Search Results

Search found 15438 results on 618 pages for 'static allocation'.

Page 59/618 | < Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >

  • Out-of-memory algorithms for addressing large arrays

    - by reve_etrange
    I am trying to deal with a very large dataset. I have k = ~4200 matrices (varying sizes) which must be compared combinatorially, skipping non-unique and self comparisons. Each of k(k-1)/2 comparisons produces a matrix, which must be indexed against its parents (i.e. can find out where it came from). The convenient way to do this is to (triangularly) fill a k-by-k cell array with the result of each comparison. These are ~100 X ~100 matrices, on average. Using single precision floats, it works out to 400 GB overall. I need to 1) generate the cell array or pieces of it without trying to place the whole thing in memory and 2) access its elements (and their elements) in like fashion. My attempts have been inefficient due to reliance on MATLAB's eval() as well as save and clear occurring in loops. for i=1:k [~,m] = size(data{i}); cur_var = ['H' int2str(i)]; %# if i == 1; save('FileName'); end; %# If using a single MAT file and need to create it. eval([cur_var ' = cell(1,k-i);']); for j=i+1:k [~,n] = size(data{j}); eval([cur_var '{i,j} = zeros(m,n,''single'');']); eval([cur_var '{i,j} = compare(data{i},data{j});']); end save(cur_var,cur_var); %# Add '-append' when using a single MAT file. clear(cur_var); end The other thing I have done is to perform the split when mod((i+j-1)/2,max(factor(k(k-1)/2))) == 0. This divides the result into the largest number of same-size pieces, which seems logical. The indexing is a little more complicated, but not too bad because a linear index could be used. Does anyone know/see a better way?

    Read the article

  • EXC_BAD_ACCESS when simply casting a pointer in Obj-C

    - by AlexChilcott
    Hi all, Frequent visitor but first post here on StackOverflow, I'm hoping that you guys might be able to help me out with this. I'm fairly new to Obj-C and XCode, and I'm faced with this really... weird... problem. Googling hasn't turned up anything whatsoever. Basically, I get an EXC_BAD_ACCESS signal on a line that doesn't do any dereferencing or anything like that that I can see. Wondering if you guys have any idea where to look for this. I've found a work around, but no idea why this works... The line the broken version barfs out on is the line: LevelEntity *le = entity; where I get my bad access signal. Here goes: THIS VERSION WORKS NSArray *contacts = [self.body getContacts]; for (PhysicsContact *contact in contacts) { PhysicsBody *otherBody; if (contact.bodyA == self.body) { otherBody = contact.bodyB; } if (contact.bodyB == self.body) { otherBody = contact.bodyA; } id entity = [otherBody userData]; if (entity != nil) { LevelEntity *le = entity; CGPoint point = [contact contactPointOnBody:otherBody]; } } THIS VERSION DOESNT WORK NSArray *contacts = [self.body getContacts]; for (NSUInteger i = 0; i < [contacts count]; i++) { PhysicsContact *contact = [contacts objectAtIndex:i]; PhysicsBody *otherBody; if (contact.bodyA == self.body) { otherBody = contact.bodyB; } if (contact.bodyB == self.body) { otherBody = contact.bodyA; } id entity = [otherBody userData]; if (entity != nil) { LevelEntity *le = entity; CGPoint point = [contact contactPointOnBody:otherBody]; } } Here, the only difference between the two examples is the way I enumerate through my array. In the first version (which works) I use for (... in ...), where as in the second I use for (...; ...; ...). As far as I can see, these should be the same. This is seriously weirding me out. Anyone have any similar experience or idea whats going on here? Would be really great :) Cheers, Alex

    Read the article

  • How much memory is reserved when i declare a string?

    - by Bhagya
    What exactly happens, in terms of memory, when i declare something like: char arr[4]; How many bytes are reserved for arr? How is null string accommodated when I 'strcpy' a string of length 4 in arr? I was writing a socket program, and when I tried to suffix NULL at arr[4] (i.e. the 5th memory location), I ended up replacing the values of some other variables of the program (overflow) and got into a big time mess. Any descriptions of how compilers (gcc is what I used) manage memory?

    Read the article

  • Need to allocate memory before a Delphi string copy?

    - by Duncan
    Do I need to allocate memory when performing a Delphi string copy? I've a function which posts a Windows message to another form in my application. It looks something like this: // Note: PThreadMessage = ^TThreadMessage; TThreadMessage = String; function PostMyMessage( aStr : string ); var gMsgPtr : PThreadMessage; gStrLen : Integer; begin New(gMsgPtr); gStrLen := StrLen(PWideChar(aMsg)); gMsgPtr^ := Copy(aMsg, 0, gStrLen); PostMessage(ParentHandle, WM_LOGFILE, aLevel, Integer(gMsgPtr)); // Prevent Delphi from freeing this memory before consumed. LParam(gMsgPtr) := 0; end;

    Read the article

  • Looking at the C++ new[] cookie. How portable is this code?

    - by carleeto
    I came up with this as a quick solution to a debugging problem - I have the pointer variable and its type, I know it points to an array of objects allocated on the heap, but I don't know how many. So I wrote this function to look at the cookie that stores the number of bytes when memory is allocated on the heap. template< typename T > int num_allocated_items( T *p ) { return *((int*)p-4)/sizeof(T); } //test #include <iostream> int main( int argc, char *argv[] ) { using std::cout; using std::endl; typedef long double testtype; testtype *p = new testtype[ 45 ]; //prints 45 std::cout<<"num allocated = "<<num_allocated_items<testtype>(p)<<std::endl; delete[] p; return 0; } I'd like to know just how portable this code is.

    Read the article

  • Constructors for C++ objects

    - by sasquatch
    I have class Person as following : class Person { char* name; int age; }; Now I need to add two contructors. One taking no arguments, that inserts field values to dynamically allocated resources. Second taking (char*, int) arguments initialized by initialization list. Last part is to define a destructor showing information about destroying objects and deallocating dynamically allocated resources. How to perform this task ? That's what I already have : class Person { char* name; int age; public: Person(){ this->name = new *char; this->age = new int; } Person(char* c, int i){ } };

    Read the article

  • Controling CRT memory initialization

    - by Ofek Shilon
    Occasionally you meet bugs that are reproducible only in release builds and/or only on some machines. A common (but by no means only) reason is uninitialized variables, that are subject to random behaviour. E.g, an uninitialized BOOL can be TRUE most of the time, on most machines, but randomly be initialized as FALSE. What I wish I would have is a systematic way of flushing out such bugs by modifying the behaviour of the CRT memory initialization. I'm well aware of the MS debug CRT magic numbers - at the very least I'd like to have a trigger to turn 0xCDCDCDCD (the pattern that initializes freshly allocated memory) to zeros. I suspect one would be able to easily smoke out nasty initialization pests this way, even in debug builds. Am I missing an available CRT hook (API, registry key, whatever) that enables this? Anyone has other ideas to get there?

    Read the article

  • Initialization of array on heap

    - by Radek Šimko
    How do i manually initiate values in array on heap? If the array is local variable (in stack), it can be done very elegant and easy way, like this: int myArray[3] = {1,2,3}; Unfortunately, following code int * myArray = new int[3]; myArray = {1,2,3}; outputs an error by compiling error: expected primary-expression before ‘{’ token error: expected `;' before ‘{’ token Do i have to use cycle, or not-so-much-elegant way like this? myArray[0] = 1; myArray[1] = 2; myArray[2] = 3;

    Read the article

  • Threading heap and stack

    - by DJ
    How memory is allocated in case of spawning a new thread, i.e how memory heap, memory stack, and threads are related? I know this is fundamental (.net framework concept) but somehow I am not much aware of this concept.

    Read the article

  • Force an object to be allocated on the heap

    - by Warren Seine
    A C++ class I'm writing uses shared_from_this() to return a valid boost::shared_ptr<>. Besides, I don't want to manage memory for this kind of object. At the moment, I'm not restricting the way the user allocates the object, which causes an error if shared_from_this() is called on a stack-allocated object. I'd like to force the object to be allocated with new and managed by a smart pointer, no matter how the user declares it. I thought it could be done through a proxy or an overloaded new operator, but I can't find a proper way of doing that. Is there a common design pattern for such usage? If it's not possible, how can I test it at compile time?

    Read the article

  • how to allocate memory for struct itself, and its members

    - by Jack
    I have this struct: struct foo { char *a; char *b; char *c; char *d; }; it's possible allocate space for struct itself and its members instead of e.g, struct foo f; f.a = malloc(); f.b = malloc(); f.c = malloc(); f.d = malloc(); strcpy(f.a, "a"); strcpy(f.b, "b"); //.. something like this(of couse that it doesn't works): struct foo f = malloc(sizeof(struct f)); strpcy(f.a, "a"); //etc

