Search Results

Search found 981 results on 40 pages for 'weak ptr'.

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 6/40 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Solved: Chrome v18, self signed certs and &ldquo;signed using a weak signature algorithm&rdquo;

    - by David Christiansen
    So chrome has just updated itself automatically and you are now running v18 – great. Or is it… If like me, you are someone that are running sites using a self-signed SSL Certificate (i.e. when running a site on a developer machine) you may come across the following lovely message; Fear not, this is likely as a result of you following instructions you found on the apache openssl site which results in a self signed cert using the MD5 signature hashing algorithm. Using OpenSSL The simple fix is to generate a new certificate specifying to use the SHA512 signature hashing algorithm, like so; openssl req -new -x509 -sha512 -nodes -out server.crt -keyout server.key Simples! Now, you should be able to confirm the signature algorithm used is sha512 by looking at the details tab of certificate Notes If you change your certificate, be sure to reapply any private key permissions you require – such as allowing access to the application pool user.

    Read the article

  • Solved: Chrome v18, self signed certs and &ldquo;signed using a weak signature algorithm&rdquo;

    - by David Christiansen
    So chrome has just updated itself automatically and you are now running v18 – great. Or is it… If like me, you are someone that are running sites using a self-signed SSL Certificate (i.e. when running a site on a developer machine) you may come across the following lovely message; Fear not, this is likely as a result of you following instructions you found on the apache openssl site which results in a self signed cert using the MD5 signature hashing algorithm. The simple fix is to generate a new certificate specifying to use the SHA1 signature hashing algorithm, like so; openssl req -new -x509 -sha1 -nodes -out server.crt -keyout server.key Simples!

    Read the article

  • C Programming: malloc() for a 2D array (using pointer-to-pointer)

    - by vikramtheone
    Hi Guys, yesterday I had posted a question: How should I pass a pointer to a function and allocate memory for the passed pointer from inside the called function? From the answers I got, I was able to understand what mistake I was doing. I'm facing a new problem now, can anyone help out with this? I want to dynamically allocate a 2D array, so I'm passing a Pointer-to-Pointer from my main() to another function called alloc_2D_pixels(...), where I use malloc(...) and for(...) loop to allocate memory for the 2D array. Well, after returning from the alloc_2D_pixels(...) function, the pointer-to-pointer still remains NULL, so naturally, when I try accessing or try to free(...) the Pointer-to-Pointer, the program hangs. Can anyone suggest me what mistakes I'm doing here? Help!!! Vikram SOURCE: main() { unsigned char **ptr; unsigned int rows, cols; if(alloc_2D_pixels(&ptr, rows, cols)==ERROR) // Satisfies this condition printf("Memory for the 2D array not allocated"); // NO ERROR is returned if(ptr == NULL) // ptr is NULL so no memory was allocated printf("Yes its NULL!"); // Because ptr is NULL, with any of these 3 statements below the program HANGS ptr[0][0] = 10; printf("Element: %d",ptr[0][0]); free_2D_alloc(&ptr); } signed char alloc_2D_pixels(unsigned char ***memory, unsigned int rows, unsigned int cols) { signed char status = NO_ERROR; memory = malloc(rows * sizeof(unsigned char** )); if(memory == NULL) { status = ERROR; printf("ERROR: Memory allocation failed!"); } else { int i; for(i = 0; i< cols; i++) { memory[i] = malloc(cols * sizeof(unsigned char)); if(memory[i]==NULL) { status = ERROR; printf("ERROR: Memory allocation failed!"); } } } // Inserted the statements below for debug purpose only memory[0][0] = (unsigned char)10; // I'm able to access the array from printf("\nElement %d",memory[0][0]); // here with no problems return status; } void free_2D_pixels(unsigned char ***ptr, unsigned int rows) { int i; for(i = 0; i < rows; i++) { free(ptr[i]); } free(ptr); }

    Read the article

  • C++ vector of strings, pointers to functions, and the resulting frustration.

