Search Results

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

Page 70/1607 | < Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >

  • Accessing any structs members at run-time.

    - by jmgunn
    Is it possible to get access to an individual member of a struct or class without knowing the names of its member variables? I would like to do an "offsetof(struct, tyname)" without having the struct name or member variable name hard coded amoungst other things. thanks.

    Read the article

  • List<MyClass*> & array question

    - by Nano HE
    Hi, Assuming a definition like this, list<MyCommand*> subList ... MyCommand* pCmd = (MyCommand*)(m_treeSM.GetItemData(node)); I tried these statements below, but failed. pCmd->subList[2] (pCmd->subList)[2] How can I get the array member values(such as subList[2]). I want to replace the value of subList[2] with other same type value. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • C++ dynamic array causes segmentation fault at assigment

    - by opc0de
    I am doing a application witch uses sockets so I am holding in an array the sockets handles.I have the following code: while(0 == 0){ int * tx = (int*)(malloc((nr_con + 2) * sizeof(int))); if (conexiuni != NULL) { syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"Ajung la eliberare %d",nr_con); memcpy(&tx[0],&conexiuni[0],(sizeof(int) * (nr_con))); syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"Ajung la eliberare %d",nr_con); free(conexiuni); } conexiuni = tx; syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"Ajung la mama %d",nr_con); //The line bellow causes a segfault at second connection if ((conexiuni[nr_con] = accept(hsock,(sockaddr*)(&sadr),&addr_size)) != -1) { nr_con++; syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"Primesc de la %s",inet_ntoa(sadr.sin_addr)); syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"kkt %d",conexiuni[nr_con - 1]); int * sz = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)); *sz = conexiuni[nr_con - 1]; syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"after %d",*sz); pthread_create(&tidi,0,&ConexiuniHandler, sz); } } When I connect the second time when I assign the array the program crashes. What am I doing wrong? I tried the same code on Windows and it works well but on Linux it crashes.

    Read the article

  • Does this have anything to do with endian-ness?

    - by eSKay
    This piece of code: #include<stdio.h> void hello() { printf("hello\n"); } void bye() { printf("bye\n"); } int main() { printf("%p\n", hello); printf("%p\n", bye); return 0; } output on my machine: 0x80483f4 0x8048408 [second address is bigger in value] on Codepad 0x8048541 0x8048511 [second address is smaller in value] Does this have anything to do with endian-ness of the machines? If not, Why the difference in the ordering of the addresses? Also, Why the difference in the difference? 0x8048541 - 0x8048511 = 0x30 0x8048408 - 0x80483f4 = 0x14 Btw, I just checked. This code (taken from here) says that both the machines are Little-Endian #include<stdio.h> int main() { int num = 1; if(*(char *)&num == 1) printf("Little-Endian\n"); else printf("Big-Endian\n"); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • C++: why a self pointer of a struct automatically changes to void*

    - by Stone
    struct ptr{ int node; ptr *next; ptr(){} ptr(int _node, ptr *_next){ node=_node; next=_next; } }; struct list_t{ ptr *sht; int size; void push(int node){ size++; sht=new ptr(node,sht); } }shthead[100001], comp[200001], tree[200001]; The struct ptr is a smart pointer, be used as a linked list. But when I debug the code in gdb, I found that the ptr*'s were all converted to void*. GDB output: (gdb) pt ptr type = struct ptr { int node; void *next; public: ptr(void); ptr(int, void *); } However, I can still see the data of the struct if I covert them back to ptr* in gdb. What's the reason for this please?

    Read the article

  • I can't get that `bus error` to stop sucking.

    - by Koning Baard XIV
    I have this a class called PPString: PPString.h #ifndef __CPP_PPString #define __CPP_PPString #include "PPObject.h" class PPString : public PPObject { char *stringValue[]; public: char *pointerToCharString(); void setCharString(char *charString[]); void setCharString(const char charString[]); }; #endif PPString.cpp #include "PPString.h" char *PPString::pointerToCharString() { return *stringValue; } void PPString::setCharString(char *charString[]) { *stringValue = *charString; } void PPString::setCharString(const char charString[]) { *stringValue = (char *)charString; } I'm trying to set the stringValue using std::cin: main.cpp PPString myString; myString.setCharString("LOLZ"); std::cout << myString.pointerToCharString() << std::endl; char *aa[1000]; std::cin >> *aa; myString.setCharString(aa); std::cout << myString.pointerToCharString() << std::endl; The first one, which uses a const char works, but the second one, with a char doesn't, and I get this output: copy and paste from STDOUT LOLZ im entering a string now... Bus error where the second line is what I entered, followed by pressing the return key. Can anyone help me fixing this? Thanks...

