Search Results

Search found 8389 results on 336 pages for 'shared calendar'.

Page 65/336 | < Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >

  • Accomplishing boost::shared_from_this() in constructor via boost::shared_from_raw(this)

    - by Kyle
    Googling and poking around the boost code, it appears that it's now possible to construct a shared_ptr to this in a constructor, by inheriting from enable_shared_from_raw and calling shared_from_raw(this) Is there any documentation or examples of this? I'm finding nothing with google. Why am I not finding any useful buzz on this on google? I would have thought using shared_from_this in a constructor would be a hot/desirable item. Should I be inheriting from both enable_shared_from_raw and enable_shared_from_this, and restricting my usage of enable_shared_from_raw when I have to? If so, why? Is there a performance hit with shared_from_raw?

    Read the article

  • Is there any boost-independent version of boost/tr1 shared_ptr

    - by Artyom
    I'm looking for independent implementation of boost/tr1 shared_ptr, weak_ptr and enable_shared_from_this. I need: Boost independent very small implementation of these features. I need support of only modern compilers like GCC-4.x, MSVC-2008, Intel not things like MSVC6 or gcc-3.3 I need it to be licensed under non-copyleft LGPL compatible license like Boost/Mit/3-clause BSD. So I can include it in my library. Note - it is quite hard to extract shared_ptr from boost, at least BCP gives about 324 files...

    Read the article

  • Where the hell is shared_ptr!?!

    - by Jake
    I am so frustrated right now after several hours trying to find where the hell is shared_ptr located at. None of the examples i see show complete code to include the headers for shared_ptr (and working). simply stating "std" "tr1" and "" is not helping at all! I have downloaded boosts and all but still it doesn't show up! Can someone help me by telling exactly where to find it? Thanks for letting me vent my frustrations!

    Read the article

  • Host Primary Domain from a subfolder

    - by TandemAdam
    I am having a problem making a sub directory act as the public_html for my main domain, and getting a solution that works with that domains sub directories too. My hosting allows me to host multiple sites, which are all working great. I have set up a subfolder under my ~/public_html/ directory called /domains/, where I create a folder for each separate website. e.g. public_html domains websiteone websitetwo websitethree ... This keeps my sites nice and tidy. The only issue was getting my "main domain" to fit into this system. It seems my main domain, is somehow tied to my account (or to Apache, or something), so I can't change the "document root" of this domain. I can define the document roots for any other domains ("Addon Domains") that I add in cPanel no problem. But the main domain is different. I was told to edit the .htaccess file, to redirect the main domain to a subdirectory. This seemed to work great, and my site works fine on it's home/index page. The problem I'm having is that if I try to navigate my browser to say the images folder (just for example) of my main site, like this: www.yourmaindomain.com/images/ then it seems to ignore the redirect and shows the entire server directory in the url, like this: www.yourmaindomain.com/domains/yourmaindomain/images/ It still actually shows the correct "Index of /images" page, and show the list of all my images. Here is an example of my .htaccess file that I am using: RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^(www.)?yourmaindomain.com$ RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/domains/yourmaindomain/ RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /domains/yourmaindomain/$1 RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^(www.)?yourmaindomain.com$ RewriteRule ^(/)?$ domains/yourmaindomain/index.html [L] Does this htaccess file look correct? I just need to make it so my main domain behaves like an addon domain, and it's subdirectories adhere to the redirect rules.

    Read the article

  • shared_ptr requires complete type; cannot use it with lua_State*

    - by topright
    Hello! I'm writing a C++/OOP wrapper for Lua. My code is: class LuaState { boost::shared_ptr<lua_State> L; LuaState(): L( luaL_newstate(), LuaState::CustomDeleter ) { } } The problem is lua_State is incomplete type and shared_ptr constructor requires complete type. And I need safe pointer sharing. (Funny thing boost docs say most functions do not require complete type, but constructor requires, so there is no way of using it. http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/libs/smart_ptr/smart_ptr.htm) Can can I solve this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • C++ smart pointer for a non-object type?

    - by Brian
    Hi, I'm trying to use smart pointers such as auto_ptr, shared_ptr. However, I don't know how to use it in this situation. CvMemStorage *storage = cvCreateMemStorage(); ... use the pointer ... cvReleaseMemStorage(&storage); I'm not sure, but I think that the storage variable is just a malloc'ed memory, not a C++ class object. Is there a way to use the smart pointers for the storage variable? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • List of Web Hosting Companies

    - by Kiran
    I am looking for a good web hosting company to host my website. But when I Google I only see few list of companies with lot advertisements everywhere. Where I can find good list of web hosting companies ?

    Read the article

  • how to pass an arbitrary signature to Certifcate

    - by eskoba
    I am trying to sign certificate (X509) using secret sharing. that is shareholders combine their signatures to produce the final signature. which will be in this case the signed certificate. however practically from my understanding only one entity can sign a certificate. therefore I want to know: which entities or data of the x509certificate are actually taken as input to the signing algorithm? ideally I want this data to be signed by the shareholders and then the final combination will be passed to the X509certificate as valid signature. is this possible? how could it done? if not are they other alternatives?

    Read the article

  • Returning references while using shared_ptrs

    - by Goose Bumper
    Suppose I have a rather large class Matrix, and I've overloaded operator== to check for equality like so: bool operator==(Matrix &a, Matrix &b); Of course I'm passing the Matrix objects by reference because they are so large. Now i have a method Matrix::inverse() that returns a new Matrix object. Now I want to use the inverse directly in a comparison, like so: if (a.inverse()==b) { ... }` The problem is, this means the inverse method needs to return a reference to a Matrix object. Two questions: Since I'm just using that reference in this once comparison, is this a memory leak? What happens if the object-to-be-returned in the inverse() method belongs to a boost::shared_ptr? As soon as the method exits, the shared_ptr is destroyed and the object is no longer valid. Is there a way to return a reference to an object that belongs to a shared_ptr?

    Read the article

  • C++ smart pointer for non-object type?

    - by Brian
    Hi, I'm trying to use smart pointers such as auto_ptr, shared_ptr. However, I don't know how to use it in this situation. CvMemStorage *storage = cvCreateMemStorage(); ... use the pointer ... cvReleaseMemStorage(&storage); I'm not sure, but I think that the storage variable is just malloc'ed memory, not object. Is there a way to use the smart pointers for the storage variable? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Configuring a library to be included with C++ test

    - by vrish88
    Hello, I would like to utilize the UnitTest++ library in a testing file. However, I am having some difficulty getting the library to be included at compile time. So here is my current directory structure: tests/ UnitTests++/ libUnitTest++.a src/ UnitTests++.h unit/ test.cpp I have just used the UnitTest++ getting started guide to just get the library setup. Here is test.cpp: // test.cpp #include <UnitTest++.h> TEST(FailSpectacularly) { CHECK(false); } int main() { return UnitTest::RunAllTests(); } And I am currently trying to compile with: gcc -lUnitTest++ -L../UnitTest++/ -I../UnitTest++/src/ test.cpp I am currently getting a bunch output with ld: symbol(s) not found at the end. So how would I be able to get the UnitTest++ library properly included when this program is compiled? I am on a Mac and I'd also like for there to be an easy way for people on a Linux machine to run these same tests. Whew, I hope this provides enough information, if not please let me know.

    Read the article

  • How should platform specific lib files be named?

    - by Scott Langham
    Hello, I'm working on a C++ project that produces a lib that other teams use. It's being produced in a few different flavours: Win32 Debug Win32 Debug Static Win32 Release Win32 Release Static x64 Debug x64 Debug Static x64 Release x64 Release Static I'm wondering what the best wisdom is on how to name the dlls and what arguments are for different naming conventions. Do I output the libs into different directories, or do I append some letters on the end of the lib to differentiate them, or something else? One concern is that if I use directories, but don't give all the libs different names, users of the library will have problems where they accidentally use the wrong lib. Are these concerns valid? Thanks very much.

    Read the article

  • Share ASP.Net membership info between two applications

    - by bill
    Hi All, I have an existing webapp and i'm attempting to setup BlogEngine .Net to share the membership tables Everything seems to work.. accept i can see that the Membership.ValidateUser call in blogengine returns false! While the other apps returns true. I'm at a loss.. Membership.GetUser called from both apps returns the correct user.. Any ideas? thanks!

    Read the article

  • C++ - passing references to boost::shared_ptr

    - by abigagli
    If I have a function that needs to work with a shared_ptr, wouldn't it be more efficient to pass it a reference to it (so to avoid copying the shared_ptr object)? What are the possible bad side effects? I envision two possible cases: 1) inside the function a copy is made of the argument, like in ClassA::take_copy_of_sp(boost::shared_ptr<foo> &sp) { ... m_sp_member=sp; //This will copy the object, incrementing refcount ... } 2) inside the function the argument is only used, like in Class::only_work_with_sp(boost::shared_ptr<foo> &sp) //Again, no copy here { ... sp->do_something(); ... } I can't see in both cases a good reason to pass the boost::shared_ptr by value instead of by reference. Passing by value would only "temporarily" increment the reference count due to the copying, and then decrement it when exiting the function scope. Am I overlooking something? Andrea. EDIT: Just to clarify, after reading several answers : I perfectly agree on the premature-optimization concerns, and I alwasy try to first-profile-then-work-on-the-hotspots. My question was more from a purely technical code-point-of-view, if you know what I mean.

    Read the article

  • typedef boost::shared_ptr<MyJob> Ptr; or #define Ptr boost::shared_ptr

    - by danio
    I've just started wrking on a new codebase where each class contains a shared_ptr typedef (similar to this) like: typedef boost::shared_ptr<MyClass> Ptr; Is the only purpose to save typing boost::shared_ptr? If that is the case why not do #define Ptr boost::shared_ptr in one common header? Then you can do: Ptr<MyClass> myClass(new MyClass); which is no more typing than MyClass::Ptr myClass(new MyClass); and saves the Ptr definition in each class.

    Read the article

  • Using custom dll in Qt Application

    - by Donotalo
    First, my compiler and OS: Qt Creator 1.3 Qt 4.6 (32 bit) Windows 7 Ultimate I want to learn how to create and import a dll in Qt. I've created a *.dll file using Qt Creator, called Shared1.dll which contains nothing but an empty class named Shared1. Now I'd like to use Shared1 class in another Qt project. How can I do that? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to accomplish covariant return types when returning a shared_ptr?

    - by Kyle
    using namespace boost; class A {}; class B : public A {}; class X { virtual shared_ptr<A> foo(); }; class Y : public X { virtual shared_ptr<B> foo(); }; The return types aren't covariant (nor are they, therefore, legal), but they would be if I was using raw pointers instead. What's the commonly accepted idiom to work around this, if there is one?

    Read the article

  • Where is shared_ptr?

    - by Jake
    I am so frustrated right now after several hours trying to find where shared_ptr is located. None of the examples I see show complete code to include the headers for shared_ptr (and working). Simply stating "std" "tr1" and "" is not helping at all! I have downloaded boosts and all but still it doesn't show up! Can someone help me by telling exactly where to find it? Thanks for letting me vent my frustrations!

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to increase the efficiency of shared_ptr by storing the reference count inside the co

    - by BillyONeal
    Hello everyone :) This is becoming a common pattern in my code, for when I need to manage an object that needs to be noncopyable because either A. it is "heavy" or B. it is an operating system resource, such as a critical section: class Resource; class Implementation : public boost::noncopyable { friend class Resource; HANDLE someData; Implementation(HANDLE input) : someData(input) {}; void SomeMethodThatActsOnHandle() { //Do stuff }; public: ~Implementation() { FreeHandle(someData) }; }; class Resource { boost::shared_ptr<Implementation> impl; public: Resource(int argA) explicit { HANDLE handle = SomeLegacyCApiThatMakesSomething(argA); if (handle == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) throw SomeTypeOfException(); impl.reset(new Implementation(handle)); }; void SomeMethodThatActsOnTheResource() { impl->SomeMethodThatActsOnTheHandle(); }; }; This way, shared_ptr takes care of the reference counting headaches, allowing Resource to be copyable, even though the underlying handle should only be closed once all references to it are destroyed. However, it seems like we could save the overhead of allocating shared_ptr's reference counts and such separately if we could move that data inside Implementation somehow, like boost's intrusive containers do. If this is making the premature optimization hackles nag some people, I actually agree that I don't need this for my current project. But I'm curious if it is possible.

    Read the article

  • boost::shared_ptr<const T> to boost::shared_ptr<T>

    - by Flevine
    I want to cast the const-ness out of a boost::shared_ptr, but I boost::const_pointer_cast is not the answer. boost::const_pointer_cast wants a const boost::shared_ptr, not a boost::shared_ptr. Let's forego the obligitory 'you shouldn't be doing that'. I know... but I need to do it... so what's the best/easiest way to do it? For clarity sake: boost::shared_ptr<const T> orig_ptr( new T() ); boost::shared_ptr<T> new_ptr = magic_incantation(orig_ptr); I need to know the magic_incantation() Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can processor cores thrash each other's caches?

    - by Jørgen Fogh
    If more than one core on a processor is accessing the same memory address, will they thrash each other's caches or will some snooping protocol allow each to keep the data in L1-cache? I am interested in a general answer as well as answers for specific processors. How many layers of cache are invalidated? Will accessing another address within the same cache-line invalidate the entire line? What can you do to alleviate these problems?

    Read the article

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • Is this a correct implementation of singleton C++?

    - by Kamal
    class A{ static boost::shared_ptr<A> getInstance(){ if(pA==NULL){ pA = new A(); } return boost::shared_ptr(pA); } //destructor ~A(){ delete pA; pA=NULL; } private: A(){ //some initialization code } //private assigment and copy constructors A(A const& copy); // Not Implemented A& operator=(A const& copy); // Not Implemented static A* pA; }; A* A::pA = NULL;

    Read the article

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