    - by Kyle
    So I am a first year computer science student, for on of my final projects, I need to write a program that takes a vector of strings, and applies various functions to these. Unfortunately, I am really confused on how to use pointer to pass the vector from function to function. Below is some sample code to give an idea of what I am talking about. I also get an error message when I try to deference any pointer. thanks. #include <iostream> #include <cstdlib> #include <vector> #include <string> using namespace std; vector<string>::pointer function_1(vector<string>::pointer ptr); void function_2(vector<string>::pointer ptr); int main() { vector<string>::pointer ptr; vector<string> svector; ptr = &svector[0]; function_1(ptr); function_2(ptr); } vector<string>::pointer function_1(vector<string>::pointer ptr) { string line; for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { cout << "enter some input ! \n"; // i need to be able to pass a reference of the vector getline(cin, line); // through various functions, and have the results *ptr.pushback(line); // reflectedin main(). But I cannot use member functions } // of vector with a deferenced pointer. return(ptr); } void function_2(vector<string>::pointer ptr) { for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { cout << *ptr[i] << endl; } }

    Read the article

  • safe dereferencing and deletion

    - by serejko
    Hi, I'm relatively new to C++ and OOP in general and currently trying to make such a class that allows to dereference and delete a dead or invalid pointer without any care of having undefined behavior or program fault in result, and I want to ask you is it a good idea and is there something similar which is already implemented by someone else? or maybe I'm doing something completely wrong? I've just started making it and here is the code I currently have: template<class T> class SafeDeref { public: T& operator *() { hash_set<T*>::iterator it = theStore.find(reinterpret_cast<T*>(ptr)); if (it != theStore.end()) return *this; return theDefaultObject; } T* operator ->() { hash_set<T*>::iterator it = theStore.find(reinterpret_cast<T*>(ptr)); if (it != theStore.end()) return this; return &theDefaultObject; } void* operator new(size_t size) { void* ptr = malloc(size * sizeof(T)); if (ptr != 0) theStore.insert(reinterpret_cast<T*>(ptr)); return ptr; } void operator delete(void* ptr) { hash_set<T*>::iterator it = theStore.find(reinterpret_cast<T*>(ptr)); if (it != theStore.end()) { theStore.erase(it); free(ptr); } } protected: static bool isInStore(T* ptr) { return theStore.find(ptr) != theStore.end(); } private: static T theDefaultObject; static hash_set<T*> theStore; }; The idea is that each class with the safe dereference should be inherited from it like this: class Foo : public SafeDeref<Foo> { void doSomething(); }; So... Any advices? Thanks in advance. P.S. If you're wondering why I need this... well, I'm creating a set of native functions for some scripting environment, and all of them use pointers to internally allocated objects as handles to them and they're able to delete them as well (input data can be wrong), so this is kinda protection from damaging host application's memory And I really sorry for my bad English

    Read the article

  • What are the right reverse PTR, domain keys, and SPF settings for two domains running the same appli

    - by James A. Rosen
    I just read Jeff Atwood's recent post on DNS configuration for email and decided to give it a go on my application. I have a web-app that runs on one server under two different IPs and domain names, on both HTTP and HTTPS for each: <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName foo.org ServerAlias www.foo.org ... </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost 1.2.3.4:443> ServerName foo.org ServerAlias www.foo.org </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName bar.org ServerAlias www.bar.org ... </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost 2.3.4.5:443> ServerName bar.org ServerAlias www.bar.org </VirtualHost> I'm using GMail as my SMTP server. Do I need the reverse PTR and SenderID records? If so, do I put the same ones on all of my records (foo.org, www.foo.org, bar.org, www.bar.org, ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM, ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM, ..)? I'm pretty sure I want the domain-keys records, but I'm not sure which domains to attach them to. The Google mail servers? foo.org and bar.org? Everything?

    Read the article

  • §non_lazy_ptr iphone sdk 3.0

    - by Hans Espen
    After I built my iphone 2.2.1 application in sdk 3.0, I get a lot of errors of type §non_lazy_ptr. I am getting it on the CFFTPStream constants, like kCFStreamPropertyFTPPassword and kCFStreamPropertyUserName. Anyone know what causes this?

    Read the article

  • Using mem_fun_ref with boost::shared_ptr

    - by BlueRaja
    Following the advice of this page, I'm trying to get shared_ptr to call IUnknown::Release() instead of delete: IDirectDrawSurface* dds; ... //Allocate dds return shared_ptr<IDirectDrawSurface>(dds, mem_fun_ref(&IUnknown::Release)); error C2784: 'std::const_mem_fun1_ref_t<_Result,_Ty,_Arg std::mem_fun_ref(Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(_Arg) const)' : could not deduce template argument for 'Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(Arg) const' from 'ULONG (_cdecl IUnknown::* )(void)' error C2784: 'std::const_mem_fun_ref_t<_Result,_Ty std::mem_fun_ref(Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(void) const)' : could not deduce template argument for 'Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(void) const' from 'ULONG (__cdecl IUnknown::* )(void)' error C2784: 'std::mem_fun1_ref_t<_Result,_Ty,_Arg std::mem_fun_ref(Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(_Arg))' : could not deduce template argument for 'Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(Arg)' from 'ULONG (_cdecl IUnknown::* )(void)' error C2784: 'std::mem_fun_ref_t<_Result,_Ty std::mem_fun_ref(Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(void))' : could not deduce template argument for 'Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(void)' from 'ULONG (__cdecl IUnknown::* )(void)' error C2661: 'boost::shared_ptr::shared_ptr' : no overloaded function takes 2 arguments I have no idea what to make of this. My limited template/functor knowledge led me to try typedef ULONG (IUnknown::*releaseSignature)(void); shared_ptr<IDirectDrawSurface>(dds, mem_fun_ref(static_cast<releaseSignature>(&IUnknown::Release))); But to no avail. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Intellisense fails for boost::shared_ptr with Boost 1.40.0 in Visual Studio 2008

    - by Edward Loper
    I'm having trouble getting intellisense to auto-complete shared pointers for boost 1.40.0. (It works fine for Boost 1.33.1.) Here's a simple sample project file where auto-complete does not work: #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> struct foo { bool func() { return true; }; }; void bar() { boost::shared_ptr<foo> pfoo; pfoo.get(); // <-- intellisense does not autocomplete after "pfoo." pfoo->func(); // <-- intellisense does not autocomplete after "pfoo->" } When I right-click on shared_ptr, and do "Go to Definition," it brings be to a forward-declaration of the shared_ptr class in . It does not bring me to the actual definition, which is in However, it compiles fine, and auto-completion works fine for "boost::." Also, auto-completion works fine for boost::scoped_ptr and for boost::shared_array. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Can I use boost::make_shared with a private constructor?

    - by Billy ONeal
    Consider the following: class DirectoryIterator; namespace detail { class FileDataProxy; class DirectoryIteratorImpl { friend class DirectoryIterator; friend class FileDataProxy; WIN32_FIND_DATAW currentData; HANDLE hFind; std::wstring root; DirectoryIteratorImpl(); explicit DirectoryIteratorImpl(const std::wstring& pathSpec); void increment(); public: ~DirectoryIteratorImpl() {}; }; class FileDataProxy //Serves as a proxy to the WIN32_FIND_DATA struture inside the iterator. { friend class DirectoryIterator; boost::shared_ptr<DirectoryIteratorImpl> iteratorSource; FileDataProxy(boost::shared_ptr<DirectoryIteratorImpl> parent) : iteratorSource(parent) {}; public: std::wstring GetFolderPath() const { return iteratorSource->root; } }; } class DirectoryIterator : public boost::iterator_facade<DirectoryIterator, detail::FileDataProxy, std::input_iterator_tag> { friend class boost::iterator_core_access; boost::shared_ptr<detail::DirectoryIteratorImpl> impl; void increment() { impl->increment(); }; detail::FileDataProxy dereference() const { return detail::FileDataProxy(impl); }; public: DirectoryIterator() { impl = boost::make_shared<detail::DirectoryIteratorImpl>(); }; }; It seems like DirectoryIterator should be able to call boost::make_shared<DirectoryIteratorImpl>, because it is a friend of DirectoryIteratorImpl. However, this code fails to compile because the constructor for DirectoryIteratorImpl is private. Since this class is an internal implementation detail that clients of DirectoryIterator should never touch, it would be nice if I could keep the constructor private. Is this my fundamental misunderstanding around make_shared or do I need to mark some sort of boost piece as friend in order for the call to compile?

    Read the article

  • Trouble move-capturing std::unique_ptr in a lambda using std::bind

    - by user2478832
    I'd like to capture a variable of type std::vector<std::unique_ptr<MyClass>> in a lambda expression (in other words, "capture by move"). I found a solution which uses std::bind to capture unique_ptr (http://stackoverflow.com/a/12744730/2478832) and decided to use it as a starting point. However, the most simplified version of the proposed code I could get doesn't compile (lots of template mistakes, it seems to try to call unique_ptr's copy constructor). #include <functional> #include <memory> std::function<void ()> a(std::unique_ptr<int>&& param) { return std::bind( [] (int* p) {}, std::move(param)); } int main() { a(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int())); } Can anybody point out what is wrong with this code? EDIT: tried changing the lambda to take a reference to unique_ptr, it still doesn't compile. #include <functional> #include <memory> std::function<void ()> a(std::unique_ptr<int>&& param) { return std::bind( [] (std::unique_ptr<int>& p) {}, // also as a const reference std::move(param)); } int main() { a(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int())); }

    Read the article

  • The cost of passing by shared_ptr

    - by Artem
    I use std::tr1::shared_ptr extensively throughout my application. This includes passing objects in as function arguments. Consider the following: class Dataset {...} void f( shared_ptr< Dataset const > pds ) {...} void g( shared_ptr< Dataset const > pds ) {...} ... While passing a dataset object around via shared_ptr guarantees its existence inside f and g, the functions may be called millions of times, which causes a lot of shared_ptr objects being created and destroyed. Here's a snippet of the flat gprof profile from a recent run: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name 9.74 295.39 35.12 2451177304 0.00 0.00 std::tr1::__shared_count::__shared_count(std::tr1::__shared_count const&) 8.03 324.34 28.95 2451252116 0.00 0.00 std::tr1::__shared_count::~__shared_count() So, ~17% of the runtime was spent on reference counting with shared_ptr objects. Is this normal? A large portion of my application is single-threaded and I was thinking about re-writing some of the functions as void f( const Dataset& ds ) {...} and replacing the calls shared_ptr< Dataset > pds( new Dataset(...) ); f( pds ); with f( *pds ); in places where I know for sure the object will not get destroyed while the flow of the program is inside f(). But before I run off to change a bunch of function signatures / calls, I wanted to know what the typical performance hit of passing by shared_ptr was. Seems like shared_ptr should not be used for functions that get called very often. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks for reading. -Artem

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the reference counter in boost::shared_ptr volatile?

    - by Johann Gerell
    In the boost::shared_ptr destructor, this is done: if(--*pn == 0) { boost::checked_delete(px); delete pn; } where pn is a pointer to the reference counter, which is typedefed as shared_ptr::count_type -> detail::atomic_count -> long I would have expected the long to be volatile long, given threaded usage and the non-atomic 0-check-and-deletion in the shared_ptr destructor above. Why isn't it volatile?

    Read the article

  • Memory leak using shared_ptr

    - by nabulke
    Both code examples compile and run without problems. Using the second variant results in a memory leak. Any ideas why? Thanks in advance for any help. Variant 1: typedef boost::shared_ptr<ParameterTabelle> SpParameterTabelle; struct ParTabSpalteData { ParTabSpalteData(const SpParameterTabelle& tabelle, const string& id) :Tabelle(tabelle), Id(id) { } const SpParameterTabelle& Tabelle; string Id; }; Variant 2: struct ParTabSpalteData { ParTabSpalteData(const SpParameterTabelle& tabelle, const string& id) :Id(id) { // causes memory leak Tabelle2 = tabelle; } SpParameterTabelle Tabelle2; string Id; };

    Read the article

  • Compilation problems with vector<auto_ptr<> >

    - by petersohn
    Consider the following code: #include <iostream> #include <memory> #include <vector> using namespace std; struct A { int a; A(int a_):a(a_) {} }; int main() { vector<auto_ptr<A> > as; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { auto_ptr<A> a(new A(i)); as.push_back(a); } for (vector<auto_ptr<A> >::iterator it = as.begin(); it != as.end(); ++it) cout << (*it)->a << endl; } When trying to compile it, I get the following obscure compiler error from g++: g++ -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"src/proba.d" -MT"src/proba.d" -o"src/proba.o" "../src/proba.cpp" /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/ext/new_allocator.h: In member function ‘void __gnu_cxx::new_allocator<_Tp>::construct(_Tp*, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:606: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/ext/new_allocator.h:104: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc: In member function ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<typename std::_Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc>::_Tp_alloc_type::pointer, std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc> >, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:610: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc:256: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_construct.h: In function ‘void std::_Construct(_T1*, const _T2&) [with _T1 = std::auto_ptr<A>, _T2 = std::auto_ptr<A>]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:86: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::__uninitialized_copy_aux(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator, __false_type) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:113: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::uninitialized_copy(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:254: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::__uninitialized_copy_a(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator, std::allocator<_Tp>) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc:279: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<typename std::_Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc>::_Tp_alloc_type::pointer, std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc> >, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:610: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_construct.h:81: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers make: *** [src/proba.o] Error 1 It seems to me that there is some kind of problem with consts here. Does this mean that auto_ptr can't be used in vectors?

    Read the article

  • pushing back an boost::ptr_vector<...>::iterator in another boost::ptr_vector?

    - by Ethan Nash
    Hi all, I have the following code (just typed it in here, might have typos or stuff): typedef boost::ptr_vector<SomeClass> tvec; tvec v; // ... fill v ... tvec vsnap; for(tvec::iterator it = v.begin(); it != v.end(); ++it) { if((*v).anyCondition) vsnap.push_back( it ); // (*it) or &(*it) doesn't work } My problem is now that i cant push_back an iterator in any way, I just don't get the pointer out of the iterator. Is there an easy way i didnt see, or are boosts ptr_vector the false choice for this case? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Compilng problems with vector<auto_ptr<> >

    - by petersohn
    Consider the following code: #include <iostream> #include <memory> #include <vector> using namespace std; struct A { int a; A(int a_):a(a_) {} }; int main() { vector<auto_ptr<A> > as; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { auto_ptr<A> a(new A(i)); as.push_back(a); } for (vector<auto_ptr<A> >::iterator it = as.begin(); it != as.end(); ++it) cout << (*it)->a << endl; } When trying to compile it, I get the following obscure compiler error from g++: g++ -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"src/proba.d" -MT"src/proba.d" -o"src/proba.o" "../src/proba.cpp" /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/ext/new_allocator.h: In member function ‘void __gnu_cxx::new_allocator<_Tp>::construct(_Tp*, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:606: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/ext/new_allocator.h:104: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc: In member function ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<typename std::_Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc>::_Tp_alloc_type::pointer, std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc> >, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:610: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc:256: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_construct.h: In function ‘void std::_Construct(_T1*, const _T2&) [with _T1 = std::auto_ptr<A>, _T2 = std::auto_ptr<A>]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:86: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::__uninitialized_copy_aux(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator, __false_type) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:113: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::uninitialized_copy(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:254: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::__uninitialized_copy_a(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator, std::allocator<_Tp>) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc:279: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<typename std::_Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc>::_Tp_alloc_type::pointer, std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc> >, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:610: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_construct.h:81: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers make: *** [src/proba.o] Error 1 It seems to me that there is some kind of problem with consts here. Does this mean that auto_ptr can't be used in vectors?

    Read the article

  • How can I get this code involving unique_ptr to compile?!

    - by Neil G
    #include <vector> #include <memory> using namespace std; class A { public: A(): i(new int) {} A(A const& a) = delete; A(A &&a): i(move(a.i)) {} unique_ptr<int> i; }; class AGroup { public: void AddA(A &&a) { a_.emplace_back(move(a)); } vector<A> a_; }; int main() { AGroup ag; ag.AddA(A()); return 0; } does not compile... (says that unique_ptr's copy constructor is deleted) I tried replacing move with forward. Not sure if I did it right, but it didn't work for me.

    Read the article

  • should std::auto_ptr<>::operator = reset / deallocate its existing pointee ?

    - by afriza
    I read here about std::auto_ptr<::operator= Notice however that the left-hand side object is not automatically deallocated when it already points to some object. You can explicitly do this by calling member function reset before assigning it a new value. However, when I read the source code for header file C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\ce\include\memory template<class _Other> auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr<_Other>& _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right (assume pointer) reset(_Right.release()); return (*this); } auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr<_Ty>& _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right (assume pointer) reset(_Right.release()); return (*this); } auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr_ref<_Ty> _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right._Ref (assume pointer) _Ty **_Pptr = (_Ty **)_Right._Ref; _Ty *_Ptr = *_Pptr; *_Pptr = 0; // release old reset(_Ptr); // set new return (*this); } What is the correct/standard behavior? How do other STL implementations behave?

    Read the article

  • Why an auto_ptr can "seal" a container

    - by icephere
    auto_ptr on wikipedia said that "an auto_ptr containing an STL container may be used to prevent further modification of the container.". It used the following example: auto_ptr<vector<ContainedType> > open_vec(new vector<ContainedType>); open_vec->push_back(5); open_vec->push_back(3); // Transfers control, but now the vector cannot be changed: auto_ptr<const vector<ContainedType> > closed_vec(open_vec); // closed_vec->push_back(8); // Can no longer modify If I uncomment the last line, g++ will report an error as t05.cpp:24: error: passing ‘const std::vector<int, std::allocator<int> >’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = int, _Alloc = std::allocator<int>]’ discards qualifiers I am curious why after transferring the ownership of this vector, it can no longer be modified? Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • C++ -- Is there an implicit cast here from Fred* to auto_ptr<Fred>?

    - by q0987
    Hello all, I saw the following code, #include <new> #include <memory> using namespace std; class Fred; // Forward declaration typedef auto_ptr<Fred> FredPtr; class Fred { public: static FredPtr create(int i) { return new Fred(i); // Is there an implicit casting here? If not, how can we return // a Fred* with return value as FredPtr? } private: Fred(int i=10) : i_(i) { } Fred(const Fred& x) : i_(x.i_) { } int i_; }; Please see the question listed in function create. Thank you // Updated based on comments Yes, the code cannot pass the VC8.0 error C2664: 'std::auto_ptr<_Ty::auto_ptr(std::auto_ptr<_Ty &) throw()' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'Fred *' to 'std::auto_ptr<_Ty &' The code was copied from the C++ FAQ 12.15. However, after making the following changes, replace return new Fred(i); with return auto_ptr<Fred>(new Fred(i)); This code can pass the VC8.0 compiler. But I am not sure whether or not this is a correct fix.

    Read the article

  • Naming a typedef for a boost::shared_ptr<const Foo>

    - by Blair Zajac
    Silly question, but say you have class Foo: class Foo { public: typedef boost::shared_ptr<Foo> RcPtr; void non_const_method() {} void const_method() const {} }; Having a const Foo::RcPtr doesn't prevent non-const methods from being invoked on the class, the following will compile: #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> int main() { const Foo::RcPtr const_foo_ptr(new Foo); const_foo_ptr->non_const_method(); const_foo_ptr->const_method(); return 0; } But naming a typedef ConstRcPtr implies, to me, that the typedef would be typedef const boost::shared_ptr<Foo> ConstRcPtr; which is not what I'm interested in. An odder name, but maybe more accurate, is RcPtrConst: typedef boost::shared_ptr<const Foo> RcPtrConst; However, Googling for RcPtrConst gets zero hits, so people don't use this as a typedef name :) Does anyone have any other suggestions?

    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 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >