Search Results

Search found 3592 results on 144 pages for 'pointer'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 50/144 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

  • Why C++ virtual function defined in header may not be compiled and linked in vtable?

    - by 0xDEAD BEEF
    Situation is following. I have shared library, which contains class definition - QueueClass : IClassInterface { virtual void LOL() { do some magic} } My shared library initialize class member QueueClass *globalMember = new QueueClass(); My share library export C function which returns pointer to globalMember - void * getGlobalMember(void) { return globalMember;} My application uses globalMember like this ((IClassInterface*)getGlobalMember())->LOL(); Now the very uber stuff - if i do not reference LOL from shared library, then LOL is not linked in and calling it from application raises exception. Reason - VTABLE contains nul in place of pointer to LOL() function. When i move LOL() definition from .h file to .cpp, suddenly it appears in VTABLE and everything works just great. What explains this behavior?! (gcc compiler + ARM architecture_)

    Read the article

  • fread() behaves weird

    - by Cres
    hi, I have a problem in a C program of mine where after I use fread(), the file pointer goes to the end of the file sometimes. I'll try to explain better - the code looks something like: dummy = ftell(fp); fread(&buf, sizeof(unsigned char), 8, fp); dummy = ftell(fp); where fp is a file pointer to an opened file (opened it with "w+", I'm using it as a binary file and I know i'm supposed to have a "b" in there too, but I heard its not really important to add it..), dummy is just an unsigned long variable, and buf is unsigned char[8] now, when debugging, at the ftell before the fread, dummy is 262062 at the ftell after the fread, dummy is 262640 even though I only 'moved' 8 bytes.. does anyone have any idea what can be the cause of this..? thanks for your help :)

    Read the article

  • Convert NSData into Hex NSString

    - by Dawson
    With reference to the following question: Convert NSData into HEX NSSString I have solved the problem using the solution provided by Erik Aigner which is: NSData *data = ...; NSUInteger capacity = [data length] * 2; NSMutableString *stringBuffer = [NSMutableString stringWithCapacity:capacity]; const unsigned char *dataBuffer = [data bytes]; NSInteger i; for (i=0; i<[data length]; ++i) { [stringBuffer appendFormat:@"%02X", (NSUInteger)dataBuffer[i]]; } However, there is one small problem in that if there are extra zeros at the back, the string value would be different. For eg. if the hexa data is of a string @"3700000000000000", when converted using a scanner to integer: unsigned result = 0; NSScanner *scanner = [NSScanner scannerWithString:stringBuffer]; [scanner scanHexInt:&result]; NSLog(@"INTEGER: %u",result); The result would be 4294967295, which is incorrect. Shouldn't it be 55 as only the hexa 37 is taken? So how do I get rid of the zeros? EDIT: (In response to CRD) Hi, thanks for clarifying my doubts. So what you're doing is to actually read the 64-bit integer directly from a byte pointer right? However I have another question. How do you actually cast NSData to a byte pointer? To make it easier for you to understand, I'll explain what I did originally. Firstly, what I did was to display the data of the file which I have (data is in hexadecimal) NSData *file = [NSData dataWithContentsOfFile:@"file path here"]; NSLog(@"Patch File: %@",file); Output: Next, what I did was to read and offset the first 8 bytes of the file and convert them into a string. // 0-8 bytes [file seekToFileOffset:0]; NSData *b = [file readDataOfLength:8]; NSUInteger capacity = [b length] * 2; NSMutableString *stringBuffer = [NSMutableString stringWithCapacity:capacity]; const unsigned char *dataBuffer = [b bytes]; NSInteger i; for (i=0; i<[b length]; ++i) { [stringBuffer appendFormat:@"%02X", (NSUInteger)dataBuffer[i]]; } NSLog(@"0-8 bytes HEXADECIMAL: %@",stringBuffer); As you can see, 0x3700000000000000 is the next 8 bytes. The only changes I would have to make to access the next 8 bytes would be to change the value of SeekFileToOffset to 8, so as to access the next 8 bytes of data. All in all, the solution you gave me is useful, however it would not be practical to enter the hexadecimal values manually. If formatting the bytes as a string and then parsing them is not the way to do it, then how do I access the first 8 bytes of the data directly and cast them into a byte pointer?

    Read the article

  • What is the safest way to pass strings around in C?

    - by chucknelson
    I have a program in C using Solaris with VERY ancient compatibility it seems. Many examples, even here on SO, don't work, as well as lots of code I've written on Mac OS X. So when using very strict C, what is the safest way to pass strings? I'm currently using char pointers all over the place, due to what I thought was simplicity. So I have functions that return char*, I'm passing char* to them, etc. I'm already seeing strange behavior, like a char* I passed having its value right when I enter a function, and then the value being mysteriously gone OR corrupted/overwritten after something simple like one printf() or an malloc to some other pointer. I was thinking maybe declaring a local char[] inside each function, using strcpy() immediately, and then eventually returning a pointer where char *returnval = strdup(localchar[]); This seems...sloppy. Can anyone point me in the right direction on a simple requirement?

    Read the article

  • Access violation using LocalAlloc()

    - by PaulH
    I have a Visual Studio 2008 Windows Mobile 6 C++ application that is using an API that requires the use of LocalAlloc(). To make my life easier, I created an implementation of a standard allocator that uses LocalAlloc() internally: /// Standard library allocator implementation using LocalAlloc and LocalReAlloc /// to create a dynamically-sized array. /// Memory allocated by this allocator is never deallocated. That is up to the /// user. template< class T, int max_allocations > class LocalAllocator { public: typedef T value_type; typedef size_t size_type; typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type; typedef T* pointer; typedef const T* const_pointer; typedef T& reference; typedef const T& const_reference; pointer address( reference r ) const { return &r; }; const_pointer address( const_reference r ) const { return &r; }; LocalAllocator() throw() : c_( NULL ) { }; /// Attempt to allocate a block of storage with enough space for n elements /// of type T. n>=1 && n<=max_allocations. /// If memory cannot be allocated, a std::bad_alloc() exception is thrown. pointer allocate( size_type n, const void* /*hint*/ = 0 ) { if( NULL == c_ ) { c_ = LocalAlloc( LPTR, sizeof( T ) * n ); } else { HLOCAL c = LocalReAlloc( c_, sizeof( T ) * n, LHND ); if( NULL == c ) LocalFree( c_ ); c_ = c; } if( NULL == c_ ) throw std::bad_alloc(); return reinterpret_cast< T* >( c_ ); }; /// Normally, this would release a block of previously allocated storage. /// Since that's not what we want, this function does nothing. void deallocate( pointer /*p*/, size_type /*n*/ ) { // no deallocation is performed. that is up to the user. }; /// maximum number of elements that can be allocated size_type max_size() const throw() { return max_allocations; }; private: /// current allocation point HLOCAL c_; }; // class LocalAllocator My application is using that allocator implementation in a std::vector< #define MAX_DIRECTORY_LISTING 512 std::vector< WIN32_FIND_DATA, LocalAllocator< WIN32_FIND_DATA, MAX_DIRECTORY_LISTING > > file_list; WIN32_FIND_DATA find_data = { 0 }; HANDLE find_file = ::FindFirstFile( folder.c_str(), &find_data ); if( NULL != find_file ) { do { // access violation here on the 257th item. file_list.push_back( find_data ); } while ( ::FindNextFile( find_file, &find_data ) ); ::FindClose( find_file ); } // data submitted to the API that requires LocalAlloc()'d array of WIN32_FIND_DATA structures SubmitData( &file_list.front() ); On the 257th item added to the vector<, the application crashes with an access violation: Data Abort: Thread=8e1b0400 Proc=8031c1b0 'rapiclnt' AKY=00008001 PC=03f9e3c8(coredll.dll+0x000543c8) RA=03f9ff04(coredll.dll+0x00055f04) BVA=21ae0020 FSR=00000007 First-chance exception at 0x03f9e3c8 in rapiclnt.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0x01ae0020. LocalAllocator::allocate is called with an n=512 and LocalReAlloc() succeeds. The actual Access Violation exception occurs within the std::vector< code after the LocalAllocator::allocate call: 0x03f9e3c8 0x03f9ff04 > MyLib.dll!stlp_std::priv::__copy_trivial(const void* __first = 0x01ae0020, const void* __last = 0x01b03020, void* __result = 0x01b10020) Line: 224, Byte Offsets: 0x3c C++ MyLib.dll!stlp_std::vector<_WIN32_FIND_DATAW,LocalAllocator<_WIN32_FIND_DATAW,512> >::_M_insert_overflow(_WIN32_FIND_DATAW* __pos = 0x01b03020, _WIN32_FIND_DATAW& __x = {...}, stlp_std::__true_type& __formal = {...}, unsigned int __fill_len = 1, bool __atend = true) Line: 112, Byte Offsets: 0x5c C++ MyLib.dll!stlp_std::vector<_WIN32_FIND_DATAW,LocalAllocator<_WIN32_FIND_DATAW,512> >::push_back(_WIN32_FIND_DATAW& __x = {...}) Line: 388, Byte Offsets: 0xa0 C++ MyLib.dll!Foo(unsigned long int cbInput = 16, unsigned char* pInput = 0x01a45620, unsigned long int* pcbOutput = 0x1dabfbbc, unsigned char** ppOutput = 0x1dabfbc0, IRAPIStream* __formal = 0x00000000) Line: 66, Byte Offsets: 0x1e4 C++ If anybody can point out what I may be doing wrong, I would appreciate it. Thanks, PaulH

    Read the article

  • Remove from a std::set<shared_ptr<T>> by T*

    - by Autopulated
    I have a set of shared pointers: std::set<boost::shared_ptr<T>> set; And a pointer: T* p; I would like to efficiently remove the element of set equal to p, but I can't do this with any of the members of set, or any of the standard algorithms, since T* is a completely different type to boost::shared_ptr<T>. A few approaches I can think of are: somehow constructing a new shared_ptr from the pointer that won't take ownership of the pointed to memory (ideal solution, but I can't see how to do this) wrapping / re-implementing shared_ptr so that I can do the above just doing my own binary search over the set Help!

    Read the article

  • Static source code analysis with LLVM

    - by Phong
    I recently discover the LLVM (low level virtual machine) project, and from what I have heard It can be used to performed static analysis on a source code. I would like to know if it is possible to extract the different function call through function pointer (find the caller function and the callee function) in a program. I could find the kind of information in the website so it would be really helpful if you could tell me if such an library already exist in LLVM or can you point me to the good direction on how to build it myself (existing source code, reference, tutorial, example...). EDIT: With my analysis I actually want to extract caller/callee function call. In the case of a function pointer, I would like to return a set of possible callee. both caller and callee must be define in the source code (this does not include third party function in a library).

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to use template specialization to separate new from new[]?

    - by Marlon
    I have an auto pointer class and in the constructor I am passing in a pointer. I want to be able to separate new from new[] in the constructor so that I can properly call delete or delete[] in the destructor. Can this be done through template specialization? I don't want to have to pass in a boolean in the constructor. template <typename T> class MyAutoPtr { public: MyAutoPtr(T* aPtr); }; // in use: MyAutoPtr<int> ptr(new int); MyAutoPtr<int> ptr2(new int[10]);

    Read the article

  • Basic Custom String Class for C++

    - by wdow88
    Hey all, I'm working on building my own string class with very basic functionality. I am having difficulty understand what is going on with the basic class that I have define, and believe there is some sort of error dealing with the scope occurring. When I try to view the objects I created, all the fields are described as (obviously bad pointer). Also, if I make the data fields public or build an accessor method, the program crashes. For some reason the pointer for the object is 0xccccccccc which points to no where. How can a I fix this? Any help/comments are much appreciated. //This is a custom string class, so far the only functions are //constructing and appending #include<iostream> using namespace std; class MyString1 { public: MyString1() { //no arg constructor char *string; string = new char[0]; string[0] ='\0'; std::cout << string; size = 1; } //constructor receives pointer to character array MyString1(char* chars) { int index = 0; //Determine the length of the array while (chars[index] != NULL) index++; //Allocate dynamic memory on the heap char *string; string = new char[index+1]; //Copy the contents of the array pointed by chars into string, the char array of the object for (int ii = 0; ii < index; ii++) string[ii] = chars[ii]; string[index+1] = '\0'; size = index+1; } MyString1 append(MyString1 s) { //determine new size of the appended array and allocate memory int newsize = s.size + size; MyString1 MyString2; char *newstring; newstring = new char[newsize+1]; int index = 0; //load the first string into the array while (string[index] != NULL) { newstring[index] = string[index]; index++; } //load the second string while (s.string[index] != NULL) { newstring[index] = s.string[index]; index++; } //null terminate newstring[newsize+1] = '\0'; delete string; //generate the object for return MyString2.string=newstring; MyString2.size=newsize; return MyString2; } private: char *string; int size; }; int main() { MyString1 string1; MyString1 string2("Hello There"); MyString1 string3("Buddy"); string2.append(string3); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Store return value of function in reference C++

    - by Ruud v A
    Is it valid to store the return value of an object in a reference? class A { ... }; A myFunction() { A myObject; return A; } //myObject goes out of scope here void mySecondFunction() { A& mySecondObject = myFunction(); } Is it possible to do this in order to avoid copying myObject to mySecondObject? myObject is not needed anymore and should be exactly the same as mySecondObject so it would in theory be faster just to pass ownership of the object from one object to another. (This is also possible using boost shared pointer but that has the overhead of the shared pointer.) Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • What's the performance penalty of weak_ptr?

    - by Kornel Kisielewicz
    I'm currently designing a object structure for a game, and the most natural organization in my case became a tree. Being a great fan of smart pointers I use shared_ptr's exclusively. However, in this case, the children in the tree will need access to it's parent (example -- beings on map need to be able to access map data -- ergo the data of their parents. The direction of owning is of course that a map owns it's beings, so holds shared pointers to them. To access the map data from within a being we however need a pointer to the parent -- the smart pointer way is to use a reference, ergo a weak_ptr. However, I once read that locking a weak_ptr is a expensive operation -- maybe that's not true anymore -- but considering that the weak_ptr will be locked very often, I'm concerned that this design is doomed with poor performance. Hence the question: What is the performance penalty of locking a weak_ptr? How significant is it?

    Read the article

  • C++ Passing `this` into method by reference

    - by David
    I have a class constructor that expects a reference to another class object to be passed in as an argument. I understand that references are preferable to pointers when no pointer arithmetic will be performed or when a null value will not exist. This is the header declaration of the constructor: class MixerLine { private: MIXERLINE _mixerLine; public: MixerLine(const MixerDevice& const parentMixer, DWORD destinationIndex); ~MixerLine(); } This is the code that calls the constructor (MixerDevice.cpp): void MixerDevice::enumerateLines() { DWORD numLines = getDestinationCount(); for(DWORD i=0;i<numLines;i++) { MixerLine mixerLine( this, i ); // other code here removed } } Compilation of MixerDevice.cpp fails with this error: Error 3 error C2664: 'MixerLine::MixerLine(const MixerDevice &,DWORD)' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'MixerDevice *const ' to 'const MixerDevice &' But I thought pointer values could be assigned to pointers, e.g. Foo* foo = new Foo(); Foo& bar = foo;

    Read the article

  • How can i assign a two dimensional array into other temporary two dimensional array.....?? in C Programming..

    - by AGeek
    Hi I am trying to store the contents of two dimensional array into a temporary array.... How is it possible... I don't want looping over here, as it would add an extra overhead.. Any pointer notation would be good. struct bucket { int nStrings; char strings[MAXSTRINGS][MAXWORDLENGTH]; }; void func() { char **tArray; int tLenArray = 0; for(i=0; i<TOTBUCKETS-1; i++) { if(buck[i].nStrings != 0) { tArray = buck[i].strings; tLenArray = buck[i].nStrings; } } } The error here i am getting is:- [others@centos htdocs]$ gcc lexorder.c lexorder.c: In function âlexSortingâ: lexorder.c:40: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type Please let me know if this needs some more explanaition...

    Read the article

  • Silencing GCC warnings when using an "Uncopyable" class

    - by Kazade
    I have several classes that I don't want to be copyable, some of these classes have pointer data members. To make these classes uncopyable I privately inherit the following class template: template <class T> class Uncopyable { protected: Uncopyable() {} virtual ~Uncopyable() {} private: Uncopyable(const Uncopyable &); T & operator=(const T&); }; Which I used like so: class Entity : private Uncopyable<Entity> { } This works fine, however when I compile with -Weffc++ I still get the following warning: class Entity has pointer data members but does not override Entity(const Entity&) or operator=(const Entity&) Why is it still giving me this warning?

    Read the article

  • For-Each and Pointers in Java

    - by John
    Ok, so I'm tyring to iterate through an ArrayList and remove a specefic element. However, I am having some trouble using the For-Each like structure. When I run the following code: ArrayList<String> arr = new ArrayList<String>(); //... fill with some values (doesn't really matter) for(String t : arr) { t = " some other value "; //hoping this would change the actual array } for(String t : arr) { System.out.println(t); //however, I still get the same array here } My question in, how can I make 't' a pointer to 'arr' so that I am able to change the values in a for-each loop? I know I could loop through the ArrayList using a different structure, but this one looks so clean and readable, it would just be nice to be able to make 't' a pointer. All comments are appreciated! Even if you say I should just suck it up and use a different construct.

    Read the article

  • Primary reasons why programming language runtimes use stacks?

    - by manuel aldana
    Many programming language runtime environments use stacks as their primary storage structure (e.g. see JVM bytecode to runtime example). Quickly recalling I see following advantages: Simple structure (pop/push), trivial to implement Most processors are anyway optimized for stack operations, so it is very fast Less problems with memory fragmentation, it is always about moving memory-pointer up and down for allocation and freeing complete blocks of memory by resetting the pointer to the last entry offset. Is the list complete or did I miss something? Are there programming language runtime environments which are not using stacks for storage at all?

    Read the article

  • grdb not working variables

    - by stupid_idiot
    hi, i know this is kinda retarded but I just can't figure it out. I'm debugging this: xor eax,eax mov ah,[var1] mov al,[var2] call addition stop: jmp stop var1: db 5 var2: db 6 addition: add ah,al ret the numbers that I find on addresses var1 and var2 are 0x0E and 0x07. I know it's not segmented, but that ain't reason for it to do such escapades, because the addition call works just fine. Could you please explain to me where is my mistake? I see the problem, dunno how to fix it yet though. The thing is, for some reason the instruction pointer starts at 0x100 and all the segment registers at 0x1628. To address the instruction the used combination is i guess [cs:ip] (one of the segment registers and the instruction pointer for sure). The offset to var1 is 0x10 (probably because from the begining of the code it's the 0x10th byte in order), i tried to examine the memory and what i got was: 1628:100 8 bytes 1628:108 8 bytes 1628:110 <- wtf? (assume another 8 bytes) 1628:118 ... whatever tricks are there in the memory [cs:var1] points somewhere else than in my code, which is probably where the label .data would usually address ds.... probably.. i don't know what is supposed to be at 1628:10 ok, i found out what caused the assness and wasted me whole fuckin day. the behaviour described above is just correct, the code is fully functional. what i didn't know is that grdb debugger for some reason sets the begining address to 0x100... the sollution is to insert the directive ORG 0x100 on the first line and that's the whole thing. the code was working because instruction pointer has the right address to first instruction and goes one by one, but your assembler doesn't know what effective address will be your program stored at so it pretty much remains relative to first line of the code which means all the variables (if not using label for data section) will remain pointing as if it started at 0x0. which of course wouldn't work with DOS. and grdb apparently emulates some DOS features... sry for the language, thx everyone for effort, hope this will spare someone's time if having the same problem... heheh.. at least now i know the reason why to use .data section :))))

    Read the article

  • Unmanaged C++ instantiation question

    - by Jim Jones
    Want to verify that my understanding of how this works. Have an unmanaged C++ Class with one public instance variable: char* character_encoding; and whose only constructor is defined as: TF_StringList(const char* encoding = "cp_1252"); when I use this class in either managed or unmanaged C++, the first thing I do is declare a pointer to an object of this class: const TF_StringList * categories; Then later I instantiate it: categories = new TF_StringList(); this gives me a pointer to an object of type TF_StringList whose variable character_encoding is set to "cp_1252"; So, is all that logic valid? Jim

    Read the article

  • How to use the vtable to determine class type

    - by Alex Silverman
    I was recently on an interview for a position where C/C++ is the primary language and during one question I was told that it's possible to use the vtable to determine which class in a hierarchy a base pointer actually stores. So if, for example you have class A { public: A() {} virtual ~A() {} virtual void method1() {} }; class B : public A { public: B() {} virtual ~B() {} virtual void method1() {} }; and you instantiate A * pFoo = new B(), is it indeed possible to use the vtable to determine whether pFoo contains a pointer to an instance of A or B?

    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

  • Inline function and calling cost in C

    - by Eonil
    I'm making a vector/matrix library. (GCC, ARM NEON, iPhone) typedef struct{ float v[4]; } Vector; typedef struct{ Vector v[4]; } Matrix; I passed struct data as pointer to avoid performance degrade from data copying when calling function. So I thought designed function like this: void makeTranslation(const Vector* factor, Matrix* restrict result); But, if function is inline, is there any reason to pass values as pointer for performance? Do those variables copied too? How about register and caches? inline Matrix makeTranslation(Vector factor) __attribute__ ((always_inline)); How do you think about calling costs of each cases?

    Read the article

  • template typename question

    - by stephenteh
    Hi, I have a problem with template and wondering is there a possible way to achieve what I wanted to do. Here is my question. template <typename T> class A { public: typedef T* pointer; typedef const pointer const_pointer; A() {} template <typename D> A(const D& d) { // how can I store the D type // so I can refer it later on // outside of this function } };

    Read the article

  • Iterator category

    - by Knowing me knowing you
    In code: //I know that to get this effect (being able to use it with std algorithms) I can inherit like I did in line below: class Iterator //: public std::iterator<std::bidirectional_iterator_tag,T> { private: T** itData_; public: //BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT BY HAND AS WELL typedef std::bidirectional_iterator_tag iterator_category; typedef T* value_type;//SHOULD IT BE T AS value_type or T*? typedef std::ptrdiff_t difference_type; typedef T** pointer;//SHOULD IT BE T* AS pointer or T**? typedef T*& reference;//SHOULD IT BE T& AS reference or T*&? }; Basically what I'm asking is if I have my variable of type T** in iterator class is it right assumption that value type for this iterator will be T* and so on as I described in comments in code, right next to relevant lines. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • In a binary search Tree

    - by user1044800
    In a binary search tree that takes a simple object.....when creating the getter and setter methods for the left, right, and parent. do I a do a null pointer? as in this=this or do I create the object in each method? Code bellow... This is my code: public void setParent(Person parent) { parent = new Person( parent.getName(), parent.getWeight()); //or is the parent supposed to be a null pointer ???? This is the code it came from: public void setParent(Node parent) { this.parent = parent; } Their code takes a node from the node class...my set parent is taking a person object from my person class.....

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >