Search Results

Search found 40165 results on 1607 pages for 'function pointers'.

Page 65/1607 | < Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >

  • Purpose of dereferencing a pointer as a parameter in C.

    - by Leif Andersen
    I recently came along this line of code: CustomData_em_free_block(&em->vdata, &eve->data); And I thought, isn't: a->b just syntactic sugar for: (*a).b With that in mind, this line could be re-written as: CustomData_em_free_block(&(*em).vdata, &(*eve).data); If that's the case, what is the point of passing in &(*a), as a parameter, and not just a? It seems like the pointer equivalent of -(-a) is being passed in in, is there any logic for this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Is this a memory leak?

    - by Ben
    char *pointer1; char *pointer2; pointer1 = new char[256]; pointer2 = pointer1; delete [] pointer1; In other words, do I have to do delete [] pointer2 as well? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to include only BOOST smart pointer codes into a project?

    - by afriza
    What are best practices to include boost smart pointer library only without adding all boost libraries into the project? I only want boost smart pointer library in my project and I don't want to check in/commit 200 MB source codes (boost 1.42.0) into my project repository just for that. What more, my windows mobile project itself doesn't even reach 10% of that size!

    Read the article

  • Bit shift and pointer oddities in C, looking for explanations

    - by foo
    Hi all, I discovered something odd that I can't explain. If someone here can see what or why this is happening I'd like to know. What I'm doing is taking an unsigned short containing 12 bits aligned high like this: 1111 1111 1111 0000 I then want to shif the bits so that each byte in the short hold 7bits with the MSB as a pad. The result on what's presented above should look like this: 0111 1111 0111 1100 What I have done is this: unsigned short buf = 0xfff; //align high buf <<= 4; buf >>= 1; *((char*)&buf) >>= 1; This gives me something like looks like it's correct but the result of the last shift leaves the bit set like this: 0111 1111 1111 1100 Very odd. If I use an unsigned char as a temporary storage and shift that then it works, like this: unsigned short buf = 0xfff; buf <<= 4; buf >>= 1; tmp = *((char*)&buf); *((char*)&buf) = tmp >> 1; The result of this is: 0111 1111 0111 1100 Any ideas what is going on here?

    Read the article

  • A queue in C using structs and dynamic memory allocation (linked list)

    - by Martin Pugh
    I am tasked with making a queue data structure in C, as a linked list. Our lecturer gave us a large amount of code to implement a stack, but we have to adapt it to create a queue. The code our lecturer gave us ends up not compiling and segfaulting at the exact same point as the code I wrote for the queue. I'm very new to structs, malloc and C in general, so there could be something painfully obvious I've overlooked. Here is the code I am using: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> struct node{ int data; //contains the actual data struct node *prev; //pointer to previous node (Closer to front) struct node *next; //pointer to next node (Closer to back) }; typedef struct node *Nodepointer; struct queue{ Nodepointer front; Nodepointer back; }; typedef struct queue *Queuepointer; main(){ Queuepointer myqueue; //create a queue called myqueue init(myqueue); //initialise the queue Nodepointer new = (Nodepointer)malloc(sizeof(struct node)); myqueue->front = new; } int init(Queuepointer q){ q = (Queuepointer)malloc(sizeof(struct queue)); q->front = NULL; q->back = NULL; } The idea is that the queue struct 'contains' the first and last nodes in a queue, and when a node is created, myqueue is updated. However, I cannot even get to that part (pop and push are written but omitted for brevity). The code is segfaulting at the line myqueue->front = new; with the following gdb output: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x08048401 in main () at queue.c:27 27 myqueue->front = new; Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • casting void* to float* creates only zeros

    - by Paperflyer
    I am reading an audio file using CoreAudio (Extended Audio File Read Services). The audio data gets converted to 4-byte float and handed to me as a void* buffer. It can be played with Audio Queue Services, so its content is correct. Next, I want to draw a waveform and thus need access to the actual samples. So, I cast void* audioData to float*: Float32 *floatData = (Float32 *)audioData; When accessing this data however, I only get 0.0 regardless of the index. Float32 value = floatData[index]; // Is always zero for any index Am I doing something wrong with the cast?

    Read the article

  • Problem with memset after an instance of a user defined class is created and a file is opened

    - by Liberalkid
    I'm having a weird problem with memset, that was something to do with a class I'm creating before it and a file I'm opening in the constructor. The class I'm working with normally reads in an array and transforms it into another array, but that's not important. The class I'm working with is: #include <vector> #include <algorithm> using namespace std; class PreProcess { public: PreProcess(char* fileName,char* outFileName); void SortedOrder(); private: vector< vector<double > > matrix; void SortRow(vector<double> &row); char* newFileName; vector< pair<double,int> > rowSorted; }; The other functions aren't important, because I've stopped calling them and the problem persists. Essentially I've narrowed it down to my constructor: PreProcess::PreProcess(char* fileName,char* outFileName):newFileName(outFileName){ ifstream input(fileName); input.close(); //this statement is inconsequential } I also read in the file in my constructor, but I've found that the problem persists if I don't read in the matrix and just open the file. Essentially I've narrowed it down to if I comment out those two lines the memset works properly, otherwise it doesn't. Now to the context of the problem I'm having with it: I wrote my own simple wrapper class for matrices. It doesn't have much functionality, I just need 2D arrays in the next part of my project and having a class handle everything makes more sense to me. The header file: #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Matrix{ public: Matrix(int r,int c); int &operator()(int i,int j) {//I know I should check my bounds here return matrix[i*columns+j]; } ~Matrix(); const void Display(); private: int *matrix; const int rows; const int columns; }; Driver: #include "Matrix.h" #include <string> using namespace std; Matrix::Matrix(int r,int c):rows(r),columns(c) { matrix=new int[rows*columns]; memset(matrix,0,sizeof(matrix)); } const void Matrix::Display(){ for(int i=0;i<rows;i++){ for(int j=0;j<columns;j++) cout << (*this)(i,j) << " "; cout << endl; } } Matrix::~Matrix() { delete matrix; } My main program runs: PreProcess test1(argv[1],argv[2]); //test1.SortedOrder(); Matrix test(10,10); test.Display(); And when I run this with the input line uncommented I get: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1371727776 32698 -1 0 0 0 0 0 6332656 0 -1 -1 0 0 6332672 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1371732704 32698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I really don't have a clue what's going on in memory to cause this, on a side note if I replace memset with: for(int i=0;i<rows*columns;i++) *(matrix+i) &= 0x0; Then it works perfectly, it also works if I don't open the file. If it helps I'm running GCC 64-bit version 4.2.4 on Ubuntu.I assume there's some functionality of memset that I'm not properly understanding.

    Read the article

  • Getting the start address of the current process's heap?

    - by beta
    Hey, I am exploring the lower level workings of the system, and was wondering how malloc determines the start address of the heap. Is the heap a constant offset or is there a call of some sort to get the start address? Does the stack effect the start address of the heap? Thanks, Braden McDorman

    Read the article

  • Converting a pointer for a base class into an inherited class

    - by Shawn B
    Hey, I'm working on a small roguelike game, and for any object/"thing" that is not a part of the map is based off an XEntity class. There are several classes that depend on it, such as XPlayer, XItem, and XMonster. My problem is, that I want to convert a pointer from XEntity to XItem when I know that an object is in item. The sample code I am using to pick up an item is this, it is when a different entity picks up an item it is standing over. void XEntity::PickupItem() { XEntity *Ent = MapList; // Start of a linked list while(true) { if(Ent == NULL) { break; } if(Ent->Flags & ENT_ITEM) { Ent->RemoveEntity(); // Unlink from the map's linked list XItem *Item = Ent // Problem is here, type-safety // Code to link into inventory is here break; } Ent = Ent->MapList; } } My first thought was to create a method in XEntity that returns itself as an XItem pointer, but it creates circular dependencies that are unresolvable. I'm pretty stumped about this one. Any help is greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What's correct way to remove a boost::shared_ptr from a list?

    - by Catskul
    I have a std::list of boost::shared_ptr<T> and I want to remove an item from it but I only have a pointer of type T* which matches one of the items in the list. However I cant use myList.remove( tPtr ) I'm guessing because shared_ptr does not implement == for its template argument type. My immediate thought was to try myList.remove( shared_ptr<T>(tPtr) ) which is syntactically correct but it will crash from a double delete since the temporary shared_ptr has a separate use_count. std::list< boost::shared_ptr<T> > myList; T* tThisPtr = new T(); // This is wrong; only done for example code. // stand-in for actual code in T using // T's actual "this" pointer from within T { boost::shared_ptr<T> toAdd( tThisPtr ); // typically would be new T() myList.push_back( toAdd ); } { //T has pointer to myList so that upon a certain action, // it will remove itself romt the list //myList.remove( tThisPtr); //doesn't compile myList.remove( boost::shared_ptr<T>(tThisPtr) ); // compiles, but causes // double delete } The only options I see remaining are to use std::find with a custom compare, or to loop through the list brute force and find it myself, but it seems there should be a better way. Am I missing something obvious, or is this just too non-standard a use to be doing a remove the clean/normal way?

    Read the article

  • Pointer initialization doubt

    - by Jestin Joy
    We could initialize a character pointer like this in C. char *c="test"; Where c points to the first character(t). But when I gave code like below. It gives segmentation fault. #include<stdio.h> #include<stdlib.h> main() { int *i=0; printf("%d",*i); } Also when I give #include<stdio.h> #include<stdlib.h> main() { int *i; i=(int *)malloc(2); printf("%d",*i); } It worked(gave output 0). When I gave malloc(0), it worked(gave output 0). Please tell what is happening

    Read the article

  • Deleting a non-owned dynamic array through a pointer

    - by ayanzo
    Hello all, I'm relatively novice when it comes to C++ as I was weened on Java for much of my undergraduate curriculum (tis a shame). Memory management has been a hassle, but I've purchased a number books on ansi C and C++. I've poked around the related questions, but couldn't find one that matched this particular criteria. Maybe it's so obvious nobody mentions it? This question has been bugging me, but I feel as if there's a conceptual point i'm not utilizing. Suppose: char original[56]; cstr[0] = 'a'; cstr[1] = 'b'; cstr[2] = 'c'; cstr[3] = 'd'; cstr[4] = 'e'; cstr[5] = '\0'; char *shaved = shavecstr(cstr); delete[] cstrn; where char* shavecstr(char* cstr) { size_t len = strlen(cstr); char* ncstr = new char[len]; strcpy(ncstr,cstr); return ncstr; } In that the whole point is to have 'original' be a buffer that fills with characters and routinely has its copy shaved and used elsewhere. To prevent leaks, I want to free up the memory held by 'shaved' to be used again after it passes through some arguments. There is probably a good reason for why this is restricted, but there should be some way to free the memory as by this configuration, there is no way to access the original owner (pointer) of the data.

    Read the article

  • C: How come an array's address is equal to its value?

    - by Alexandre
    In the following bit of code, pointer values and pointer addresses differ as expected. But array values and addresses don't! How can this be? Output my_array = 0022FF00 &my_array = 0022FF00 pointer_to_array = 0022FF00 &pointer_to_array = 0022FEFC ... #include <stdio.h> int main() { char my_array[100] = "some cool string"; printf("my_array = %p\n", my_array); printf("&my_array = %p\n", &my_array); char *pointer_to_array = my_array; printf("pointer_to_array = %p\n", pointer_to_array); printf("&pointer_to_array = %p\n", &pointer_to_array); printf("Press ENTER to continue...\n"); getchar(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Operator precedence and struct definition in C

    - by Yktula
    struct struct0 { int a; }; struct struct1 { struct struct0 structure0; int b; } rho; &rho->structure0; /* Reference 1 */ (struct struct0 *)rho; /* Reference 2 */ (struct struct0)rho; /* Reference 3 */ From reference 1, does the compiler take the address of rho, and then access structure0, or vice-versa? What does the line at reference 2 do? Since structure0 is the first member of struct1, would reference 3 be equivalent to reference 1?

    Read the article

  • How to convert struct to char array in C

    - by falcojr
    I'm trying to convert a struct to a char array to send over the network. However, I get some weird output from the char array when I do. #include <stdio.h> struct x { int x; } __attribute__((packed)); int main() { struct x a; a.x=127; char *b = (char *)&a; int i; for (i=0; i<4; i++) printf("%02x ", b[i]); printf("\n"); for (i=0; i<4; i++) printf("%d ", b[i]); printf("\n"); return 0; } Here is the output for various values of a.x (on an X86 using gcc): 127: 7f 00 00 00 127 0 0 0 128: ffffff80 00 00 00 -128 0 0 0 255: ffffffff 00 00 00 -1 0 0 0 256: 00 01 00 00 0 1 0 0 I understand the values for 127 and 256, but why do the numbers change when going to 128? Why wouldn't it just be: 80 00 00 00 128 0 0 0 Am I forgetting to do something in the conversion process or am I forgetting something about integer representation? *Note: This is just a small test program. In a real program I have more in the struct, better variable names, and I convert to little-endian. *Edit: formatting

    Read the article

  • Does C99 guarantee that arrays are contiguous ?

    - by kriss
    Following an hot comment thread in another question, I came to debate of what is and what is not defined in C99 standard about C arrays. Basically when I define a 2D array like int a[5][5], does the standard C99 garantee or not that it will be a contiguous block of ints, can I cast it to (int *)a and be sure I will have a valid 1D array of 25 ints. As I understand the standard the above property is implicit in the sizeof definition and in pointer arithmetic, but others seems to disagree and says casting to (int*) the above structure give an undefined behavior (even if they agree that all existing implementations actually allocate contiguous values). More specifically, if we think an implementation that would instrument arrays to check array boundaries for all dimensions and return some kind of error when accessing 1D array, or does not give correct access to elements above 1st row. Could such implementation be standard compilant ? And in this case what parts of the C99 standard are relevant.

    Read the article

  • How to gain Access to member variables of a class using void pointer but Not Object

    - by mahesh
    Hi, I am trying to access member variables of a class without using object. please let me know how to go about. class TestMem { int a; int b; public: TestMem(){} void TestMem1() { a = 10; b = 20; } }; void (TestMem::*pMem)(); int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { TestMem o1; pMem = &(TestMem::TestMem1); void *p = (void*)&pMem; // How to access a & b member variables using variable p getch(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Whats the problem with int *p; *p=23;

    - by piemesons
    Yesterday in my interview I was asked this question. (At that time I was highly pressurized by so many abrupt questions). int *p; *p=23; printf('%d',*p); Is there any problem with this code? I explained him that you are trying to assign value to a pointer to whom memory is not allocated. But the way he reacted, it was like I am wrong. Although I got the job but after that he said Mohit think about this question again. I don't know what he was trying to say. Please let me know is there any problem in my answer?

    Read the article

  • Scanf fails with bus error

    - by Mikulas Dite
    I'm playing with C and I've run into this error: #include <stdio.h> int main () { char* foo; scanf("%s", foo); printf("entered %s", foo); return 0; } scanf takes pointer, foo is pointer, yet I get bus error. How can I make it work?

    Read the article

  • C++ std::vector problems

    - by Faur Ioan-Aurel
    For 2 days i tried to explain myself some of the things that are happening in my c++ code,and i can't get a good explanation.I must say that i'm more a java programmer.Long time i used quite a bit the C language but i guess Java erased those skills and now i'm hitting a wall trying to port a few classes from java to c++. So let's say that we have this 2 classes: class ForwardNetwork { protected: ForwardLayer* inputLayer; ForwardLayer* outputLayer; vector<ForwardLayer* > layers; public: void ForwardNetwork::getLayers(std::vector< ForwardLayer* >& result ) { for(int i= 0 ;i< layers.size(); i++){ ForwardLayer* lay = dynamic_cast<ForwardLayer*>(this->layers.at(i)); if(lay != NULL) result.push_back(lay); else cout << "Layer at#" << i << " is null" << endl; } } void ForwardNetwork::addLayer ( ForwardLayer* layer ) { if(layer != NULL) cout << "Before push layer is not null" << endl; //setup the forward and back pointer if ( this->outputLayer != NULL ) { layer->setPrevious ( this->outputLayer ); this->outputLayer->setNext ( layer ); } //update the input layer and outputLayer variables if ( this->layers.size() == 0 ) this->inputLayer = this->outputLayer = layer; else this->outputLayer = layer; //push layer in vector this->layers.push_back ( layer ); for(int i = 0; i< layers.size();i++) if(layers[i] != NULL) cout << "Check::Layer[" << i << "] is not null!" << endl; } }; Second class: class Backpropagation : public Train { public: Backpropagation::Backpropagation ( FeedForwardNetwork* network ){ this->network = network; vector<FeedforwardLayer*> vec; network->getLayers(vec); } }; Now if i add from main() some layers into network via addLayer(..) method it's all good.My vector is just as it should.But after i call Backpropagation() constructor with a network object ,when i enter getLayers(), some of my objects from vector have their address set to NULL(they are randomly chosen:for example if i run my app once with 3 layer's into vector ,the first object from vector is null.If i run it second time first 2 objects are null,third time just first object null and so on). Now i can't explain why this is happening.I must say that all the objects that should be in vector they also live inside the network and they are not NULL; This happens everywhere after i done with addLayer() so not just in the getLayers(). I cant get a good grasp to this problem.I thought first that i might modify my vector.But i can't find such thing. Also why if the reference from vector is NULL ,the reference that lives inside ForwardNetwork as a linked list (inputLayer and outputLayer) is not NULL? I must ask for your help.Please ,if you have some advices don't hesitate! PS: as compiler i use g++ part of gcc 4.6.1 under ubuntu 11.10

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >