Search Results

Search found 2220 results on 89 pages for 'gcc'.

Page 80/89 | < Previous Page | 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  | Next Page >

• How does one force construction of a global object in a statically linked library? [MSVC9]

  - by Peter C O Johansson

  I have a global list of function pointers. This list should be populated at startup. Order is not important and there are no dependencies that would complicate static initialization. To facilitate this, I've written a class that adds a single entry to this list in its constructor, and scatter global instances of this class via a macro where necessary. One of the primary goals of this approach is to remove the need for explicitly referencing every instance of this class externally, instead allowing each file that needs to register something in the list to do it independently. Nice and clean. However, when placing these objects in a static library, the linker discards (or rather never links in) these units because no code in them is explicitly referenced. Explicitly referencing symbols in the compilation units would be counterproductive, directly contradicting one of the main goals of the approach. For the same reason, /INCLUDE is not an acceptable option, and /OPT:NOREF is not actually related to this problem. Metrowerks has a __declspec directive for it, GCC has -force_load, but I cannot find any equivalent for MSVC.

  Read the article

• Are C++ exceptions sufficient to implement thread-local storage?

  - by Potatoswatter

  I was commenting on an answer that thread-local storage is nice and recalled another informative discussion about exceptions where I supposed The only special thing about the execution environment within the throw block is that the exception object is referenced by rethrow. Putting two and two together, wouldn't executing an entire thread inside a function-catch-block of its main function imbue it with thread-local storage? It seems to work fine: #include <iostream> #include <pthread.h> using namespace std; struct thlocal { string name; thlocal( string const &n ) : name(n) {} }; thlocal &get_thread() { try { throw; } catch( thlocal &local ) { return local; } } void print_thread() { cerr << get_thread().name << endl; } void *kid( void *local_v ) try { thlocal &local = * static_cast< thlocal * >( local_v ); throw local; } catch( thlocal & ) { print_thread(); return NULL; } int main() try { thlocal local( "main" ); throw local; } catch( thlocal & ) { print_thread(); pthread_t th; thlocal kid_local( "kid" ); pthread_create( &th, NULL, &kid, &kid_local ); pthread_join( th, NULL ); print_thread(); return 0; } Is this novel or well-characterized? Was my initial premise correct? What kind of overhead does get_thread incur in, say, GCC and VC++? It would require throwing only exceptions derived from struct thlocal, but altogether this doesn't feel like an unproductive insomnia-ridden Sunday morning…

  Read the article

• Python base classes share attributes?

  - by tad

  Code in test.py: class Base(object): def __init__(self, l=[]): self.l = l def add(self, num): self.l.append(num) def remove(self, num): self.l.remove(num) class Derived(Base): def __init__(self, l=[]): super(Derived, self).__init__(l) Python shell session: Python 2.6.5 (r265:79063, Apr 1 2010, 05:22:20) [GCC 4.4.3 20100316 (prerelease)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import test >>> a = test.Derived() >>> b = test.Derived() >>> a.l [] >>> b.l [] >>> a.add(1) >>> a.l [1] >>> b.l [1] >>> c = test.Derived() >>> c.l [1] I was expecting "C++-like" behavior, in which each derived object contains its own instance of the base class. Is this still the case? Why does each object appear to share the same list instance?

  Read the article

• Omit return type in C++0x

  - by Clinton

  I've recently found myself using the following macro with gcc 4.5 in C++0x mode: #define RETURN(x) -> decltype(x) { return x; } And writing functions like this: template <class T> auto f(T&& x) RETURN (( g(h(std::forward<T>(x))) )) I've been doing this to avoid the inconvenience having to effectively write the function body twice, and having keep changes in the body and the return type in sync (which in my opinion is a disaster waiting to happen). The problem is that this technique only works on one line functions. So when I have something like this (convoluted example): template <class T> auto f(T&& x) -> ... { auto y1 = f(x); auto y2 = h(y1, g1(x)); auto y3 = h(y1, g2(x)); if (y1) { ++y3; } return h2(y2, y3); } Then I have to put something horrible in the return type. Furthermore, whenever I update the function, I'll need to change the return type, and if I don't change it correctly, I'll get a compile error if I'm lucky, or a runtime bug in the worse case. Having to copy and paste changes to two locations and keep them in sync I feel is not good practice. And I can't think of a situation where I'd want an implicit cast on return instead of an explicit cast. Surely there is a way to ask the compiler to deduce this information. What is the point of the compiler keeping it a secret? I thought C++0x was designed so such duplication would not be required.

  Read the article

• identifier ... is undefined when trying to run pure C code in Cuda using nvcc

  - by Lostsoul

  I'm new and learning Cuda. A approach that I'm trying to use to learn is to write code in C and once I know its working start converting it to Cuda since I read that nvcc compiles Cuda code but complies everything else using plain old c. My code works in c(using gcc) but when I try to compile it using nvcc(after changing the file name from main.c to main.cu) I get main.cu(155): error: identifier "num_of_rows" is undefined main.cu(155): error: identifier "num_items_in_row" is undefined 2 errors detected in the compilation of "/tmp/tmpxft_00002898_00000000-4_main.cpp1.ii". Basically in my main method I send data to a function like this: process_list(count, countListItem, list); the first two items are ints and the last item(list) is a matrix. Then I create my function like this: void process_list(int num_of_rows, int num_items_in_row, int current_list[num_of_rows][num_items_in_row]) { This line is where I get my errors when using nvcc(line 155). I need to convert this code to cuda anyway so no need to troubleshoot this specific issue(plus code is quite large) but I'm wondering if I'm wrong about nvcc treating the C part of your code like plain C. In the book cuda by example I just used nvcc to compile but do I need any extra flags when just using pure c?

  Read the article

• Strict pointer aliasing: is access through a 'volatile' pointer/reference a solution?

  - by doublep

  On the heels of a specific problem, a self-answer and comments to it, I'd like to understand if it is a proper solution, workaround/hack or just plain wrong. Specifically, I rewrote code: T x = ...; if (*reinterpret_cast <int*> (&x) == 0) ... As: T x = ...; if (*reinterpret_cast <volatile int*> (&x) == 0) ... with a volatile qualifier to the pointer. Let's just assume that treating T as int in my situation makes sense. Does this accessing through a volatile reference solve pointer aliasing problem? For a reference, from specification: [ Note: volatile is a hint to the implementation to avoid aggressive optimization involving the object because the value of the object might be changed by means undetectable by an implementation. See 1.9 for detailed semantics. In general, the semantics of volatile are intended to be the same in C++ as they are in C. — end note ] EDIT: The above code did solve my problem at least on GCC 4.5.

  Read the article

• Deleting elements from stl set while iterating through it does not invalidate the iterators.

  - by pedromanoel

  I need to go through a set and remove elements that meet a predefined criteria. This is the test code I wrote: #include <set> #include <algorithm> void printElement(int value) { std::cout << value << " "; } int main() { int initNum[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 }; std::set<int> numbers(initNum, initNum + 10); // print '0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' std::for_each(numbers.begin(), numbers.end(), printElement); std::set<int>::iterator it = numbers.begin(); // iterate through the set and erase all even numbers for (; it != numbers.end(); ++it) { int n = *it; if (n % 2 == 0) { // wouldn't invalidate the iterator? numbers.erase(it); } } // print '1 3 5 7 9' std::for_each(numbers.begin(), numbers.end(), printElement); return 0; } At first, I thought that erasing an element from the set while iterating through it would invalidate the iterator, and the increment at the for loop would have undefined behavior. Even though, I executed this test code and all went well, and I can't explain why. My question: Is this the defined behavior for std sets or is this implementation specific? I am using gcc 4.3.3 on ubuntu 10.04 (32-bit version), by the way. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Template Child Class Overriding a Parent Class's Virtual Function

  - by user334066

  The below code compiles with gcc v4.3.3 and the templated child class seems to be overriding a virtual function in the parent, but doesn't that break the rule that you cannot have a virtual template function? Or is something else happening that I don't understand? class BaseClass { public: virtual void Func(int var) { std::cout<<"Base int "<<var<<std::endl; } virtual void Func(double var) { std::cout<<"Base double "<<var<<std::endl; } }; template <class TT> class TemplateClass : public BaseClass { public: using BaseClass::Func; virtual void Func(TT var) { std::cout<<"Child TT "<<var<<std::endl; } }; int main(int argc, char **argv) { BaseClass a; TemplateClass<int> b; BaseClass *c = new TemplateClass<int>; int intVar = 3; double doubleVar = 5.5; a.Func(intVar); a.Func(doubleVar); b.Func(intVar); b.Func(doubleVar); c->Func(intVar); c->Func(doubleVar); delete c; } This then outputs: Base int 3 Base double 5.5 Child TT 3 Base double 5.5 Child TT 3 Base double 5.5 as I hoped, but I'm not sure why it works.

  Read the article

• Pointers and Addresses in C

  - by Mohit

  #include "stdio.h" main() { int i=3,*x; float j=1.5,*y; char k='c',*z; x=&i; y=&j; z=&k; printf("\nAddress of x= %u",x); printf("\nAddress of y= %u",y); printf("\nAddress of z= %u",z); x++; y++;y++;y++;y++; z++; printf("\nNew Address of x= %u",x); printf("\nNew Address of y= %u",y); printf("\nNew Address of z= %u",z); printf("\nNew Value of i= %d",i); printf("\nNew Value of j= %f",j); printf("\nNew Value of k= %c\n",k); } Output: Address of x= 3219901868 Address of y= 3219901860 Address of z= 3219901875 New Address of x= 3219901872 New Address of y= 3219901876 New Address of z= 3219901876 New Value of i= 3 New Value of j= 1.500000 New Value of k= c The new address of variable y and z are same. How can two variables have same address and et have different values? Note: I used gcc compiler on Ubuntu 9.04

  Read the article

• char[] and char* compatibility?

  - by Aerovistae

  In essence, will this code work? And before you say "Run it and see!", I just realized my cygwin didn't come with gcc and it's currently 40 minutes away from completing reinstallation. That being said: char* words[1000]; for(int i = 0; i<1000; i++) words[i] = NULL; char buffer[ 1024 ]; //omit code that places "ADD splash\0" into the buffer if(strncmp (buffer, "ADD ", 4){ char* temp = buffer + 4; printf("Adding: %s", temp); int i = 0; while(words[i] != NULL) i++; words[i] = temp; } I'm mostly uncertain about the line char* temp = buffer + 4, and also whether I can assign words[i] in the manner that I am. Am I going to get type errors when I eventually try to compile this in 40 minutes? Also-- if this works, why don't I need to use malloc() on each element of words[]? Why can I say words[i] = temp, instead of needing to allocate memory for words[i] the length of temp?

  Read the article

• C++ iterator and const_iterator problem for own container class

  - by BaCh

  Hi there, I'm writing an own container class and have run into a problem I can't get my head around. Here's the bare-bone sample that shows the problem. It consists of a container class and two test classes: one test class using a std:vector which compiles nicely and the second test class which tries to use my own container class in exact the same way but fails miserably to compile. #include <vector> #include <algorithm> #include <iterator> using namespace std; template <typename T> class MyContainer { public: class iterator { public: typedef iterator self_type; inline iterator() { } }; class const_iterator { public: typedef const_iterator self_type; inline const_iterator() { } }; iterator begin() { return iterator(); } const_iterator begin() const { return const_iterator(); } }; // This one compiles ok, using std::vector class TestClassVector { public: void test() { vector<int>::const_iterator I=myc.begin(); } private: vector<int> myc; }; // this one fails to compile. Why? class TestClassMyContainer { public: void test(){ MyContainer<int>::const_iterator I=myc.begin(); } private: MyContainer<int> myc; }; int main(int argc, char ** argv) { return 0; } gcc tells me: test2.C: In member function ‘void TestClassMyContainer::test()’: test2.C:51: error: conversion from ‘MyContainer::iterator’ to non-scalar type ‘MyContainer::const_iterator’ requested I'm not sure where and why the compiler wants to convert an iterator to a const_iterator for my own class but not for the STL vector class. What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Constructor and Destructors in C++ work?

  - by Jack

  I am using gcc. Please tell me if I am wrong - Lets say I have two classes A & B class A { public: A(){cout<<"A constructor"<<endl;} ~A(){cout<<"A destructor"<<endl;} }; class B:public A { public: B(){cout<<"B constructor"<<endl;} ~B(){cout<<"B destructor"<<endl;} }; 1) The first line in B's constructor should be a call to A's constructor ( I assume compiler automatically inserts it). Also the last line in B's destructor will be a call to A's destructor (compiler does it again). Why was it built this way? 2) When I say A * a = new B(); compiler creates a new B object and checks to see if A is a base class of B and if it is it allows 'a' to point to the newly created object. I guess that is why we don't need any virtual constructors. ( with help from @Tyler McHenry , @Konrad Rudolph) 3) When I write delete a compiler sees that a is an object of type A so it calls A's destructor leading to a problem which is solved by making A's destructor virtual. As user - Little Bobby Tables pointed out to me all destructors have the same name destroy() in memory so we can implement virtual destructors and now the call is made to B's destructor and all is well in C++ land. Please comment.

  Read the article

• Static libraries in version-cross-compiled program

  - by Brian Postow

  I have a unix command line app (with big nasty makefile) that I'm trying to run on a mac. I am compiling it on a 10.6 system, with all of the appropriate libraries of course. The deployment environment is a 10.5 system, with no extra libraries. I compiled without -dynamic, and it appears to have static libraries, correctly. When I run it on the 10.6 system, it works. However, when I run it on the 10.5 system, I get: dyld: unknown required load command 0x80000022 I got this same error when I compiled things for the 10.6 system using the 10.5 xcode, so it looks like a version mis-match type problem. However, I used gcc-4.0, and $CFLAGS = -isysroot /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.5.sdk -mmacosx-version-min=10.5 so it SHOULD be set up for 10.5... any ideas? thanks Editing an ancient question: I have the exact same problem on a different computer. This time I am at 10.5.8, fully update, the same executable works on 10.6 still. Has anyone had any luck with this in the months since I asked this?

  Read the article

• C++ compilers and back/front ends

  - by aaa

  Hello. for my own education I am curious what compilers use which C++ front-end and backend. Can you enlighten me where the following technologies are used and what hallmarks/advantages they have if any? Open64 - is it backend, front-end, or both? Which compilers use it? I encounter it in cuda compiler. EDG - as far as I can tell this is a backend use by Intel compilers and Comeau. do other compilers use it? I found quite a few references to it in boost source code. ANTLR - this is general parser. Do any common compilers use it? Regarding compilers: with front-end/backend does gcc compiler suite uses? does it have common heritage with any other compiler? what front-end/backend PGI and PathScale compilers use? what front-end/backend XL compiler uses (IBM offering). Thanks.

  Read the article

• Memory allocation for a matrix in C

  - by Snogzvwtr

  Why is the following code resulting in Segmentation fault? (I'm trying to create two matrices of the same size, one with static and the other with dynamic allocation) #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> //Segmentation fault! int main(){ #define X 5000 #define Y 6000 int i; int a[X][Y]; int** b = (int**) malloc(sizeof(int*) * X); for(i=0; i<X; i++){ b[i] = malloc (sizeof(int) * Y); } } Weirdly enough, if I comment out one of the matrix definitions, the code runs fine. Like this: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> //No Segmentation fault! int main(){ #define X 5000 #define Y 6000 int i; //int a[X][Y]; int** b = (int**) malloc(sizeof(int*) * X); for(i=0; i<X; i++){ b[i] = malloc (sizeof(int) * Y); } } or #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> //No Segmentation fault! int main(){ #define X 5000 #define Y 6000 int i; int a[X][Y]; //int** b = (int**) malloc(sizeof(int*) * X); //for(i=0; i<X; i++){ // b[i] = malloc (sizeof(int) * Y); //} } I'm running gcc on Linux on a 32-bit machine.

  Read the article

• Using an initializer_list on a map of vectors

  - by Hooked

  I've been trying to initialize a map of <ints, vector<ints> > using the new 0X standard, but I cannot seem to get the syntax correct. I'd like to make a map with a single entry with key:value = 1:<3,4 #include <initializer_list> #include <map> #include <vector> using namespace std; map<int, vector<int> > A = {1,{3,4}}; .... It dies with the following error using gcc 4.4.3: error: no matching function for call to std::map<int,std::vector<int,std::allocator<int> >,std::less<int>,std::allocator<std::pair<const int,std::vector<int,std::allocator<int> > > > >::map(<brace-enclosed initializer list>) Edit Following the suggestion by Cogwheel and adding the extra brace it now compiles with a warning that can be gotten rid of using the -fno-deduce-init-list flag. Is there any danger in doing so?

  Read the article

• A public struct inside a class

  - by Koning Baard

  I am new to C++, and let's say I have two classes: Creature and Human: /* creature.h */ class Creature { private: public: struct emotion { /* All emotions are percentages */ char joy; char trust; char fear; char surprise; char sadness; char disgust; char anger; char anticipation; char love; }; }; /* human.h */ class Human : Creature { }; And I have this in my main function in main.cpp: Human foo; My question is: how can I set foo's emotions? I tried this: foo->emotion.fear = 5; But GCC gives me this compile error: error: base operand of '-' has non-pointer type 'Human' This: foo.emotion.fear = 5; Gives: error: 'struct Creature::emotion' is inaccessible error: within this context error: invalid use of 'struct Creature::emotion' Can anyone help me? Thanks P.S. No I did not forget the #includes

  Read the article

• Why is passing a string literal into a char* argument only sometimes a compiler error?

  - by Brian Postow

  I'm working in a C, and C++ program. We used to be compiling without the make-strings-writable option. But that was getting a bunch of warnings, so I turned it off. Then I got a whole bunch of errors of the form "Cannot convert const char* to char* in argmuent 3 of function foo". So, I went through and made a whole lot of changes to fix those. However, today, the program CRASHED because the literal "" was getting passed into a function that was expecting a char*, and was setting the 0th character to 0. It wasn't doing anything bad, just trying to edit a constant, and crashing. My question is, why wasn't that a compiler error? In case it matters, this was on a mac compiled with gcc-4.0. EDIT: added code: char * host = FindArgDefault("EMailLinkHost", ""); stripCRLF(linkHost, '\n'); where: char *FindArgDefault(char *argName, char *defVal) {// simplified char * val = defVal; return(val); } and void stripCRLF(char *str, char delim) { char *p, *q; for (p = q = str; *p; ++p) { if (*p == 0xd || *p == 0xa) { if (p[1] == (*p ^ 7)) ++p; if (delim == -1) *p = delim; } *q++ = *p; } *q = 0; // DIES HERE } This compiled and ran until it tried to set *q to 0...

  Read the article

• How can I avoid encoding mixups of strings in a C/C++ API?

  - by Frerich Raabe

  I'm working on implementing different APIs in C and C++ and wondered what techniques are available for avoiding that clients get the encoding wrong when receiving strings from the framework or passing them back. For instance, imagine a simple plugin API in C++ which customers can implement to influence translations. It might feature a function like this: const char *getTranslatedWord( const char *englishWord ); Now, let's say that I'd like to enforce that all strings are passed as UTF-8. Of course I'd document this requirement, but I'd like the compiler to enforce the right encoding, maybe by using dedicated types. For instance, something like this: class Word { public: static Word fromUtf8( const char *data ) { return Word( data ); } const char *toUtf8() { return m_data; } private: Word( const char *data ) : m_data( data ) { } const char *m_data; }; I could now use this specialized type in the API: Word getTranslatedWord( const Word &englishWord ); Unfortunately, it's easy to make this very inefficient. The Word class lacks proper copy constructors, assignment operators etc.. and I'd like to avoid unnecessary copying of data as much as possible. Also, I see the danger that Word gets extended with more and more utility functions (like length or fromLatin1 or substr etc.) and I'd rather not write Yet Another String Class. I just want a little container which avoids accidental encoding mixups. I wonder whether anybody else has some experience with this and can share some useful techniques. EDIT: In my particular case, the API is used on Windows and Linux using MSVC 6 - MSVC 10 on Windows and gcc 3 & 4 on Linux.

  Read the article

• null terminating a string

  - by robUK

  Hello, gcc 4.4.4 c89 just wondering what is the standard way to null terminate a string. i.e. However, when I use the NULL I get the warning message. *dest++ = 0; *dest++ = '\0'; *dest++ = NULL; /* Warning: Assignment takes integer from pointer without a cast */ source code I am using: size_t s_strscpy(char *dest, const char *src, const size_t len) { /* Copy the contents from src to dest */ size_t i = 0; for(i = 0; i < len; i++) *dest++ = *src++; /* Null terminate dest */ *dest++ = 0; return i; } Just another quick question. I deliberately commented out the line that null terminates. However, it still correctly printed out the contents of the dest. The caller of this function would send the length of the string by either included the NULL or not. i.e. strlen(src) + 1 or stlen(src). size_t s_strscpy(char *dest, const char *src, const size_t len) { /* Copy the contents from src to dest */ size_t i = 0; /* Don't copy the null terminator */ for(i = 0; i < len - 1; i++) *dest++ = *src++; /* Don't add the Null terminator */ /* *dest++ = 0; */ return i; } Many thanks for any advice,

  Read the article

• Inline function v. Macro in C -- What's the Overhead (Memory/Speed)?

  - by Jason R. Mick

  I searched Stack Overflow for the pros/cons of function-like macros v. inline functions. I found the following discussion: Pros and Cons of Different macro function / inline methods in C ...but it didn't answer my primary burning question. Namely, what is the overhead in c of using a macro function (with variables, possibly other function calls) v. an inline function, in terms of memory usage and execution speed? Are there any compiler-dependent differences in overhead? I have both icc and gcc at my disposal. My code snippet I'm modularizing is: double AttractiveTerm = pow(SigmaSquared/RadialDistanceSquared,3); double RepulsiveTerm = AttractiveTerm * AttractiveTerm; EnergyContribution += 4 * Epsilon * (RepulsiveTerm - AttractiveTerm); My reason for turning it into an inline function/macro is so I can drop it into a c file and then conditionally compile other similar, but slightly different functions/macros. e.g.: double AttractiveTerm = pow(SigmaSquared/RadialDistanceSquared,3); double RepulsiveTerm = pow(SigmaSquared/RadialDistanceSquared,9); EnergyContribution += 4 * Epsilon * (RepulsiveTerm - AttractiveTerm); (note the difference in the second line...) This function is a central one to my code and gets called thousands of times per step in my program and my program performs millions of steps. Thus I want to have the LEAST overhead possible, hence why I'm wasting time worrying about the overhead of inlining v. transforming the code into a macro. Based on the prior discussion I already realize other pros/cons (type independence and resulting errors from that) of macros... but what I want to know most, and don't currently know is the PERFORMANCE. I know some of you C veterans will have some great insight for me!!

  Read the article

• typedef struct, circular dependency, forward definitions

  - by BlueChip

  The problem I have is a circular dependency issue in C header files ...Having looked around I suspect the solution will have something to do with Forward Definitions, but although there are many similar problems listed, none seem to offer the information I require to resolve this one... I have the following 5 source files: // fwd1.h #ifndef __FWD1_H #define __FWD1_H #include "fwd2.h" typedef struct Fwd1 { Fwd2 *f; } Fwd1; void fwd1 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) ; #endif // __FWD1_H . // fwd1.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" void fwd1 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) { return; } . // fwd2.h #ifndef __FWD2_H #define __FWD2_H #include "fwd1.h" typedef struct Fwd2 { Fwd1 *f; } Fwd2; void fwd2 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) ; #endif // __FWD2_H . // fwd2.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" void fwd2 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) { return; } . // fwdMain.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" int main (int argc, char** argv, char** env) { Fwd1 *f1 = (Fwd1*)0; Fwd2 *f2 = (Fwd2*)0; fwd1(f1, f2); fwd2(f1, f2); return 0; } Which I am compiling with the command: gcc fwdMain.c fwd1.c fwd2.c -o fwd -Wall I have tried several ideas to resolve the compile errors, but have only managed to replace the errors with other errors ...How do I resolve the circular dependency issue with the least changes to my code? ...Ideally, as a matter of coding style, I would like to avoid putting the word "struct" all over my code.

  Read the article

• Can g++ fill uninitialized POD variables with known values?

  - by Bob Lied

  I know that Visual Studio under debugging options will fill memory with a known value. Does g++ (any version, but gcc 4.1.2 is most interesting) have any options that would fill an uninitialized local POD structure with recognizable values? struct something{ int a; int b; }; void foo() { something uninitialized; bar(uninitialized.b); } I expect uninitialized.b to be unpredictable randomness; clearly a bug and easily found if optimization and warnings are turned on. But compiled with -g only, no warning. A colleague had a case where code similar to this worked because it coincidentally had a valid value; when the compiler upgraded, it started failing. He thought it was because the new compiler was inserting known values into the structure (much the way that VS fills 0xCC). In my own experience, it was just different random values that didn't happen to be valid. But now I'm curious -- is there any setting of g++ that would make it fill memory that the standard would otherwise say should be uninitialized?

  Read the article

• Segmentation fault on returning from main (very short and simple code, no arrays or pointers)

  - by Gábor Kovács

  I've been wondering why the following trivial code produces a segmentation fault when returning from main(): //Produces "Error while dumping state (probably corrupted stack); Segmentation fault" #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <vector> using namespace std; class Test { vector<int> numbers; }; int main() { Test a; ifstream infile; cout << "Last statement..." << endl; // this gets executed return 0; } Interestingly, 1) if only one of the two variables is declared, I don't get the error, 2) if I declare a vector variable instead of an object with a vector member, everything's fine, 3) if I declare an ofstream instead of an ifstream, again, everything works fine. Something appears to be wrong with this specific combination... Could this be a compiler bug? I use gcc version 3.4.4 with cygwin. Thanks for the tips in advance. Gábor

  Read the article

• C++ template member specialization - is this a compiler limitation?

  - by LoudNPossiblyRight

  Is it possible to do this kind of specialization? If so, how? The specialization in question is marked //THIS SPECIALIZATION WILL NOT COMPILE I have used VS2008, VS2010, gcc 4.4.3 and neither can compile this. #include<iostream> #include<string> using namespace std; template <typename ALPHA> class klass{ public: template <typename BETA> void func(BETA B); }; template <typename ALPHA> template <typename BETA> void klass<ALPHA>::func(BETA B){ cout << "I AM A BETA FUNC: " << B <<endl; } //THIS SPECIALIZATION WILL NOT COMPILE template <typename ALPHA> template <> void klass<ALPHA>::func(string B){ cout << "I AM A SPECIAL BETA FUNC: " << B <<endl; } int main(){ klass<string> k; k.func(1); k.func("hello"); return 0; }

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  | Next Page >