Search Results

Search found 9215 results on 369 pages for 'double pointers'.

Page 5/369 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Pointer to auto_ptr instead of a classical double pointer

    - by Pin
    Hello. I'm quite new to smart pointers and was trying to refactor some existing code to use auto_ptr. The question I have is about double pointers and their auto_ptr equivalent, if that makes sense. I have a function that accepts a double pointer as its parameter and the function allocates resources for it: void foo ( Image** img ) { ... *img = new Image(); ...} This function is then used like this: Image* img = NULL; foo ( &img ); ... delete img; I want to use auto_ptr to avoid having to call delete explicitly. Is the following correct? void foo ( auto_ptr<Image>* img ); and then auto_ptr<Image> img = NULL; foo ( &img ); Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Dereferencing pointers without pointing them at a variable

    - by Miguel
    I'm having trouble understanding how some pointers work. I always thought that when you created a pointer variable (p), you couldn't deference and assign (*p = value) unless you either malloc'd space for it (p = malloc(x)), or set it to the address of another variable (p = &a) However in this code, the first assignment works consistently, while the last one causes a segfault: typedef struct { int value; } test_struct; int main(void) { //This works int* colin; *colin = 5; //This never works test_struct* carter; carter->value = 5; } Why does the first one work when colin isn't pointing at any spare memory? And why does the 2nd never work? I'm writing this in C, but people with C++ knowledge should be able to answer this as well.

    Read the article

  • Arrays & Pointers

    - by Thomas
    Hi, Looking for some help with arrays and pointers and explanation of what I am trying to do. I want to create a new array on the heap of type Foo* so that I may later assign objects that have been created else where to this array. I am having troubles understanding what I am creating exactly when I do something like the following. Foo *(*f) = new Foo*[10]; Also once I have created my array how do I access each element for example. (f + 9)->fooMember(); ?????? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • C++ inheritance and member function pointers

    - by smh
    In C++, can member function pointers be used to point to derived (or even base) class members? EDIT: Perhaps an example will help. Suppose we have a hierarchy of three classes X, Y, Z in order of inheritance. Y therefore has a base class X and a derived class Z. Now we can define a member function pointer p for class Y. This is written as: void (Y::*p)(); (For simplicity, I'll assume we're only interested in functions with the signature void f() ) This pointer p can now be used to point to member functions of class Y. This question (two questions, really) is then: Can p be used to point to a function in the derived class Z? Can p be used to point to a function in the base class X?

    Read the article

  • Initializing and accessing a pointer from an array of pointers

    - by idealistikz
    Suppose I have the following: void **Init(int numElems) { //What is the best way to intialize 'ptrElems' to store an array of void *'s? void **ptrElems = malloc(numElems * sizeof(void *)); return ptrElems; } //What is the best way to return a pointer pointing at the index passed as a parameter? void **GetPtr(void **ptrElems, int index) { void **elem = elems + (index * sizeof(void *)); return elem; } First, what is the best way to intialize 'ptrElems' to store an array of pointers? I use malloc because assigning it to an array will not persist after the end of the function. Second, what is the best way to point to the pointer at the specified index? I tried typecasting the first line of the 'GetPtr' function to ensure proper pointer arithmetic, but I receive the warning, 'initialization from incompatible pointer type'. Is it necessary to typecast?

    Read the article

  • Understanding c-pointers for rows in 2-dimensional array

    - by utdiscant
    I have the following code: int main() { int n = 3, m = 4, a[n][m], i, j, (* p)[m] = a; for (i = 0; i < n; i++) for (j = 0; j < m; j++) a[i][j] = 1; p++; (*p)[2] = 9; return 0; } I have a hard time understanding what p is here, and the consequences of the operations on p in the end. Can someone give me a brief explanation of what happens. I know c-pointers in their simple settings, but here it get slightly more complicated.

    Read the article

  • Javascript Pointers question with Dates

    - by Mega Matt
    I noticed this situation in my code (unfortunately), and was able to duplicate it in my own JS file. So I have this code: var date1 = new Date(); // today var date2 = date1; date2 = date2.setDate(date2.getDate() + 1); // what is date1? After this code executes, date1 is today's date + 1! This harkens back to my undergrad days when I learned about pointers, and I guess I'm a little rusty. Is that what's happening here? Obviously I've moved the assignment away from date1, and am only modifying date2, but date1 is being changed. Why is this the case? Incidentally, after this code executes date2 is a long number like 1272123603911. I assume this is the number of seconds in the date, but shouldn't date2 still be a Date object? setDate() should return a Date object... Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • pointers for getting elements of an array in C

    - by Manolo
    I am a newbie in C and I would like to get the elements of an array with a function, I have tried different options, but I still do not get the elements. My function is: void getelements(int *a, int cl) { int *p; for (p=&a[0];p<&a[cl];p++) { printf("%d\n",*p); } } I know that the solution should work like that, but it only prints the first element and then memory positions. I am calling my function with: int v={10,12,20,34,45}; getelements(&v,5); Any help? I need to use arithmetic of pointers. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Stucture with array of pointers in C

    - by MVTCplusplus
    What's wrong with this? Can I have an array of pointers to SDL_Surfaces in a struct in C? typedef struct { int next_wheel; int pos_X; int pos_Y; int front_wheel_pos_X; int front_wheel_pos_Y; int velocity; int rear_wheel_pos_X; int rear_wheel_pos_Y; SDL_Surface* body; SDL_Surface* rear_wheel[9]; SDL_Surface* front_wheel[9]; } mars_rover; ... mars_rover* init_rover() { mars_rover* rover = (mars_rover*)malloc(sizeof(mars_rover) + sizeof(SDL_Surface) * 19); ... return rover; } int main() { mars_rover* rover = init_rover(); ... }

    Read the article

  • Structs and pointers

    - by user1763861
    I have a few questions about structs and pointers For this struct: typedef struct tNode_t { char *w; } tNode; How come if I want to change/know the value of *w I need to use t.w = "asdfsd" instead of t->w = "asdfasd"? And I compiled this successfully without having t.w = (char *) malloc(28*sizeof(char)); in my testing code, is there a reason why tt's not needed? Sample main: int main() { tNode t; char w[] = "abcd"; //t.word = (char *) malloc(28*sizeof(char)); t.word = w; printf("%s", t.word); } Thanks.

    Read the article

  • WPF ListView ScrollViewer Double-Click Event

    - by Sentax
    Doing the below will reproduce my problem: New WPF Project Add ListView Name the listview: x:Name="lvList" Add enough ListViewItems to the ListView to fill the list completely so a vertical scroll-bar appears during run-time. Put this code in the lvList.MouseDoubleClick event Debug.Print("Double-Click happened") Run the application Double-click on the LargeChange area of the scroll-bar (Not the scroll "bar" itself) Notice the Immediate window printing the double-click happened message for the ListView How do I change this behavior so MouseDoubleClick only happens when the mouse is "over" the ListViewItems and not when continually clicking the ScrollViewer to scroll down/up in the list?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • function objects versus function pointers

    - by kumar_m_kiran
    Hi All, I have two questions related to function objects and function pointers, Question : 1 When I read the different uses sort algorithm of STL, I see that the third parameter can be a function objects, below is an example class State { public: //... int population() const; float aveTempF() const; //... }; struct PopLess : public std::binary_function<State,State,bool> { bool operator ()( const State &a, const State &b ) const { return popLess( a, b ); } }; sort( union, union+50, PopLess() ); Question : Now, How does the statement, sort(union, union+50,PopLess()) work? PopLess() must be resolved into something like PopLess tempObject.operator() which would be same as executing the operator () function on a temporary object. I see this as, passing the return value of overloaded operation i.e bool (as in my example) to sort algorithm. So then, How does sort function resolve the third parameter in this case? Question : 2 Question Do we derive any particular advantage of using function objects versus function pointer? If we use below function pointer will it derive any disavantage? inline bool popLess( const State &a, const State &b ) { return a.population() < b.population(); } std::sort( union, union+50, popLess ); // sort by population PS : Both the above references(including example) are from book "C++ Common Knowledge: Essential Intermediate Programming" by "Stephen C. Dewhurst". I was unable to decode the topic content, thus have posted for help. Thanks in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • function pointers callbacks C

    - by robUK
    Hello, I have started to review callbacks. I found this link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/142789/what-is-a-callback-in-c-and-how-are-they-implemented which has a good example of callback which is very similar to what we use at work. However, I have tried to get it to work, but I have many errors. #include <stdio.h> /* Is the actual function pointer? */ typedef void (*event_cb_t)(const struct event *evt, void *user_data); struct event_cb { event_cb_t cb; void *data; }; int event_cb_register(event_ct_t cb, void *user_data); static void my_event_cb(const struct event *evt, void *data) { /* do some stuff */ } int main(void) { event_cb_register(my_event_cb, &my_custom_data); struct event_cb *callback; callback->cb(event, callback->data); return 0; } I know that callback use function pointers to store an address of a function. But there is a few things that I find I don't understand. That is what is meet by "registering the callback" and "event dispatcher"? Many thanks for any advice,

    Read the article

  • Obj-C: Passing pointers to initialized classes in other classes

    - by FnGreg7
    Hey all. I initialized a class in my singleton called DataModel. Now, from my UIViewController, when I click a button, I have a method that is trying to access that class so that I may add an object to one of its dictionaries. My get/set method passes back the pointer to the class from my singleton, but when I am back in my UIViewController, the class passed back doesn't respond to methods. It's like it's just not there. I think it has something to do with the difference in passing pointers around classes or something. I even tried using the copy method to throw a copy back, but no luck. UIViewController: ApplicationSingleton *applicationSingleton = [[ApplicationSingleton alloc] init]; DataModel *dataModel = [applicationSingleton getDataModel]; [dataModel retrieveDataCategory:dataCategory]; Singleton: ApplicationSingleton *m_instance; DataModel *m_dataModel; - (id) init { NSLog(@"ApplicationSingleton.m initialized."); self = [super init]; if(self != nil) { if(m_instance != nil) { return m_instance; } NSLog(@"Initializing the application singleton."); m_instance = self; m_dataModel = [[DataModel alloc] init]; } NSLog(@"ApplicationSingleton init method returning."); return m_instance; } -(DataModel *)getDataModel { DataModel *dataModel_COPY = [m_dataModel copy]; return dataModel_COPY; } For the getDataModel method, I also tried this: -(DataModel *)getDataModel { return m_dataModel; } In my DataModel retrieveDataCategory method, I couldn't get anything to work. I even just tried putting a NSLog in there but it never would come onto the console. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Trouble with pointers and references in C++

    - by KingNestor
    I have a PolygonList and a Polygon type, which are std::lists of Points or lists of lists of points. class Point { public: int x, y; Point(int x1, int y1) { x = x1; y = y1; } }; typedef std::list<Point> Polygon; typedef std::list<Polygon> PolygonList; // List of all our polygons PolygonList polygonList; However, I'm confused on reference variables and pointers. For example, I would like to be able to reference the first Polygon in my polygonList, and push a new Point to it. So I attempted to set the front of the polygonList to a Polygon called currentPolygon like so: Polygon currentPolygon = polygonList.front(); currentPolygon.push_front(somePoint); and now, I can add points to currentPolygon, but these changes end up not being reflected in that same polygon in the polygonList. Is currentPolygon simply a copy of the Polygon in the front of polygonList? When I later iterate over polygonList all the points I've added to currentPolygon aren't shown. It works if I do this: polygonList.front().push_front(somePoint); Why aren't these the same and how can I create a reference to the physical front polygon rather than a copy of it?

    Read the article

  • C++ trouble with pointers to objects

    - by Zibd
    I have a class with a vector of pointers to objects. I've introduced some elements on this vector, and on my main file I've managed to print them and add others with no problems. Now I'm trying to remove an element from that vector and check to see if it's not NULL but it is not working. I'm filling it with on class Test: Other *a = new Other(1,1); Other *b = new Other(2,2); Other *c = new Other(3,3); v->push_back(a); v->push_back(b); v->push_back(c); And on my main file I have: Test t; (...) Other *pointer = t.vect->at(0); delete t.vect->at(0); t.vect->erase(t.vect->begin()); if (pointer == NULL) { cout << "Nothing here.."; } // Never enters here..

    Read the article

  • im i doing this right or wrong using pointers in C

    - by Amandeep Singh Dhari
    i like to point out that i need some help with my home work, ok the lectuer gave us the idea of a program and we have to make it from bottom to top. got to have user to type in two set of string. pointers take in the value and then puts into a prototype i need to make a 3rd pointer that has the value of p1 and p2. like this p1 = asd, p2 = qwe and p3 = asdqwe #include "stdafx.h" #include <ctype.h> char *mystrcat(char*s1p, char*s2p); // Prototype char main(void) { char string1[80]; char string2[80]; printf("%s", "enter in your srting one "); gets_s(string1); printf("%s", "enter in your srting two "); gets_s(string2); *mystrcat(string1, string2); return 0; } char *mystrcat(char *s1p,char *s2p) { //char *string3; //char *string4; //string3 = s1p; //string4 = s2p; printf("whatever = %s%s\n", s1p, s2p); return 0; } this is the code that i made so far just need some help, thank guys in advance.

    Read the article

  • C++ design question, container of instances and pointers

    - by Tom
    Hi all, Im wondering something. I have class Polygon, which composes a vector of Line (another class here) class Polygon { std::vector<Line> lines; public: const_iterator begin() const; const_iterator end() const; } On the other hand, I have a function, that calculates a vector of pointers to lines, and based on those lines, should return a pointer to a Polygon. Polygon* foo(Polygon& p){ std::vector<Line> lines = bar (p.begin(),p.end()); return new Polygon(lines); } Here's the question: I can always add a Polygon (vector Is there a better way that dereferencing each element of the vector and assigning it to the existing vector container? //for line in vector<Line*> v //vcopy is an instance of vector<Line> vcopy.push_back(*(v.at(i)) I think not, but I dont really like that approach. Hopefully, I will be able to convince the author of the class to change it, but I cant base my coding right now to that fact (and i'm scared of a performance hit). Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • C++ design question, container of instances and pointers

    - by Tom
    Hi all, Im wondering something. I have class Polygon, which composes a vector of Line (another class here) class Polygon { std::vector<Line> lines; public: const_iterator begin() const; const_iterator end() const; } On the other hand, I have a function, that calculates a vector of pointers to lines, and based on those lines, should return a pointer to a Polygon. Polygon* foo(Polygon& p){ std::vector<Line> lines = bar (p.begin(),p.end()); return new Polygon(lines); } Here's the question: I can always add a Polygon (vector Is there a better way that dereferencing each element of the vector and assigning it to the existing vector container? //for line in vector<Line*> v //vcopy is an instance of vector<Line> vcopy.push_back(*(v.at(i)) I think not, but I dont really like that approach. Hopefully, I will be able to convince the author of the class to change it, but I cant base my coding right now to that fact (and i'm scared of a performance hit). Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • And now for a complete change of direction from C++ function pointers

    - by David
    I am building a part of a simulator. We are building off of a legacy simulator, but going in different direction, incorporating live bits along side of the simulated bits. The piece I am working on has to, effectively route commands from the central controller to the various bits. In the legacy code, there is a const array populated with an enumerated type. A command comes in, it is looked up in the table, then shipped off to a switch statement keyed by the enumerated type. The type enumeration has a choice VALID_BUT_NOT_SIMULATED, which is effectively a no-op from the point of the sim. I need to turn those no-ops into commands to actual other things [new simulated bits| live bits]. The new stuff and the live stuff have different interfaces than the old stuff [which makes me laugh about the shill job that it took to make it all happen, but that is a topic for a different discussion]. I like the array because it is a very apt description of the live thing this chunk is simulating [latching circuits by row and column]. I thought that I would try to replace the enumerated types in the array with pointers to functions and call them directly. This would be in lieu of the lookup+switch.

    Read the article

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