    Read the article

  • How to return a copy of the data in C++

    - by Josh Curren
    I am trying to return a new copy of the data in a C++ Template class. The following code is getting this error: invalid conversion from ‘int*’ to ‘int’. If I remove the new T then I am not returning a copy of the data but a pointer to it. template<class T> T OrderedList<T>::get( int k ) { Node<T>* n = list; for( int i = 0; i < k; i++ ) { n=n->get_link(); } return new T( n->get_data() ); // This line is getting the error ********** }

    Read the article

  • C++ deleting a pointer

    - by eSKay
    On this page, its written that One reason is that the operand of delete need not be an lvalue. Consider: delete p+1; delete f(x); Here, the implementation of delete does not have a pointer to which it can assign zero. Adding a number to a pointer shifts it forward in memory by those many number of sizeof(*p) units. So, what is the difference between delete p and delete p+1, and why would making the pointer 0 only be a problem with delete p+1?

    Read the article

  • NULL pointer comparison fails

    - by Ilya
    Hello, I'm initializing in a class a pointer to be NULL. Afterwards I check if it is NULL in the same class. But it's not always 0x0. Sometimes it's 0x8 or 0xfeffffff or 0x3f800000 or 0x80 or other strange stuff. In most case the pointer is 0x0 but sometimes it gets altered somehow. I'm sure that I'm not changing it anywhere in my code. Is there a way it gets changed by "itself"? Here's my code: MeshObject::MeshObject() { mesh.vertexColors = NULL; } MeshObject::MeshObject(const MeshObject &_copyFromMe) { SimpleLog("vertexColors pointer: %p", _copyFromMe.mesh.vertexColors); if (_copyFromMe.mesh.vertexColors != NULL) { SimpleLog("vertexColors"); this->mesh.vertexColors = new tColor4i[_copyFromMe.mesh.vertexCount]; memcpy(this->mesh.vertexColors, _copyFromMe.mesh.vertexColors, _copyFromMe.mesh.vertexCount * sizeof(tColor4i) ); } } My application crashes, because vertexColors wasn't initialized and is being copied. However it is NULL and shouldn't be copied. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Could I ever want to access the address zero?

    - by Joel
    The constant 0 is used as the null pointer in C and C++. But as in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2389251/pointer-to-a-specific-fixed-address there seems to be some possible use of assigning fixed addresses. Is there ever any conceivable need, in any system, for whatever low level task, for accessing the address 0? If there is, how is that solved with 0 being the null pointer and all? If not, what makes it certain that there is not such a need?

    Read the article

  • glibc detected ./.a.out: free(): invalid pointer

    - by ExtremeBlue
    typedef struct _PERSON { size_t age; unsigned char* name; }PERSON; int init(PERSON** person) { (* person) = (PERSON *) malloc(sizeof(struct _PERSON)); (* person)->age = 1; (* person)->name = (unsigned char *) malloc(sizeof(4)); (* person)->name = "NAME"; return 0; } void close(PERSON** person) { (* person)->age = 0; if((* person)->name != NULL) { free((* person)->name); } if((* person) != NULL) { free((* person)); } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { PERSON* p; init(&p); printf("%d\t%s\n", (int) p->age, p->name); close(&p); return 0; } 1 NAME *** glibc detected *** ./a.out: free(): invalid pointer: 0x000000000040079c *** ======= Backtrace: ========= /lib/libc.so.6(+0x774b6)[0x7fa9027054b6] /lib/libc.so.6(cfree+0x73)[0x7fa90270bc83] ./a.out(close+0x3d)[0x400651] ./a.out[0x40069f] /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xfe)[0x7fa9026acd8e] ./a.out[0x4004f9] ... 7fa8fc000000-7fa8fc021000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 7fa8fc021000-7fa900000000 ---p 00000000 00:00 0 7fa902478000-7fa90248d000 r-xp 00000000 08:12 23068732 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 7fa90248d000-7fa90268c000 ---p 00015000 08:12 23068732 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 7fa90268c000-7fa90268d000 r--p 00014000 08:12 23068732 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 7fa90268d000-7fa90268e000 rw-p 00015000 08:12 23068732 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 7fa90268e000-7fa902808000 r-xp 00000000 08:12 23068970 /lib/libc-2.12.1.so 7fa902808000-7fa902a07000 ---p 0017a000 08:12 23068970 /lib/libc-2.12.1.so 7fa902a07000-7fa902a0b000 r--p 00179000 08:12 23068970 /lib/libc-2.12.1.so 7fa902a0b000-7fa902a0c000 rw-p 0017d000 08:12 23068970 /lib/libc-2.12.1.so 7fa902a0c000-7fa902a11000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 7fa902a11000-7fa902a31000 r-xp 00000000 08:12 23068966 /lib/ld-2.12.1.so 7fa902c25000-7fa902c28000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 7fa902c2e000-7fa902c31000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 7fa902c31000-7fa902c32000 r--p 00020000 08:12 23068966 /lib/ld-2.12.1.so 7fa902c32000-7fa902c33000 rw-p 00021000 08:12 23068966 /lib/ld-2.12.1.so 7fa902c33000-7fa902c34000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 7fff442d5000-7fff442f6000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [stack] 7fff44308000-7fff44309000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso] ffffffffff600000-ffffffffff601000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vsyscall] Aborted

    Read the article

  • casting char[][] to char** causes segfault?

    - by Earlz
    Ok my C is a bit rusty but I figured I'd make my next(small) project in C so I could polish back up on it and less than 20 lines in I already have a seg fault. This is my complete code: #define ROWS 4 #define COLS 4 char main_map[ROWS][COLS+1]={ "a.bb", "a.c.", "adc.", ".dc."}; void print_map(char** map){ int i; for(i=0;i<ROWS;i++){ puts(map[i]); //segfault here } } int main(){ print_map(main_map); //if I comment out this line it will work. puts(main_map[3]); return 0; } I am completely confused as to how this is causing a segfault. What is happening when casting from [][] to **!? That is the only warning I get. rushhour.c:23:3: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘print_map’ from incompatible pointer type rushhour.c:13:7: note: expected ‘char **’ but argument is of type ‘char (*)[5]’ Are [][] and ** really not compatible pointer types? They seem like they are just syntax to me.

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with my version of strchr?

    - by Eduard Saakashvili
    My assignment is to write my own version of strchr, yet it doesn't seem to work. Any advice would be much appreciated. Here it is: char *strchr (const char *s, int c) //we are looking for c on the string s { int dog; //This is the index on the string, initialized as 0 dog = 0; int point; //this is the pointer to the location given by the index point = &s[dog]; while ((s[dog] != c) && (s[dog] != '\0')) { //it keeps adding to dog until it stumbles upon either c or '\0' dog++; } if (s[dog]==c) { return point; //at this point, if this value is equal to c it returns the pointer to that location } else { return NULL; //if not, this means that c is not on the string } }

    Read the article

  • Pointer mysteriously moves

    - by Armen Ablak
    Hi, I have this code for Node rotation and in a line which is marked something happens and I don't really know what and why :). //Test case 30 \ 16 / 29 RotationRight(node->mParent); //call template<class T> void SplayTree<T>::RotationRight(SplayNode<T> *&node) const { SplayNode<T> *left = node->mLeft; SplayNode<T> *parent = node->mParent; node->mLeft = left->mRight; if(left->HasRight()) left->mRight->mParent = node; left->mRight = node; //node in this line points to 0x00445198 {30} left->mParent = node->mParent; //and in this line it points to 0x00444fb8 {16} (node, not node->mParent) node->mParent = left; node = left; } Well, left-mParent points to node also, so I basically do node = node-mParent. The problem is I can't find a work around - how to unpin in from node and change it's pointing address without changing it's.

    Read the article

  • Check if a pointer points to allocated memory on the heap.

    - by Ugo
    Ok, I know this question seems to have been asked many times on stackoverflow. but please read Well the answer for any address is "No you can't" but the question here is to know if a pointer points to a piece of memory allocated with malloc/new. Actually I think it could be easily implemented overriding malloc/free and keeping track of allocated memory ranges. Do you know a memory management library providing this specific tool ?

    Read the article

  • why no implicit conversion from pointer to reference to const pointer.

    - by user316606
    I'll illustrate my question with code: #include <iostream> void PrintInt(const unsigned char*& ptr) { int data = 0; ::memcpy(&data, ptr, sizeof(data)); // advance the pointer reference. ptr += sizeof(data); std::cout << std::hex << data << " " << std::endl; } int main(int, char**) { unsigned char buffer[] = { 0x11, 0x11, 0x11, 0x11, 0x22, 0x22, 0x22, 0x22, }; /* const */ unsigned char* ptr = buffer; PrintInt(ptr); // error C2664: ... PrintInt(ptr); // error C2664: ... return 0; } When I run this code (in VS2008) I get this: error C2664: 'PrintInt' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'unsigned char *' to 'const unsigned char *&'. If I uncomment the "const" comment it works fine. However shouldn't pointer implicitly convert into const pointer and then reference be taken? Am I wrong in expecting this to work? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How do I return the indices of a multidimensional array element in C?

    - by Eddy
    Say I have a 2D array of random boolean ones and zeroes called 'lattice', and I have a 1D array called 'list' which lists the addresses of all the zeroes in the 2D array. This is how the arrays are defined: define n 100 bool lattice[n][n]; bool *list[n*n]; After filling the lattice with ones and zeroes, I store the addresses of the zeroes in list: for(j = 0; j < n; j++) { for(i = 0; i < n; i++) { if(!lattice[i][j]) // if element = 0 { list[site_num] = &lattice[i][j]; // store address of zero site_num++; } } } How do I extract the x,y coordinates of each zero in the array? In other words, is there a way to return the indices of an array element through referring to its address?

    Read the article

  • Evaluation of (de)reference operators

    - by Micha
    I have an (uncommented...) source file which I'm trying to understand. static const Map *gCurMap; static std::vector<Map> mapVec; then auto e = mapVec.end(); auto i = mapVec.begin(); while(i!=e) { // ... const Map *map = gCurMap = &(*(i++)); // ... } I don't understand what &(*(i++)) does. It does not compile when just using i++, but to me it looks the same, because I'm "incrementing" i, then I'm requesting the value at the given address and then I'm requesting the address of this value?!

    Read the article

  • Acessing a struct member, using a pointer to a vector of structs. Error:base operand of '->' has non-pointer type

    - by Matt Munson
    #include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; struct s_Astruct { vector <int> z; }; int main () { vector <s_Astruct> v_a; for(int q=0;q<10;q++) { v_a.push_back(s_Astruct()); for(int w =0;w<5;w++) v_a[q].z.push_back(8); } vector <s_Astruct> * p_v_a = & v_a; cout << p_v_a[0]->z[4]; //error: base operand of '->' has non-pointer type //'__gnu_debug_def::vector<s_Astruct, std::allocator<s_Astruct> >' } There seems to be some issue with this sort of operation that I don't understand. In the code that I'm working on I actually have things like p_class-vector[]-vector[]-int; and I'm getting a similar error.

    Read the article

  • using structures with multidimentional tables

    - by gem
    I have a table of structures and this structures are 2 dimentional table of constants. can you teach me on how to get the values in the table of constants. (note following is just example) typedef struct { unsigned char ** Type1; unsigned char ** Type2; } Formula; typedef struct { Formula tformula[size]; } table; const table Values = { (unsigned char**) &(default_val1), (unsigned char**) &(default_val2) }; const unsigned char default_val1[4][4] = { {0,1,2,3}, {4,5,6,7}, {8,9,0,11}, {12,13,14,15} } const unsigned char default_val2[4][4] = { {15,16,17,13}, {14,15,16,17}, {18,19,10,21}, {22,23,24,25} }

    Read the article

  • C++: Question about freeing memory

    - by Martijn Courteaux
    On Learn C++, they wrote this to free memory: int *pnValue = new int; // dynamically allocate an integer *pnValue = 7; // assign 7 to this integer delete pnValue; pnValue = 0; My question is: "Is the last statement needed to free the memory correctly, completly?" I thought that the pointer *pnValue was still on the stack and new doesn't make any sense to the pointer. And if it is on the stack it will be cleaned up when the application leaves the scope (where the pointer is declared in), isn't it?

    Read the article

  • Assigning a pointer variable to a const int in C++?

    - by John
    I'm wondering if anyone can explain the following to me: If I write int i = 0; float* pf = i; I get a compile error (gcc 4.2.1): error: invalid conversion from ‘int’ to ‘float*’ Makes sense - they are obviously two completely different types. But if instead I write const int i = 0; float* pf = i; It compiles without error. Why should the 'const' make a difference on the right hand side of the assignment? Isn't part of the idea of the 'const' keyword to be able to enforce type constraints for constant values? Any explanation I have been able to come up with feels kind of bogus. And none of my explanations also explain the fact that const int i = 1; float* pf = i; fails to compile. Can anyone offer an explanation?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >