Search Results

Search found 10860 results on 435 pages for 'bad blocks'.

Page 49/435 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

  • Extension Methods - IsNull and IsNotNull, good or bad use?

    - by Jaimal Chohan
    I like readability. So, I came up with an extension mothod a few minutes ago for the (x =! null) type syntax, called IsNotNull. Inversly, I also created a IsNull extension method, thus if(x == null) becomes if(x.IsNull()) and if(x != null) becomes if(x.IsNotNull()) However, I'm worried I might be abusing extension methods. Do you think that this is bad use of Extenion methods?

    Read the article

  • Simple Detached pThread does not cancel! (cout blocks and interleaves even if mutexed)

    - by Gabriel
    I have a hard problem here, which I can not solve and do not find the right answer on the net: I have created a detached thread with a clean up routing, the problem is that on my Imac and Ubuntu 9.1 (Dual Core). I am not able to correctly cancel the detached thread in the fallowing code: #include <iostream> #include <pthread.h> #include <sched.h> #include <signal.h> #include <time.h> pthread_mutex_t mutex_t; using namespace std; static void cleanup(void *arg){ pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex_t); cout << " doing clean up"<<endl; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex_t); } static void *thread(void *aArgument) { pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_ENABLE,NULL); pthread_setcanceltype(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DEFERRED,NULL); pthread_cleanup_push(&cleanup,NULL); int n=0; while(1){ pthread_testcancel(); sched_yield(); n++; pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex_t); cout << " Thread 2: "<< n<<endl; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex_t); } pthread_cleanup_pop(0); return NULL; } int main() { pthread_t thread_id; pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_attr_init(&attr); pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr,PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED); int error; if (pthread_mutex_init(&mutex_t,NULL) != 0) return 1; if (pthread_create(&thread_id, &attr, &(thread) , NULL) != 0) return 1; pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex_t); cout << "waiting 1s for thread...\n" <<endl; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex_t); int n =0; while(n<1E3){ pthread_testcancel(); sched_yield(); n++; pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex_t); cout << " Thread 1: "<< n<<endl; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex_t); } pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex_t); cout << "canceling thread...\n" <<endl; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex_t); if (pthread_cancel(thread_id) == 0) { //This doesn't wait for the thread to exit pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex_t); cout << "detaching thread...\n"<<endl; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex_t); pthread_detach(thread_id); while (pthread_kill(thread_id,0)==0) { sched_yield(); } pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex_t); cout << "thread is canceled"; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex_t); } pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex_t); cout << "exit"<<endl; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex_t); return 0; } When I replace the Cout with printf() i workes to the end "exit" , but with the cout (even locked) the executable hangs after outputting "detaching thread... It would be very cool to know from a Pro, what the problem here is?. Why does this not work even when cout is locked by a mutex!? Thanks a lot for your support!!

    Read the article

  • Are there any guarantees in JLS about order of execution static initialization blocks?

    - by Roman
    I wonder if it's reliable to use a construction like: private static final Map<String, String> engMessages; private static final Map<String, String> rusMessages; static { engMessages = new HashMap<String, String> () {{ put ("msgname", "value"); }}; rusMessages = new HashMap<String, String> () {{ put ("msgname", "????????"); }}; } private static Map<String, String> msgSource; static { msgSource = engMessages; } public static String msg (String msgName) { return msgSource.get (msgName); } Is there a possibility that I'll get NullPointerException because msgSource initialization block will be executed before the block which initializes engMessages? (about why don't I do msgSource initialization at the end of upper init. block: just the matter of taste; I'll do so if the described construction is unreliable)

    Read the article

  • How does one modify the thread scheduling behavior when using Threading Building Blocks (TBB)?

    - by J Teller
    Does anyone know how to modify the thread scheduling (specifically affinity) when using TBB? Doing a high level analysis on a simple parallel-for application, it seems like TBB is specifying the underlying threads' affinity in a way that reduces performance. Specifically, the cores I'm running on have hyper-threading enabled, and it looks like TBB is affinitizing threads to the same core even if there is a different core left completely unloaded. FWIW, I realize it's likely that TBB is doing the "right thing" and that changing the threads' affinity will only reduce performance. I'd just like to experiment with it to see if that's really the case.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants e.g. if (b == false) in Java?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Is it bad to write: if (b == false) //... while (b != true) //... Is it always better to instead write: if (!b) //... while (!b) //... Presumably there is no difference in performance (or is there?), but how do you weigh the explicitness, the conciseness, the clarity, the readability, etc between the two? Note: the variable name b is just used as an example, ala foo and bar.

    Read the article

  • What are the arguments against the inclusion of server side scripting in JavaScript code blocks?

    - by James Wiseman
    I've been arguing for some time against embedding server-side tags in JavaScript code, but was put on the spot today by a developer who seemed unconvinced The code in question was a legacy ASP application, although this is largely unimportant as it could equally apply to ASP.NET or PHP (for example). The example in question revolved around the use of a constant that they had defined in ServerSide code. 'VB Const MY_CONST: MY_CONST = 1 If sMyVbVar = MY_CONST Then 'Do Something End If //JavaScript if (sMyJsVar === "<%= MY_CONST%>"){ //DoSomething } My standard arguments against this are: Script injection: The server-side tag could include code that can break the JavaScript code Unit testing. Harder to isolate units of code for testing Code Separation : We should keep web page technologies apart as much as possible. The reason for doing this was so that the developer did not have to define the constant in two places. They reasoned that as it was a value that they controlled, that it wasn't subject to script injection. This reduced my justification for (1) to "We're trying to keep the standards simple, and defining exception cases would confuse people" The unit testing and code separation arguments did not hold water either, as the page itself was a horrible amalgam of HTML, JavaScript, ASP.NET, CSS, XML....you name it, it was there. No code that was every going to be included in this page could possibly be unit tested. So I found myself feeling like a bit of a pedant insisting that the code was changed, given the circumstances. Are there any further arguments that might support my reasoning, or am I, in fact being a bit pedantic in this insistence?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to use a model directly from a view in codeigniter?

    - by jason
    I know normally the data is passed thru to the view with the controller. however, currently in my view I load my model ($this-load-model('Db_model');) so i can use it in a loop to retrieve a users profile picture path from a array of IDs that is passed from controller. Will loading the db model in the view to accomplish this make my site more vulnerable or bad form? To me it seems to be outside of MVC concept but its working atm. thanks

    Read the article

  • Are there any garanties in JLS about order of execution static initialization blocks?

    - by Roman
    I wonder if it's reliable to use a construction like: private static final Map<String, String> engMessages; private static final Map<String, String> rusMessages; static { engMessages = new HashMap<String, String> () {{ put ("msgname", "value"); }}; rusMessages = new HashMap<String, String> () {{ put ("msgname", "????????"); }}; } private static Map<String, String> msgSource; static { msgSource = engMessages; } public static String msg (String msgName) { return msgSource.get (msgName); } Is there a possibility that I'll get NullPointerException because msgSource initialization block will be executed before the block which initializes engMessages? (about why don't I do msgSource initialization at the end of upper init. block: just the matter of taste; I'll do so if the described construction is unreliable)

    Read the article

  • what causes a bad token on iPhone- NSLog(@"token:%@",[devToken description]); crashes

    - by Grant M
    I am getting a bad token passed to me in - (void)application:(UIApplication *)app didRegisterForRemoteNotificationsWithDeviceToken:(NSData *)devToken this code crashes on my iPhone but not my clients. - (void)application:(UIApplication *)app didRegisterForRemoteNotificationsWithDeviceToken:(NSData *)devToken { NSLog(@"token:%@",[devToken description]); } I think something is wrong with my stored notifications settings on my iPhone but I can't find a way to delete them. deleting the app does not seem to do it.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >