Search Results

Search found 30650 results on 1226 pages for 'object initialization'.

Page 4/1226 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Returning a mock object from a mock object

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to return an object when mocking a parser class. This is the test code using PHPUnit 3.7 //set up the result object that I want to be returned from the call to parse method $parserResult= new ParserResult(); $parserResult->setSegment('some string'); //set up the stub Parser object $stubParser=$this->getMock('Parser'); $stubParser->expects($this->any()) ->method('parse') ->will($this->returnValue($parserResult)); //injecting the stub to my client class $fileHeaderParser= new FileWriter($stubParser); $output=$fileParser->writeStringToFile(); Inside my writeStringToFile() method I'm using $parserResult like this: writeStringToFile(){ //Some code... $parserResult=$parser->parse(); $segment=$parserResult->getSegment();//that's why I set the segment in the test. } Should I mock ParserResult in the first place, so that the mock returns a mock? Is it good design for mocks to return mocks? Is there a better approach to do this all?!

    Read the article

  • Release Candidates of Application Initialization and Dynamic IP Restrictions Released

    - by The Official Microsoft IIS Site
    Two new Release Candidates for the following IIS Extensions have been released today: Application Initialization for IIS 7.5 (the replacement for the previously released Application Warmup beta extension) Dynamic IP Restrictions for IIS7/7.5 Application Initialization for IIS 7.5 Application Initialization is a feature which is coming in IIS 8.0 and is now also available for IIS 7.5 (please note this feature is not available for IIS 7.0).   This module helps to eliminate the lack of feedback...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Object-Oriented Operating System

    - by nmagerko
    As I thought about writing an operating system, I came across a point that I really couldn't figure out on my own: Can an operating system truly be written in an Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Language? Being that these types of languages do not allow for direct accessing of memory, wouldn't this make it impossible for a developer to write an entire operating system using only an OOP Language? Take, for example, the Android Operating System that runs many phones and some tablets in use around the world. I believe that this operating system uses only Java, an Object-Oriented language. In Java, I have been unsuccessful in trying to point at and manipulate a specific memory address that the run-time environment (JRE) has not assigned to my program implicitly. In C, C++, and other non-OOP languages, I can do this in a few lines. So this makes me question whether or not an operating system can be written in an OOP, especially Java. Any counterexamples or other information is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Object Oriented programming on 8-bit MCU Case Study

    - by Calvin Grier
    I see that there's a lot of questions related to OO Programming here. I'm actually trying to find a specific resource related to embedded OO approaches for an 8 bit MCU. Several years back (maybe 6) I was looking for material related to Object Oriented programming for resource constrained 8051 microprocessors. I found an article/website with a case history of a design group that used a very small RAM part, and implemented many Object based constructs during their C design and development. I believe it was an 8051. The project was a success, and managed to stay inside the very small ROM/RAM they had available. I'm attempting to find it again, but Google can't locate it. The article was well written, and recommended a "mixed" approach using C methods for inheritance and encapsulation - if I recall correctly. Can anyone help me locate this article?

    Read the article

  • What is Object Oriented Programming ill-suited for?

    - by Richard JP Le Guen
    In Martin Fowler's book Refactoring, Fowler speaks of how when developers learn something new, they don't consider when it's inappropriate for the job: Ten years ago it was like that with objects. If someone asked me when not to use objects, it was hard to answer. [...] It was just that I didn't know what those limitations were, although I knew what the benefits were. Reading this, it occurred to me I don't know what the limitations or potential disadvantages of Object-Oriented Programming are. What are the limitations of Object Oriented Programming? When should one look at a project and think "OOP is not best suited for this"?

    Read the article

  • Is there really Object-relational impedance mismatch?

    - by user52763
    It is always stated that it is hard to store applications objects in relational databases - the object-relational impedance mismatch - and that is why Document databases are better. However, is there really an impedance mismatch? And object has a key (albeit it may be hidden away by the runtime as a pointer to memory), a set of values, and foreign keys to other objects. Objects are as much made up of tables as it is a document. Neither really fit. I can see a use for databases to model the data into specific shapes for scenarios in the application - e.g. to speed up database lookup and avoid joins, etc., but won't it be better to keep the data as normalized as possible at the core, and transform as required?

    Read the article

  • In which object should I implement wait()/notify()?

    - by Christopher Francisco
    I'm working in an Android project with multithreading. Basically I have to wait to the server to respond before sending more data. The data sending task is delimited by the flag boolean hasServerResponded so the Thread will loop infinitely without doing anything until the flag becomes true. Since this boolean isn't declared as volatile (yet), and also looping without doing anything wastes resources, I thought maybe I should use AtomicBoolean and also implement wait() / notify() mechanism. Should I use the AtomicBoolean object notify() and wait() methods or should I create a lock Object?

    Read the article

  • Passing functions into other functions as parameters, bad practice?

    - by BlueHat
    We've been in the process of changing how our AS3 application talks to our back end and we're in the process of implementing a REST system to replace our old one. Sadly the developer who started the work is now on long term sick leave and it's been handed over to me. I've been working with it for the past week or so now and I understand the system, but there's one thing that's been worrying me. There seems to be a lot of passing of functions into functions. For example our class that makes the call to our servers takes in a function that it will then call and pass an object to when the process is complete and errors have been handled etc. It's giving me that "bad feeling" where I feel like it's horrible practice and I can think of some reasons why but I want some confirmation before I propose a re-work to system. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this possible problem?

    Read the article

  • Sharing object between 2 classes

    - by Justin
    I am struggling to wrap my head around being able to share an object between two classes. I want to be able to create only one instance of the object, commonlib in my main class and then have the classes, foo1 and foo2, to be able to mutually share the properties of the commonlib. commonlib is a 3rd party class which has a property Queries that will be added to in each child class of bar. This is why it is vital that only one instance is created. I create two separate queries in foo1 and foo2. This is my setup: abstract class bar{ //common methods } class foo1 extends bar{ //add query to commonlib } class foo2 extends bar{ //add query to commonlib } class main { public $commonlib = new commonlib(); public function start(){ //goal is to share one instance of $this->commonlib between foo1 and foo2 //so that they can both add to the properites of $this->commonlib (global //between the two) //now execute all of the queries after foo1 and foo2 add their query $this->commonlib->RunQueries(); } }

    Read the article

  • What kind of programs/solutions can only be written with OOP or are too hard to achieve without it?

    - by user1598390
    Paraphrasing a recent question: What is Object Oriented Programming ill-suited for? I would like to ask the opposite question: What kind of programs cannot be written unless you use OOP? What kind of programs are not recommended to be written using non-OOP techniques? What kind of programs need OOP in order to even be written? What kind of programs would be too hard to write without OOP ? The answer to this question can help sell the idea of OOP to project leaders that have no special interest in code quality. At least they could buy the idea if one shows them the kind of things that are not even possible unless you use OOP.

    Read the article

  • Any tips/tricks/resources on actually TEACHING a class on OOP? [closed]

    - by Sempus
    I may slowly be getting into teaching an Object-Orientated Programming class at my school in a year or two. I just graduated and work at my school as an Application Programmer. I'd first start off as a TA/grader and then slowly move into the Professor role. The class would be in Java. I always see resources on this fine site about HOW to program, but does anyone know any tips/tricks/resources on how to TEACH a programming class? It would be full of all different skills levels(but still semi-technical) so it would have to be a little more understandable than if it was just CS kids.

    Read the article

  • Add properties to stdClass object from another object

    - by Florin
    I would like to be able to do the following: $obj = new stdClass; $obj->status = "success"; $obj2 = new stdClass; $obj2->message = "OK"; How can I extend $obj so that it contains the properties of $obj2, eg: $obj->status //"success" $obj->message // "OK" I know I could use an array, add all properties to the array and then cast that back to object, but is there a more elegant way, something like this: extend($obj, $obj2); //adds all properties from $obj2 to $obj Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Use decorator and factory together to extend objects?

    - by TheClue
    I'm new to OOP and design pattern. I've a simple app that handles the generation of Tables, Columns (that belong to Table), Rows (that belong to Column) and Values (that belong to Rows). Each of these object can have a collection of Property, which is in turn defined as an enum. They are all interfaces: I used factories to get concrete instances of these products, depending on circumnstances. Now I'm facing the problem of extending these classes. Let's say I need another product called "SpecialTable" which in turn has some special properties or new methods like 'getSomethingSpecial' or an extended set of Property. The only way is to extend/specialize all my elements (ie. build a SpecialTableFactory, a SpecialTable interface and a SpecialTableImpl concrete)? What to do if, let's say, I plan to use standard methods like addRow(Column column, String name) that doesn't need to be specialized? I don't like the idea to inherit factories and interfaces, but since SpecialTable has more methods than Table i guess it cannot share the same factory. Am I wrong? Another question: if I need to define product properties at run time (a Table that is upgraded to SpecialTable at runtime), i guess i should use a decorator. Is it possible (and how) to combine both factory and decorator design? Is it better to use a State or Strategy pattern, instead?

    Read the article

  • Ancillary Objects: Separate Debug ELF Files For Solaris

    - by Ali Bahrami
    We introduced a new object ELF object type in Solaris 11 Update 1 called the Ancillary Object. This posting describes them, using material originally written during their development, the PSARC arc case, and the Solaris Linker and Libraries Manual. ELF objects contain allocable sections, which are mapped into memory at runtime, and non-allocable sections, which are present in the file for use by debuggers and observability tools, but which are not mapped or used at runtime. Typically, all of these sections exist within a single object file. Ancillary objects allow them to instead go into a separate file. There are different reasons given for wanting such a feature. One can debate whether the added complexity is worth the benefit, and in most cases it is not. However, one important case stands out — customers with very large 32-bit objects who are not ready or able to make the transition to 64-bits. We have customers who build extremely large 32-bit objects. Historically, the debug sections in these objects have used the stabs format, which is limited, but relatively compact. In recent years, the industry has transitioned to the powerful but verbose DWARF standard. In some cases, the size of these debug sections is large enough to push the total object file size past the fundamental 4GB limit for 32-bit ELF object files. The best, and ultimately only, solution to overly large objects is to transition to 64-bits. However, consider environments where: Hundreds of users may be executing the code on large shared systems. (32-bits use less memory and bus bandwidth, and on sparc runs just as fast as 64-bit code otherwise). Complex finely tuned code, where the original authors may no longer be available. Critical production code, that was expensive to qualify and bring online, and which is otherwise serving its intended purpose without issue. Users in these risk adverse and/or high scale categories have good reasons to push 32-bits objects to the limit before moving on. Ancillary objects offer these users a longer runway. Design The design of ancillary objects is intended to be simple, both to help human understanding when examining elfdump output, and to lower the bar for debuggers such as dbx to support them. The primary and ancillary objects have the same set of section headers, with the same names, in the same order (i.e. each section has the same index in both files). A single added section of type SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY is added to both objects, containing information that allows a debugger to identify and validate both files relative to each other. Given one of these files, the ancillary section allows you to identify the other. Allocable sections go in the primary object, and non-allocable ones go into the ancillary object. A small set of non-allocable objects, notably the symbol table, are copied into both objects. As noted above, most sections are only written to one of the two objects, but both objects have the same section header array. The section header in the file that does not contain the section data is tagged with the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag to indicate its placeholder status. Compiler writers and others who produce objects can set the SUNW_SHF_PRIMARY section header flag to mark non-allocable sections that should go to the primary object rather than the ancillary. If you don't request an ancillary object, the Solaris ELF format is unchanged. Users who don't use ancillary objects do not pay for the feature. This is important, because they exist to serve a small subset of our users, and must not complicate the common case. If you do request an ancillary object, the runtime behavior of the primary object will be the same as that of a normal object. There is no added runtime cost. The primary and ancillary object together represent a logical single object. This is facilitated by the use of a single set of section headers. One can easily imagine a tool that can merge a primary and ancillary object into a single file, or the reverse. (Note that although this is an interesting intellectual exercise, we don't actually supply such a tool because there's little practical benefit above and beyond using ld to create the files). Among the benefits of this approach are: There is no need for per-file symbol tables to reflect the contents of each file. The same symbol table that would be produced for a standard object can be used. The section contents are identical in either case — there is no need to alter data to accommodate multiple files. It is very easy for a debugger to adapt to these new files, and the processing involved can be encapsulated in input/output routines. Most of the existing debugger implementation applies without modification. The limit of a 4GB 32-bit output object is now raised to 4GB of code, and 4GB of debug data. There is also the future possibility (not currently supported) to support multiple ancillary objects, each of which could contain up to 4GB of additional debug data. It must be noted however that the 32-bit DWARF debug format is itself inherently 32-bit limited, as it uses 32-bit offsets between debug sections, so the ability to employ multiple ancillary object files may not turn out to be useful. Using Ancillary Objects (From the Solaris Linker and Libraries Guide) By default, objects contain both allocable and non-allocable sections. Allocable sections are the sections that contain executable code and the data needed by that code at runtime. Non-allocable sections contain supplemental information that is not required to execute an object at runtime. These sections support the operation of debuggers and other observability tools. The non-allocable sections in an object are not loaded into memory at runtime by the operating system, and so, they have no impact on memory use or other aspects of runtime performance no matter their size. For convenience, both allocable and non-allocable sections are normally maintained in the same file. However, there are situations in which it can be useful to separate these sections. To reduce the size of objects in order to improve the speed at which they can be copied across wide area networks. To support fine grained debugging of highly optimized code requires considerable debug data. In modern systems, the debugging data can easily be larger than the code it describes. The size of a 32-bit object is limited to 4 Gbytes. In very large 32-bit objects, the debug data can cause this limit to be exceeded and prevent the creation of the object. To limit the exposure of internal implementation details. Traditionally, objects have been stripped of non-allocable sections in order to address these issues. Stripping is effective, but destroys data that might be needed later. The Solaris link-editor can instead write non-allocable sections to an ancillary object. This feature is enabled with the -z ancillary command line option. $ ld ... -z ancillary[=outfile] ...By default, the ancillary file is given the same name as the primary output object, with a .anc file extension. However, a different name can be provided by providing an outfile value to the -z ancillary option. When -z ancillary is specified, the link-editor performs the following actions. All allocable sections are written to the primary object. In addition, all non-allocable sections containing one or more input sections that have the SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY section header flag set are written to the primary object. All remaining non-allocable sections are written to the ancillary object. The following non-allocable sections are written to both the primary object and ancillary object. .shstrtab The section name string table. .symtab The full non-dynamic symbol table. .symtab_shndx The symbol table extended index section associated with .symtab. .strtab The non-dynamic string table associated with .symtab. .SUNW_ancillary Contains the information required to identify the primary and ancillary objects, and to identify the object being examined. The primary object and all ancillary objects contain the same array of sections headers. Each section has the same section index in every file. Although the primary and ancillary objects all define the same section headers, the data for most sections will be written to a single file as described above. If the data for a section is not present in a given file, the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag is set, and the sh_size field is 0. This organization makes it possible to acquire a full list of section headers, a complete symbol table, and a complete list of the primary and ancillary objects from either of the primary or ancillary objects. The following example illustrates the underlying implementation of ancillary objects. An ancillary object is created by adding the -z ancillary command line option to an otherwise normal compilation. The file utility shows that the result is an executable named a.out, and an associated ancillary object named a.out.anc. $ cat hello.c #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { (void) printf("hello, world\n"); return (0); } $ cc -g -zancillary hello.c $ file a.out a.out.anc a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable 80386 Version 1 [FPU], dynamically linked, not stripped, ancillary object a.out.anc a.out.anc: ELF 32-bit LSB ancillary 80386 Version 1, primary object a.out $ ./a.out hello worldThe resulting primary object is an ordinary executable that can be executed in the usual manner. It is no different at runtime than an executable built without the use of ancillary objects, and then stripped of non-allocable content using the strip or mcs commands. As previously described, the primary object and ancillary objects contain the same section headers. To see how this works, it is helpful to use the elfdump utility to display these section headers and compare them. The following table shows the section header information for a selection of headers from the previous link-edit example. Index Section Name Type Primary Flags Ancillary Flags Primary Size Ancillary Size 13 .text PROGBITS ALLOC EXECINSTR ALLOC EXECINSTR SUNW_ABSENT 0x131 0 20 .data PROGBITS WRITE ALLOC WRITE ALLOC SUNW_ABSENT 0x4c 0 21 .symtab SYMTAB 0 0 0x450 0x450 22 .strtab STRTAB STRINGS STRINGS 0x1ad 0x1ad 24 .debug_info PROGBITS SUNW_ABSENT 0 0 0x1a7 28 .shstrtab STRTAB STRINGS STRINGS 0x118 0x118 29 .SUNW_ancillary SUNW_ancillary 0 0 0x30 0x30 The data for most sections is only present in one of the two files, and absent from the other file. The SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag is set when the data is absent. The data for allocable sections needed at runtime are found in the primary object. The data for non-allocable sections used for debugging but not needed at runtime are placed in the ancillary file. A small set of non-allocable sections are fully present in both files. These are the .SUNW_ancillary section used to relate the primary and ancillary objects together, the section name string table .shstrtab, as well as the symbol table.symtab, and its associated string table .strtab. It is possible to strip the symbol table from the primary object. A debugger that encounters an object without a symbol table can use the .SUNW_ancillary section to locate the ancillary object, and access the symbol contained within. The primary object, and all associated ancillary objects, contain a .SUNW_ancillary section that allows all the objects to be identified and related together. $ elfdump -T SUNW_ancillary a.out a.out.anc a.out: Ancillary Section: .SUNW_ancillary index tag value [0] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [1] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1 a.out [2] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [3] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1a3 a.out.anc [4] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [5] ANC_SUNW_NULL 0 a.out.anc: Ancillary Section: .SUNW_ancillary index tag value [0] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [1] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1 a.out [2] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [3] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1a3 a.out.anc [4] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [5] ANC_SUNW_NULL 0 The ancillary sections for both objects contain the same number of elements, and are identical except for the first element. Each object, starting with the primary object, is introduced with a MEMBER element that gives the file name, followed by a CHECKSUM that identifies the object. In this example, the primary object is a.out, and has a checksum of 0x8724. The ancillary object is a.out.anc, and has a checksum of 0xfbe2. The first element in a .SUNW_ancillary section, preceding the MEMBER element for the primary object, is always a CHECKSUM element, containing the checksum for the file being examined. The presence of a .SUNW_ancillary section in an object indicates that the object has associated ancillary objects. The names of the primary and all associated ancillary objects can be obtained from the ancillary section from any one of the files. It is possible to determine which file is being examined from the larger set of files by comparing the first checksum value to the checksum of each member that follows. Debugger Access and Use of Ancillary Objects Debuggers and other observability tools must merge the information found in the primary and ancillary object files in order to build a complete view of the object. This is equivalent to processing the information from a single file. This merging is simplified by the primary object and ancillary objects containing the same section headers, and a single symbol table. The following steps can be used by a debugger to assemble the information contained in these files. Starting with the primary object, or any of the ancillary objects, locate the .SUNW_ancillary section. The presence of this section identifies the object as part of an ancillary group, contains information that can be used to obtain a complete list of the files and determine which of those files is the one currently being examined. Create a section header array in memory, using the section header array from the object being examined as an initial template. Open and read each file identified by the .SUNW_ancillary section in turn. For each file, fill in the in-memory section header array with the information for each section that does not have the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag set. The result will be a complete in-memory copy of the section headers with pointers to the data for all sections. Once this information has been acquired, the debugger can proceed as it would in the single file case, to access and control the running program. Note - The ELF definition of ancillary objects provides for a single primary object, and an arbitrary number of ancillary objects. At this time, the Oracle Solaris link-editor only produces a single ancillary object containing all non-allocable sections. This may change in the future. Debuggers and other observability tools should be written to handle the general case of multiple ancillary objects. ELF Implementation Details (From the Solaris Linker and Libraries Guide) To implement ancillary objects, it was necessary to extend the ELF format to add a new object type (ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY), a new section type (SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY), and 2 new section header flags (SHF_SUNW_ABSENT, SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY). In this section, I will detail these changes, in the form of diffs to the Solaris Linker and Libraries manual. Part IV ELF Application Binary Interface Chapter 13: Object File Format Object File Format Edit Note: This existing section at the beginning of the chapter describes the ELF header. There's a table of object file types, which now includes the new ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY type. e_type Identifies the object file type, as listed in the following table. NameValueMeaning ET_NONE0No file type ET_REL1Relocatable file ET_EXEC2Executable file ET_DYN3Shared object file ET_CORE4Core file ET_LOSUNW0xfefeStart operating system specific range ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY0xfefeAncillary object file ET_HISUNW0xfefdEnd operating system specific range ET_LOPROC0xff00Start processor-specific range ET_HIPROC0xffffEnd processor-specific range Sections Edit Note: This overview section defines the section header structure, and provides a high level description of known sections. It was updated to define the new SHF_SUNW_ABSENT and SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flags and the new SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY section. ... sh_type Categorizes the section's contents and semantics. Section types and their descriptions are listed in Table 13-5. sh_flags Sections support 1-bit flags that describe miscellaneous attributes. Flag definitions are listed in Table 13-8. ... Table 13-5 ELF Section Types, sh_type NameValue . . . SHT_LOSUNW0x6fffffee SHT_SUNW_ancillary0x6fffffee . . . ... SHT_LOSUNW - SHT_HISUNW Values in this inclusive range are reserved for Oracle Solaris OS semantics. SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY Present when a given object is part of a group of ancillary objects. Contains information required to identify all the files that make up the group. See Ancillary Section. ... Table 13-8 ELF Section Attribute Flags NameValue . . . SHF_MASKOS0x0ff00000 SHF_SUNW_NODISCARD0x00100000 SHF_SUNW_ABSENT0x00200000 SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY0x00400000 SHF_MASKPROC0xf0000000 . . . ... SHF_SUNW_ABSENT Indicates that the data for this section is not present in this file. When ancillary objects are created, the primary object and any ancillary objects, will all have the same section header array, to facilitate merging them to form a complete view of the object, and to allow them to use the same symbol tables. Each file contains a subset of the section data. The data for allocable sections is written to the primary object while the data for non-allocable sections is written to an ancillary file. The SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag is used to indicate that the data for the section is not present in the object being examined. When the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag is set, the sh_size field of the section header must be 0. An application encountering an SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section can choose to ignore the section, or to search for the section data within one of the related ancillary files. SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY The default behavior when ancillary objects are created is to write all allocable sections to the primary object and all non-allocable sections to the ancillary objects. The SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flag overrides this behavior. Any output section containing one more input section with the SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flag set is written to the primary object without regard for its allocable status. ... Two members in the section header, sh_link, and sh_info, hold special information, depending on section type. Table 13-9 ELF sh_link and sh_info Interpretation sh_typesh_linksh_info . . . SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY The section header index of the associated string table. 0 . . . Special Sections Edit Note: This section describes the sections used in Solaris ELF objects, using the types defined in the previous description of section types. It was updated to define the new .SUNW_ancillary (SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY) section. Various sections hold program and control information. Sections in the following table are used by the system and have the indicated types and attributes. Table 13-10 ELF Special Sections NameTypeAttribute . . . .SUNW_ancillarySHT_SUNW_ancillaryNone . . . ... .SUNW_ancillary Present when a given object is part of a group of ancillary objects. Contains information required to identify all the files that make up the group. See Ancillary Section for details. ... Ancillary Section Edit Note: This new section provides the format reference describing the layout of a .SUNW_ancillary section and the meaning of the various tags. Note that these sections use the same tag/value concept used for dynamic and capabilities sections, and will be familiar to anyone used to working with ELF. In addition to the primary output object, the Solaris link-editor can produce one or more ancillary objects. Ancillary objects contain non-allocable sections that would normally be written to the primary object. When ancillary objects are produced, the primary object and all of the associated ancillary objects contain a SHT_SUNW_ancillary section, containing information that identifies these related objects. Given any one object from such a group, the ancillary section provides the information needed to identify and interpret the others. This section contains an array of the following structures. See sys/elf.h. typedef struct { Elf32_Word a_tag; union { Elf32_Word a_val; Elf32_Addr a_ptr; } a_un; } Elf32_Ancillary; typedef struct { Elf64_Xword a_tag; union { Elf64_Xword a_val; Elf64_Addr a_ptr; } a_un; } Elf64_Ancillary; For each object with this type, a_tag controls the interpretation of a_un. a_val These objects represent integer values with various interpretations. a_ptr These objects represent file offsets or addresses. The following ancillary tags exist. Table 13-NEW1 ELF Ancillary Array Tags NameValuea_un ANC_SUNW_NULL0Ignored ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM1a_val ANC_SUNW_MEMBER2a_ptr ANC_SUNW_NULL Marks the end of the ancillary section. ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM Provides the checksum for a file in the c_val element. When ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM precedes the first instance of ANC_SUNW_MEMBER, it provides the checksum for the object from which the ancillary section is being read. When it follows an ANC_SUNW_MEMBER tag, it provides the checksum for that member. ANC_SUNW_MEMBER Specifies an object name. The a_ptr element contains the string table offset of a null-terminated string, that provides the file name. An ancillary section must always contain an ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM before the first instance of ANC_SUNW_MEMBER, identifying the current object. Following that, there should be an ANC_SUNW_MEMBER for each object that makes up the complete set of objects. Each ANC_SUNW_MEMBER should be followed by an ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM for that object. A typical ancillary section will therefore be structured as: TagMeaning ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum of this object ANC_SUNW_MEMBERName of object #1 ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum for object #1 . . . ANC_SUNW_MEMBERName of object N ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum for object N ANC_SUNW_NULL An object can therefore identify itself by comparing the initial ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM to each of the ones that follow, until it finds a match. Related Other Work The GNU developers have also encountered the need/desire to support separate debug information files, and use the solution detailed at http://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Separate-Debug-Files.html. At the current time, the separate debug file is constructed by building the standard object first, and then copying the debug data out of it in a separate post processing step, Hence, it is limited to a total of 4GB of code and debug data, just as a single object file would be. They are aware of this, and I have seen online comments indicating that they may add direct support for generating these separate files to their link-editor. It is worth noting that the GNU objcopy utility is available on Solaris, and that the Studio dbx debugger is able to use these GNU style separate debug files even on Solaris. Although this is interesting in terms giving Linux users a familiar environment on Solaris, the 4GB limit means it is not an answer to the problem of very large 32-bit objects. We have also encountered issues with objcopy not understanding Solaris-specific ELF sections, when using this approach. The GNU community also has a current effort to adapt their DWARF debug sections in order to move them to separate files before passing the relocatable objects to the linker. The details of Project Fission can be found at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebugFission. The goal of this project appears to be to reduce the amount of data seen by the link-editor. The primary effort revolves around moving DWARF data to separate .dwo files so that the link-editor never encounters them. The details of modifying the DWARF data to be usable in this form are involved — please see the above URL for details.

    Read the article

  • Java game object pool management

    - by Kenneth Bray
    Currently I am using arrays to handle all of my game objects in the game I am making, and I know how terrible this is for performance. My question is what is the best way to handle game objects and not hurt performance? Here is how I am creating an array and then looping through it to update the objects in the array: public static ArrayList<VboCube> game_objects = new ArrayList<VboCube>(); /* add objects to the game */ while (!Display.isCloseRequested() && !Keyboard.isKeyDown(Keyboard.KEY_ESCAPE)) { for (int i = 0; i < game_objects.size(); i++){ // draw the object game_objects.get(i).Draw(); game_objects.get(i).Update(); //world.updatePhysics(); } } I am not looking for someone to write me code for asset or object management, just point me into a better direction to get better performance. I appreciate the help you guys have provided me in the past, and I dont think I would be as far along with my project without the support on stack exchange!

    Read the article

  • Methods for Lazy Initialization with properties

    - by Stuart Pegg
    I'm currently altering a widely used class to move as much of the expensive initialization from the class constructor into Lazy Initialized properties. Below is an example (in c#): Before: public class ClassA { public readonly ClassB B; public void ClassA() { B = new ClassB(); } } After: public class ClassA { private ClassB _b; public ClassB B { get { if (_b == null) { _b = new ClassB(); } return _b; } } } There are a fair few more of these properties in the class I'm altering, and some are not used in certain contexts (hence the Laziness), but if they are used they're likely to be called repeatedly. Unfortunately, the properties are often also used inside the class. This means there is a potential for the private variable (_b) to be used directly by a method without it being initialized. Is there a way to make only the public property (B) available inside the class, or even an alternative method with the same initialized-when-needed? This is reposted from Programmers (not subjective enough apparently): http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/34270/best-methods-for-lazy-initialization-with-properties

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe initialization of function-local static const objects

    - by sbi
    This question made me question a practice I had been following for years. For thread-safe initialization of function-local static const objects I protect the actual construction of the object, but not the initialization of the function-local reference referring to it. Something like this: namspace { const some_type& create_const_thingy() { lock my_lock(some_mutex); static const some_type the_const_thingy; return the_const_thingy; } } void use_const_thingy() { static const some_type& the_const_thingy = create_const_thingy(); // use the_const_thingy } The idea is that locking takes time, and if the reference is overwritten by several threads, it won't matter. I'd be interested if this is safe enough in practice? safe according to The Rules? (I know, the current standard doesn't even know what "concurrency" is, but what about trampling over an already initialized reference? And do other standards, like POSIX, have something to say that's relevant to this?) For the inquiring minds: Many such function-local static const objects I used are maps which are initialized from const arrays upon first use and used for lookup. For example, I have a few XML parsers where tag name strings are mapped to enum values, so I could later switch over the tags enum values.

    Read the article

  • Preferred way of application initialization

    - by lisak
    Do you guys have your own little framework for project startups ? I mean, every time one needs to do the same things at the beginning: Context initialization - ideally after arguments are processed. Sometimes without interactive user input, sometimes with input reader. Sometimes we need to load properties, sometimes not. Then we need to get a class out of context and run its method. Programming....programming until writing shell script to place everything on classpath. It's true that it differs according to the actual needs. But it seems to me, that I'm doing always almost the same, again and again from the scratch. Sometimes I realize that I'm postponing my work just because I don't want to do these annoying startups. It would be great if there was some kind of universal Main class doing reflection to specified bean, context initialization, argument parsing, interactive user input reading and have the programmer do the important things...All setup might be done via spring configuration. I think I'll have to do it by myself. I'd appreciate your ideas

    Read the article

  • C++ Suppress Automatic Initialization and Destruction

    - by Travis G
    How does one suppress the automatic initialization and destruction of a type? While it is wonderful that T buffer[100] automatically initializes all the elements of buffer, and destroys them when they fall out of scope, this is not the behavior I want. #include <iostream> static int created = 0, destroyed = 0; struct S { S() { ++created; } ~S() { ++destroyed; } }; template <typename T, size_t KCount> class Array { private: T m_buffer[KCount]; public: Array() { // some way to suppress the automatic initialization of m_buffer } ~Array() { // some way to suppress the automatic destruction of m_buffer } }; int main() { { Array<S, 100> arr; } std::cout << "Created:\t" << created << std::endl; std::cout << "Destroyed:\t" << destroyed << std::endl; return 0; } The output of this program is: Created: 100 Destroyed: 100 I would like it to be: Created: 0 Destroyed: 0 My only idea is to make m_buffer some trivially constructed and destructed type like char and then rely on operator[] to wrap the pointer math for me, although this seems like a horribly hacked solution. Another solution would be to use malloc and free, but that gives a level of indirection that I do not want.

    Read the article

  • JS closures - Passing a function to a child, how should the shared object be accessed

    - by slicedtoad
    I have a design and am wondering what the appropriate way to access variables is. I'll demonstrate with this example since I can't seem to describe it better than the title. Term is an object representing a bunch of time data (a repeating duration of time defined by a bunch of attributes) Term has some print functionality but does not implement the print functions itself, rather they are passed in as anonymous functions by the parent. This would be similar to how shaders can be passed to a renderer rather than defined by the renderer. A container (let's call it Box) has a Schedule object that can understand and use Term objects. Box creates Term objects and passes them to Schedule as required. Box also defines the print functions stored in Term. A print function usually takes an argument and uses it to return a string based on that argument and Term's internal data. Sometime the print function could also use data stored in Schedule, though. I'm calling this data shared. So, the question is, what is the best way to access this shared data. I have a lot of options since JS has closures and I'm not familiar enough to know if I should be using them or avoiding them in this case. Options: Create a local "reference" (term used lightly) to the shared data (data is not a primitive) when defining the print function by accessing the shared data through Schedule from Box. Example: var schedule = function(){ var sched = Schedule(); var t1 = Term( function(x){ // Term.print() return (x + sched.data).format(); }); }; Bind it to Term explicitly. (Pass it in Term's constructor or something). Or bind it in Sched after Box passes it. And then access it as an attribute of Term. Pass it in at the same time x is passed to the print function, (from sched). This is the most familiar way for my but it doesn't feel right given JS's closure ability. Do something weird like bind some context and arguments to print. I'm hoping the correct answer isn't purely subjective. If it is, then I guess the answer is just "do whatever works". But I feel like there are some significant differences between the approaches that could have a large impact when stretched beyond my small example.

    Read the article

  • Odd ActiveRecord model dynamic initialization bug in production

    - by qfinder
    I've got an ActiveRecord (2.3.5) model that occasionally exhibits incorrect behavior that appears to be related to a problem in its dynamic initialization. Here's the code: class Widget < ActiveRecord::Base extend ActiveSupport::Memoizable serialize :settings VALID_SETTINGS = %w(show_on_sale show_upcoming show_current show_past) VALID_SETTINGS.each do |setting| class_eval %{ def #{setting}=(val); self.settings[:#{setting}] = (val == "1"); end def #{setting}; self.settings[:#{setting}]; end } end def initialize_settings self.settings ||= { :show_on_sale => true, :show_upcoming => true } end after_initialize :initialize_settings # All the other stuff the model does end The idea was to use a single record field (settings) to persist a bunch of configuration data for this object, but allow all the settings to seamlessly work with form helpers and the like. (Why this approach makes sense here is a little out of scope, but let's assume that it does.) Net-net, Widget should end up with instance methods (eg #show_on_sale= #show_on_sale) for all the entires in the VALID_SETTINGS array. Any default values should be specified in initialize_settings. And indeed this works, mostly. In dev and staging, no problems at all. But in production, the app sometimes ends up in a state where a) any writes to the dynamically generated setters fail and b) none of the default values appear to be set - although my leading theory is that the dynamically generated reader methods are just broken. The code, db, and environment is otherwise identical between the three. A typical error message / backtrace on the fail looks like: IndexError: index 141145 out of string (eval):2:in []=' (eval):2:inshow_on_sale=' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2746:in send' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2746:inattributes=' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2742:in each' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2742:inattributes=' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2634:in `update_attributes!' ...(then controller and all the way down) Ideas or theories as to what might be going on? My leading theory is that something is going wrong in instance initialization wherein the class instance variable settings is ending up as a string rather than a hash. This explains both the above setter failure (:show_on_sale is being used to index into the string) and the fact that getters don't work (an out of bounds [] call on a string just returns nil). But then how and why might settings occasionally end up as a string rather than hash?

    Read the article

  • C++ Array Initialization in Function Call or Constructor Call

    - by david
    This question is related to the post here. Is it possible to initialize an array in a function call or constructor call? For example, class foo's constructor wants an array of size 3, so I want to call foo( { 0, 0, 0 } ). I've tried this, and it does not work. I'd like to be able to initialize objects of type foo in other objects' constructor initialization lists, or initialize foo's without first creating a separate array. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Javascript Reference Outer Object From Inner Object

    - by Akidi
    Okay, I see a few references given for Java, but not javascript ( which hopefully you know is completely different ). So here's the code specific : function Sandbox() { var args = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) , callback = args.pop() , modules = (args[0] && typeof args[0] === 'string' ? args : args[0]) , i; if (!(this instanceof Sandbox)) { return new Sandbox(modules, callback); } if (!modules || modules[0] === '*') { modules = []; for (i in Sandbox.modules) { if (Sandbox.modules.hasOwnProperty(i)) { modules.push(i); } } } for (i = 0; i < modules.length; i++) { Sandbox.modules[modules[i]](this); } this.core = { 'exp': { 'classParser': function (name) { return (new RegExp("(^| )" + name + "( |$)")); }, 'getParser': /^(#|\.)?([\w\-]+)$/ }, 'typeOf': typeOf, 'hasOwnProperty': function (obj, prop) { return obj.hasOwnProperty(prop); }, 'forEach': function (arr, fn, scope) { scope = scope || config.win; for (var i = 0, j = arr.length; i < j; i++) { fn.call(scope, arr[i], i, arr); } } }; this.config = { 'win' : win, 'doc' : doc }; callback(this); } How do I access this.config.win from within this.core.forEach? Or is this not possible?

    Read the article

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