    Read the article

  • Do classes which have a vector has a member have memory issues

    - by user263766
    I am just starting out C++, so sorry if this is a dumb question. I have a class Braid whose members are vectors. I have not written an assignment operator. When I do a lot of assignments to an object of the type Braid, I run into memory issues :- 0 0xb7daff89 in _int_malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6 #1 0xb7db2583 in malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6 #2 0xb7f8ac59 in operator new(unsigned int) () from /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 #3 0x0804d05e in __gnu_cxx::new_allocator<int>::allocate (this=0xbf800204, __n=1) at /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../include/c++/4.4.3/ext/new_allocator.h:89 #4 0x0804cb0e in std::_Vector_base<int, std::allocator<int> >::_M_allocate (this=0xbf800204, __n=1) at /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../include/c++/4.4.3/bits/stl_vector.h:140 #5 0x0804c086 in _Vector_base (this=0xbf800204, __n=1, __a=...) at /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../include/c++/4.4.3/bits/stl_vector.h:113 #6 0x0804b4b7 in vector (this=0xbf800204, __x=...) at /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.4.3/../../../../include/c++/4.4.3/bits/stl_vector.h:242 #7 0x0804b234 in Braid (this=0xbf800204) at braid.h:13 #8 0x080495ed in Braid::cycleBraid (this=0xbf8001b4) at braid.cpp:191 #9 0x080497c6 in Braid::score (this=0xbf800298, b=...) at braid.cpp:251 #10 0x08049c46 in Braid::evaluateMove (this=0xbf800468, move=1, pos=0, depth=2, b=...) I suspect that these memory issues are because the vectors are getting resized. What I want to know is whether objects of type Braid automatically expand when its members expand? he code I am writing is really long so I will post the section which is causing the problems. Here is the relevant section of the code :- class Braid { private : vector<int> braid; //Stores the braid. int strands; vector < vector<bool> > history; vector < vector<bool> > CM; public : Braid () : strands(0) {} Braid operator * (Braid); Braid* inputBraid(int,vector<int>); int printBraid(); int printBraid(vector<vector<int>::iterator>); vector<int>::size_type size() const; ..... ..... } Here is the function which causes the issue :- int Braid::evaluateMove(int move,int pos,int depth,Braid b) { int netscore = 0; Braid curr(*this); curr = curr.move(move,pos); netscore += curr.score(b); while(depth > 1) { netscore += curr.evaluateMove(1,0,depth,b); netscore += curr.evaluateMove(2,0,depth,b); for(int i = 0; i < braid.size();++i) { netscore += curr.evaluateMove(3,i,depth,b); netscore += curr.evaluateMove(4,i,depth,b); netscore += curr.evaluateMove(5,i,depth,b); curr = curr.cycleBraid(); netscore += curr.evaluateMove(6,0,depth,b); } --depth; } return netscore; }

    Read the article

  • allocator with no template

    - by Merni
    Every stl container take an allocator as a second object, template < class T, class Allocator = allocator<T> > class vector; If you write your own class It is possible to use your own allocator. But is it possible to write your own allocator without using templates? For example, writing this function is not easy if you are not allowed to use templates pointer allocate(size_type n, const_pointer = 0) { void* p = std::malloc(n * sizeof(T)); if (!p) throw std::bad_alloc(); return static_cast<pointer>(p); } Because how could you know the size of T?

    Read the article

  • Allocating memory for a array to char pointer

    - by nunos
    The following piece of code gives a segmentation fault when allocating memory for the last arg. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. int n_args = 0, i = 0; while (line[i] != '\0') { if (isspace(line[i++])) n_args++; } for (i = 0; i < n_args; i++) command = malloc (n_args * sizeof(char*)); char* arg = NULL; arg = strtok(line, " \n"); while (arg != NULL) { arg = strtok(NULL, " \n"); command[i] = malloc ( (strlen(arg)+1) * sizeof(char) ); strcpy(command[i], arg); i++; } Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is the best solution to replace a new memory allocator in an existing code?

    - by O. Askari
    During the last few days I've gained some information about memory allocators other than the standard malloc(). There are some implementations that seem to be much better than malloc() for applications with many threads. For example it seems that tcmalloc and ptmalloc have better performance. I have a C++ application that uses both malloc and new operators in many places. I thought replacing them with something like ptmalloc may improve its performance. But I wonder how does the new operator act when used in C++ application that runs on Linux? Does it use the standard behavior of malloc or something else? What is the best way to replace the new memory allocator with the old one in the code? Is there any way to override the behavior or new and malloc or do I need to replace all the calls to them one by one?

    Read the article

  • Why do they initialize pointers this way?

    - by Rob
    In almost all of the books I read and examples I go through I see pointers initialized this way. Say that I have a class variable NSString *myString that I want to initialize. I will almost always see that done this way: -(id)init { if (self = [super init]) { NSString *tempString = [[NSString alloc] init]; myString = tempString; [tempString release]; } return self; } Why can't I just do the following? -(id)init { if (self = [super init]) { myString = [[NSString alloc] init]; } return self; } I don't see why the extra tempString is ever needed in the first place, but I could be missing something here with memory management. Is the way I want to do things acceptable or will it cause some kind of leak? I have read the Memory Management Guide on developer.apple.com and unless I am just missing something, I don't see the difference.

    Read the article

  • C#. Struct design. Why 16 byte is recommended size?

    - by maxima120
    I read Cwalina book (recommendations on development and design of .NET apps). He says that good designed struct has to be less than 16 bytes in size (for performance purpose). My questions is - why exactly is this? And (more important) can I have larger struct with same efficiency if I run my .NET 3.5 (soon to be .NET 4.0) 64-bit application on i7 under Win7 x64 (is this limitation CPU / OS based)? Just to stress again - I need as efficient struct as it is possible. I try to keep it in stack all the time, the application is heavily multi-threaded and runs on sub-millisecond intervals, the current size of the struct is 64 byte.

    Read the article

  • How does C free() work?

    - by slee
    #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int * alloc() { int *p = (int *)calloc(5,4); printf("%d\n",p); return p; } int main() { int *p = alloc(); free(p); printf("%d\n",p); p[0] = 1; p[1] = 2; printf("%d %d\n",p[0],p[1]); } As to the code segment, I allocate 5 ints,first. And then I free the memory. When I printf p, why does p sill have a value same to the memory address allocated first? And I also can assign value to p[0] and p[1]. Does this mean free() do nothing? Once I allocate memory, I can use later though I have freed it.

    Read the article

  • Reserved Memory Addresses?

    - by Nate
    Is there a list of reserved memory addresses out there - a list of addresses that the memory of a user-space program could never be allocated to? I realize this is most likely per-OS or per-architecture, but I was hoping someone might know some of the more common OSes and Arches. I could only dig one up for a few versions of windows: for windows NT,2k and XP that would be: 0x00000000 - 0x0000ffff - lowest page is protected to simplify debugging 0x00001000 - 0x7ffeffff - memory area for your application 0x7fff0000 - 0x7fffffff - protected area to keep memory-functions from damaging the following part 0x80000000 - 0xffffffff - memory where the system including drivers and so on is located Anyone know about for Linux, or BSD (or anything else, for that matter)?

    Read the article

  • Can I switch the Visual C++ runtime to another heap?

    - by sharptooth
    My program uses a third party dynamic link library that has huge memory leaks inside. Both my program and the library are Visual C++ native code. Both link to the Visual C++ runtime dynamically. I'd like to force the library into another heap so that all allocations that are done through the Visual C++ runtime while the library code is running are done on that heap. I can call HeapCreate() and later HeapDestroy(). If I somehow ensure that all allocations are done in the new heap I don't care of the leaks anymore - they all go when I destroy the second heap. Is it possible to force the Visual C++ runtime to make all allocations on a specified heap?

    Read the article

  • Which to use - "operator new" or "operator new[]" - to allocate a block of raw memory in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    My C++ program needs a block of uninitialized memory. In C I would use malloc() and later free(). In C++ I can either call ::operator new or ::operator new[] and ::operator delete or operator delete[] respectively later. Looks like both ::operator new and ::operator new[] have exactly the same signature and exactly the same behavior. The same for ::operator delete and ::operator delete[]. The only thing I shouldn't do is pairing operator new with operator delete[] and vice versa - undefined behavior. Other than that which pair do I choose and why?

    Read the article

  • allocating extra memory for a container class.

    - by sil3nt
    Hey there, I'm writing a template container class and for the past few hours have been trying to allocate new memory for extra data that comes into the container (...hit a brick wall..:| ) template <typename T> void Container<T>::insert(T item, int index){ if ( index < 0){ cout<<"Invalid location to insert " << index << endl; return; } if (index < sizeC){ //copying original array so that when an item is //placed in the middleeverything else is shifted forward T *arryCpy = 0; int tmpSize = 0; tmpSize = size(); arryCpy = new T[tmpSize]; int i = 0, j = 0; for ( i = 0; i < tmpSize; i++){ for ( j = index; j < tmpSize; j++){ arryCpy[i] = elements[j]; } } //overwriting and placing item and location index elements[index] = item; //copying back everything else after the location at index int k = 0, l = 0; for ( k =(index+1), l=0; k < sizeC || l < (sizeC-index); k++,l++){ elements[k] = arryCpy[l]; } delete[] arryCpy; arryCpy = 0; } //seeing if the location is more than the current capacity //and hence allocating more memory if (index+1 > capacityC){ int new_capacity = 0; int current_size = size(); new_capacity = ((index+1)-capacityC)+capacityC; //variable for new capacity T *tmparry2 = 0; tmparry2 = new T[new_capacity]; int n = 0; for (n = 0; n < current_size;n++){ tmparry2[n] = elements[n]; } delete[] elements; elements = 0; //copying back what we had before elements = new T[new_capacity]; int m = 0; for (m = 0; m < current_size; m++){ elements[m] = tmparry2[m]; } //placing item elements[index] = item; } else{ elements[index] = item; } //increasing the current count sizeC++; my testing condition is Container cnt4(3); and as soon as i hit the fourth element (when I use for egsomething.insert("random",3);) it crashes and the above doesnt work. where have I gone wrong?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >