void run() { int foo, bar; *func(foo,bar); } double fa(int x, int y); double fb(int x, int y); private: double (Fred::*func)(int x, int y); }; I get a compiler error at the line calling the member function through the pointer "*func(foo,bar)", saying: "term does not evaluate to a function taking 2 arguments". What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Double value not correct on Device

    - by Clue
    int min = Int32.Parse(minutebox.Text); double kj = Convert.ToDouble(a.kj); double res = ((kj * op.koerpergewicht) * min); textbox.Text = res.ToString(); Shows me the correct number (with its punctuation - i. e. 2.33) on my English WP7-Emulator. However it doesn't work on my Device, which is set to German. The value is correct but the point, comma or whatever in that double value isn't shown correct. 43.22 on Emulator - 4322 on Device Why is that?

    Read the article

  • "Initializing" the pointer in the separate function in C

    - by pechenie
    I need to do a simple thing, which I used to do many times in Java, but I'm stuck in C (pure C, not C++). The situation looks like this: int *a; void initArray( int *arr ) { arr = malloc( sizeof( int ) * SIZE ); } int main() { initArray( a ); // a is NULL here! what to do?! return 0; } I have some "initializing" function, which SHOULD assign a given pointer to some allocated data (doesn't matter). How should I give a pointer to a function in order to this pointer will be modified, and then can be used further in the code (after that function call returns)? Thanx for help.

    Read the article

  • How to read in a negative double with scanf() in C

    - by rize
    I'm learning basics of C and writing a simple first order equation solver. I want the input to be exactly ax+b=c or ax-b=c, where a, b, c are double type. I'm employing scanf() to read in user input and to check if it's of the correct form. However, if I enter a negative double, -4.6 say, as the "a" in the equation, scanf() won't read the a,b,c correctly. I'm using %lf inside scanf(). How do I read a negative double, then? Many thanks. My code: if (scanf("%lfx+%lf=%lf", &a, &b, &c)) more code If I use as the input "-6.2x+3.4=-5.9", the value 3.4 will be assinged to variable a, while b and c remain as they were and "more code" is run.

    Read the article

  • How to store double using SharedPrefrences?

    - by user3924167
    I am having trouble storing a double in the phone's memory. What are my other options if this isnt possible. Basically what the code is aiming to do using sharedprefrences is take the stored value of "Alcohol" spending and then add whatever the input is in the editText to it and then store that new value for the next time. Running total of spending on alcohol **Can someone please help with this issue and be detailed where x y & z should go in the project. The user selects from a spinner, which works. public void addInput(){ double dblCostInput = Double.valueOf(inputBox.getText().toString()); String strCategories= spinnerCategories.getSelectedItem().toString(); if(strCategories.equals("Alcohol")) { alcoholSpend = alcoholSpend + dblCostInput; inputBox.setText(""); nextInput(); inputBox.setText("Your Spending on"+strCategories+" is: " +d.format(alcoholSpend)); }

    Read the article

  • Passing NSArray Pointer Rather Than A Pointer To a Specific Type

    - by mattmccomb
    I've just written a piece of code to display a UIActionSheet within my app. Whilst looking at the code to initialise my UIActionSheet something struck me as a little strange. The initialisation function has the following signature... initWithTitle:(NSString *)title delegate:(id UIActionSheetDelegate)delegate cancelButtonTitle:(NSString *)cancelButtonTitle destructiveButtonTitle:(NSString *)destructiveButtonTitle otherButtonTitles:(NSString *)otherButtonTitles As you can see the otherButtonTitles parameter is a pointer to a String. In my code I set it as follows... otherButtonTitles: @"Title", @"Date", nil Although this compiles fine I don't really understand how it works. My reading of the statement is that I have created an inline array containing two elements (Title and Date). How come this then compiles? I'm passing a NSArray* in place of a NSString*. I know from a little of understanding of C++ that an array is really a pointer to the first element. So is this inline array that I'm creating a C array as opposed to a NSArray? What I'm hoping to achieve is to be able to pass a static NSArray* used elsewhere in my class to the otherButtonTitles parameter. But passing the NSArray* object directly doesn't work.

    Read the article

  • Segmentation fault in my C program

    - by user233542
    I don't understand why this would give me a seg fault. Any ideas? This is the function that returns the signal to stop the program (plus the other function that is called within this): double bisect(double A0,double A1,double Sol[N],double tol,double c) { double Amid,shot; while (A1-A0 > tol) { Amid = 0.5*(A0+A1); shot = shoot(Sol, Amid, c); if (shot==2.*Pi) { return Amid; } if (shot > 2.*Pi){ A1 = Amid; } else if (shot < 2.*Pi){ A0 = Amid; } } return 0.5*(A1+A0); } double shoot(double Sol[N],double A,double c) { int i,j; /*Initial Conditions*/ for (i=0;i<buff;i++) { Sol[i] = 0.; } for (i=buff+l;i<N;i++) { Sol[i] = 2.*Pi; } Sol[buff]= 0; Sol[buff+1]= A*exp(sqrt(1+3*c)*dx); for (i=buff+2;i<buff+l;i++) { Sol[i] = (dx*dx)*( sin(Sol[i-1]) + c*sin(3.*(Sol[i-1])) ) - Sol[i-2] + 2.*Sol[i-1]; } return Sol[i-1]; } The values buff, l, N are defined using a #define statement. l = 401, buff = 50, N = 2000 Here is the full code: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <math.h> #define w 10 /*characteristic width of a soliton*/ #define dx 0.05 /*distance between lattice sites*/ #define s (2*w)/dx /*size of soliton shape*/ #define l (int)(s+1) /*array length for soliton*/ #define N (int)2000 /*length of field array--lattice sites*/ #define Pi (double)4*atan(1) #define buff (int)50 double shoot(double Sol[N],double A,double c); double bisect(double A0,double A1,double Sol[N],double tol,double c); void super_pos(double antiSol[N],double Sol[N],double phi[][N]); void vel_ver(double phi[][N],double v,double c,int tsteps,double dt); int main(int argc, char **argv) { double c,Sol[N],antiSol[N],A,A0,A1,tol,v,dt; int tsteps,i; FILE *fp1,*fp2,*fp3; fp1 = fopen("soliton.dat","w"); fp2 = fopen("final-phi.dat","w"); fp3 = fopen("energy.dat","w"); printf("Please input the number of time steps:"); scanf("%d",&tsteps); printf("Also, enter the time step size:"); scanf("%lf",&dt); do{ printf("Please input the parameter c in the interval [-1/3,1]:"); scanf("%lf",&c);} while(c < (-1./3.) || c > 1.); printf("Please input the inital speed of eiter soliton:"); scanf("%lf",&v); double phi[tsteps+1][N]; tol = 0.0000001; A0 = 0.; A1 = 2.*Pi; A = bisect(A0,A1,Sol,tol,c); shoot(Sol,A,c); for (i=0;i<N;i++) { fprintf(fp1,"%d\t",i); fprintf(fp1,"%lf\n",Sol[i]); } fclose(fp1); super_pos(antiSol,Sol,phi); /*vel_ver(phi,v,c,tsteps,dt); for (i=0;i<N;i++){ fprintf(fp2,"%d\t",i); fprintf(fp2,"%lf\n",phi[tsteps][i]); }*/ } double shoot(double Sol[N],double A,double c) { int i,j; /*Initial Conditions*/ for (i=0;i<buff;i++) { Sol[i] = 0.; } for (i=buff+l;i<N;i++) { Sol[i] = 2.*Pi; } Sol[buff]= 0; Sol[buff+1]= A*exp(sqrt(1+3*c)*dx); for (i=buff+2;i<buff+l;i++) { Sol[i] = (dx*dx)*( sin(Sol[i-1]) + c*sin(3.*(Sol[i-1])) ) - Sol[i-2] + 2.*Sol[i-1]; } return Sol[i-1]; } double bisect(double A0,double A1,double Sol[N],double tol,double c) { double Amid,shot; while (A1-A0 > tol) { Amid = 0.5*(A0+A1); shot = shoot(Sol, Amid, c); if (shot==2.*Pi) { return Amid; } if (shot > 2.*Pi){ A1 = Amid; } else if (shot < 2.*Pi){ A0 = Amid; } } return 0.5*(A1+A0); } void super_pos(double antiSol[N],double Sol[N],double phi[][N]) { int i; /*for (i=0;i<N;i++) { phi[i]=0; } for (i=buffer+s;i<1950-s;i++) { phi[i]=2*Pi; }*/ for (i=0;i<N;i++) { antiSol[i] = Sol[N-i]; } /*for (i=0;i<s+1;i++) { phi[buffer+j] = Sol[j]; phi[1549+j] = antiSol[j]; }*/ for (i=0;i<N;i++) { phi[0][i] = antiSol[i] + Sol[i] - 2.*Pi; } } /* This funciton will set the 2nd input array to the derivative at the time t, for all points x in the lattice */ void deriv2(double phi[][N],double DphiDx2[][N],int t) { //double SolDer2[s+1]; int x; for (x=0;x<N;x++) { DphiDx2[t][x] = (phi[buff+x+1][t] + phi[buff+x-1][t] - 2.*phi[x][t])/(dx*dx); } /*for (i=0;i<N;i++) { ptr[i] = &SolDer2[i]; }*/ //return DphiDx2[x]; } void vel_ver(double phi[][N],double v,double c,int tsteps,double dt) { int t,x; double d1,d2,dp,DphiDx1[tsteps+1][N],DphiDx2[tsteps+1][N],dpdt[tsteps+1][N],p[tsteps+1][N]; for (t=0;t<tsteps;t++){ if (t==0){ for (x=0;x<N;x++){//inital conditions deriv2(phi,DphiDx2,t); dpdt[t][x] = DphiDx2[t][x] - sin(phi[t][x]) - sin(3.*phi[t][x]); DphiDx1[t][x] = (phi[t][x+1] - phi[t][x])/dx; p[t][x] = -v*DphiDx1[t][x]; } } for (x=0;x<N;x++){//velocity-verlet phi[t+1][x] = phi[t][x] + dt*p[t][x] + (dt*dt/2)*dpdt[t][x]; p[t+1][x] = p[t][x] + (dt/2)*dpdt[t][x]; deriv2(phi,DphiDx2,t+1); dpdt[t][x] = DphiDx2[t][x] - sin(phi[t+1][x]) - sin(3.*phi[t+1][x]); p[t+1][x] += (dt/2)*dpdt[t+1][x]; } } } So, this really isn't due to my overwriting the end of the Sol array. I've commented out both functions that I suspected of causing the problem (bisect or shoot) and inserted a print function. Two things happen. When I have code like below: double A,Pi,B,c; c=0; Pi = 4.*atan(1.); A = Pi; B = 1./4.; printf("%lf",B); B = shoot(Sol,A,c); printf("%lf",B); I get a segfault from the function, shoot. However, if I take away the shoot function so that I have: double A,Pi,B,c; c=0; Pi = 4.*atan(1.); A = Pi; B = 1./4.; printf("%lf",B); it gives me a segfault at the printf... Why!?

    Read the article

  • Normal pointer vs Auto pointer (std::auto_ptr)

    - by AKN
    Code snippet (normal pointer) int *pi = new int; int i = 90; pi = &i; int k = *pi + 10; cout<<k<<endl; delete pi; [Output: 100] Code snippet (auto pointer) Case 1: std::auto_ptr<int> pi(new int); int i = 90; pi = &i; int k = *pi + 10; //Throws unhandled exception error at this point while debugging. cout<<k<<endl; //delete pi; (It deletes by itself when goes out of scope. So explicit 'delete' call not required) Case 2: std::auto_ptr<int> pi(new int); int i = 90; *pi = 90; int k = *pi + 10; cout<<k<<endl; [Output: 100] Can someone please tell why it failed to work for case 1?

    Read the article

  • segmentation fault when using pointer to pointer

    - by user3697730
    I had been trying to use a pointer to pointer in a function,but is seems that I am not doing the memory allocation correctly... My code is: #include<stdio.h> #include<math.h> #include<ctype.h> #include<stdlib.h> #include<string.h> struct list{ int data; struct list *next; }; void abc (struct list **l,struct list **l2) { *l2=NULL; l2=(struct list**)malloc( sizeof(struct list*)); (*l)->data=12; printf("%d",(*l)->data); (*l2)->next=*l2; } int main() { struct list *l,*l2; abc(&l,&l2); system("pause"); return(0); } This code compiles,but I cannot run thw program..I get a segmentation fault..What should I do?Any help would be appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Octave datatypes - float & double

    - by mush
    I'm writing a framework for writing HDF files with JAVA (Using some existing framework). I need to keep compatibility with octave. That is, octave should be able to read the files my framework writes and vice versa. My question is, does Octave have two data types - float and double or it uses only double? thanks

    Read the article

  • Double.TryParse() input decimal separator different than system decimal separator

    - by mare
    I have a source XML that uses a dot (".") as a decimal separator and I am parsing this on a system that uses a comma (",") as a decimal separator. As a result, value of 0.7 gets parsed with Double.TryParse or Double.Parse as 7000000. What are my options to parse correctly? One of them is to replace dots in source with commas with String.Replace('.', ',') but I don't think I like this very much.

    Read the article

  • Python double underscore mangling

    - by gnr
    I am a bit confused by this behavior (using python 3.2): class Bar: pass class Foo: def __init__(self): self.__cache = None bar = Bar() bar.__cache = None foo = Foo() print(vars(bar)) #returns {'__cache': None} print(vars(foo)) #returns {'_Foo__cache': None} I've read up a bit on how double-underscores cause attribute names to be "mangled", but I would have expected the same name-mangling in both cases above. The meaning of a single- and a double-underscore before an object name in Python Any ideas what's going on here?

    Read the article

  • Handles and pointer to object

    - by Tony
    I have a python Interpreter written in C++, the PyRun_String function from the Python API is said to return a handle, however in my code I have it assigned to pointer to a PyObject? PyObject* presult = PyRun_String(code, parse_mode, dict, dict); Is this actually correct? Can you implicitly cast this handle to this object pointer? Should it not be a HANDLE instead?

    Read the article

  • method with two parameters which both need to be double dispatched

    - by mixm
    lets say i have a method which has two parameters. i have been implementing them as: if(aObj instance of Marble) { if(bObj instance of Bomb) { this.resolve((Marble)aObj,(Bomb)bObj); } } as you can see its not a very pretty solution. i plan to implement using double dispatching, but with two parameters which both need double dispatching, im afraid im a bit stumped. any ideas please. im implementing in java btw.

    Read the article

  • pointer is always byte aligned

    - by kumar
    Hi, I read something like pointer must be byte-aligned. My understanding in a typical 32bit architecture... all pointers are byte aligned...No ? Please confirm. can there be a pointer which is not byte-aligned ?

    Read the article

  • GCC problem with raw double type comparisons

    - by Monomer
    I have the following bit of code, however when compiling it with GCC 4.4 with various optimization flags I get some unexpected results when its run. #include <iostream> int main() { const unsigned int cnt = 10; double lst[cnt] = { 0.0 }; const double v[4] = { 131.313, 737.373, 979.797, 731.137 }; for(unsigned int i = 0; i < cnt; ++i) { lst[i] = v[i % 4] * i; } for(unsigned int i = 0; i < cnt; ++i) { double d = v[i % 4] * i; if(lst[i] != d) { std::cout << "error @ : " << i << std::endl; return 1; } } return 0; } when compiled with: "g++ -pedantic -Wall -Werror -O1 -o test test.cpp" I get the following output: "error @ : 3" when compiled with: "g++ -pedantic -Wall -Werror -O2 -o test test.cpp" I get the following output: "error @ : 3" when compiled with: "g++ -pedantic -Wall -Werror -O3 -o test test.cpp" I get no errors when compiled with: "g++ -pedantic -Wall -Werror -o test test.cpp" I get no errors I do not believe this to be an issue related to rounding, or epsilon difference in the comparison. I've tried this with Intel v10 and MSVC 9.0 and they all seem to work as expected. I believe this should be nothing more than a bitwise compare. If I replace the if-statement with the following: if (static_cast<long long int>(lst[i]) != static_cast<long long int>(d)), and add "-Wno-long-long" I get no errors in any of the optimization modes when run. If I add std::cout << d << std::endl; before the "return 1", I get no errors in any of the optimization modes when run. Is this a bug in my code, or is there something wrong with GCC and the way it handles the double type?

    Read the article

  • C++ pointer to objects

    - by Tony
    In C++ do you always have initialize a pointer to an object with the new keyword? Or can you just have this too: MyClass *myclass; myclass->DoSomething(); I thought this was a pointer allocated on the stack instead of the heap, but since objects are normally heap allocated, I think my theory is probably faulty?? Please advice.

    Read the article

  • C int, float, double

    - by anon
    There are certain int values that a float can not represent. However, can a double represent all values a float can represent? (My intuition says yes, since double has more fractional bits & more exponent bits, but there might be some silly gotchas that I'm missing). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • asp.net mvc2 validate type double

    - by ile
    [MetadataType(typeof(Deal_Validation))] public partial class Deal { } public class Deal_Validation { [Required] public string Title { get; set; } public double? EstValue { set; get; } } How to validate EstValue (check if it is of type double?) Thanks

    Read the article

  • The best way to have a pointer to several methods - critique requested

    - by user827992
    I'm starting with a short introduction of what i know from the C language: a pointer is a type that stores an adress or a NULL the * operator reads the left value of the variable on its right and use this value as address and reads the value of the variable at that address the & operator generate a pointer to the variable on its right so i was thinking that in C++ the pointers can work this way too, but i was wrong, to generate a pointer to a static method i have to do this: #include <iostream> class Foo{ public: static void dummy(void){ std::cout << "I'm dummy" << std::endl; }; }; int main(){ void (*p)(); p = Foo::dummy; // step 1 p(); p = &(Foo::dummy); // step 2 p(); p = Foo; // step 3 p->dummy(); return(0); } now i have several questions: why step 1 works why step 2 works too, looks like a "pointer to pointer" for p to me, very different from step 1 why step 3 is the only one that doesn't work and is the only one that makes some sort of sense to me, honestly how can i write an array of pointers or a pointer to pointers structure to store methods ( static or non-static from real objects ) what is the best syntax and coding style for generating a pointer to a method?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >