Search Results

Search found 9647 results on 386 pages for 'cross compile'.

Page 81/386 | < Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >

  • How to stop C# compile on first error in VS 2010 (VS 2008 macros don't work)!

    - by Ben Robbins
    At work we have a C# solution with over 80 projects. Is it possible in VS 2010 to automatically stop compilation as soon as an error is encountered rather than the default behaviour which is to continue as far as possible and display a list of errors in the error window? I'm happy for it to stop either as soon as an error is encountered (file-level) or as soon as a project fails to build (project-level). I'd also note that in VS 2008 we used macros similar to some of the answers below but they don't work in VS 2010 (at least I couldn't get them to as the environment events don't seem to fire in VS 2010).

    Read the article

  • C# .net updates versus compile time debugging. How to stop the oddities?

    - by Fox Diller
    Are we reduced to ClickOnce to manage our application state for our users? We use Visual Patch currently. When our users update (we reproduced this) we get errors from the updated versions to our compiled versions. Since our developer state is not 'updated' with Visual Patch how can we monitor and eventual squash the various System.MethodNotFound, and System.NullReferenceException in our updated versions of our application?

    Read the article

  • C header file won't compile with C, but will with C++.

    - by Leif Andersen
    I have the following chunk of a header file BKE_mesh.h: /* Connectivity data */ typedef struct IndexNode { struct IndexNode *next, *prev; int index; } IndexNode; void create_vert_face_map(ListBase **map, IndexNode **mem, const struct MFace *mface, const int totvert, const int totface); void create_vert_edge_map(ListBase **map, IndexNode **mem, const struct MEdge *medge, const int totvert, const int totedge); Note that the header file was prepared for the possibility of being used in a C++ file, as it had: #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { #endif at the top of the file, and the needed finish at the bottom. But the class implementing it was written in C. Next, whenever I try to #include the header file, I get an odd error. If the file has a .cpp extension, it compiles just fine, no complaints whatsoever. However, if I do: #include "BKE_mesh.h" inside of a file with a .c extension, I get the following errors: expected ')' before '*' token for the two last functions, in specific, the variable: ListBase **map in both classes. (Note that earlier in the header file, it declared, but not defined ListBase). So, my question is: why is this valid C++ code, but not C code? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Designing an API with compile-time option to remove first parameter to most functions and use a glob

    - by tomlogic
    I'm trying to design a portable API in ANSI C89/ISO C90 to access a wireless networking device on a serial interface. The library will have multiple network layers, and various versions need to run on embedded devices as small as an 8-bit micro with 32K of code and 2K of data, on up to embedded devices with a megabyte or more of code and data. In most cases, the target processor will have a single network interface and I'll want to use a single global structure with all state information for that device. I don't want to pass a pointer to that structure through the network layers. In a few cases (e.g., device with more resources that needs to live on two networks) I will interface to multiple devices, each with their own global state, and will need to pass a pointer to that state (or an index to a state array) through the layers. I came up with two possible solutions, but neither one is particularly pretty. Keep in mind that the full driver will potentially be 20,000 lines or more, cover multiple files, and contain hundreds of functions. The first solution requires a macro that discards the first parameter for every function that needs to access the global state: // network.h typedef struct dev_t { int var; long othervar; char name[20]; } dev_t; #ifdef IF_MULTI #define foo_function( x, a, b, c) _foo_function( x, a, b, c) #define bar_function( x) _bar_function( x) #else extern dev_t DEV; #define IFACE (&DEV) #define foo_function( x, a, b, c) _foo_function( a, b, c) #define bar_function( x) _bar_function( ) #endif int bar_function( dev_t *IFACE); int foo_function( dev_t *IFACE, int a, long b, char *c); // network.c #ifndef IF_MULTI dev_t DEV; #endif int bar_function( dev_t *IFACE) { memset( IFACE, 0, sizeof *IFACE); return 0; } int foo_function( dev_t *IFACE, int a, long b, char *c) { bar_function( IFACE); IFACE->var = a; IFACE->othervar = b; strcpy( IFACE->name, c); return 0; } The second solution defines macros to use in the function declarations: // network.h typedef struct dev_t { int var; long othervar; char name[20]; } dev_t; #ifdef IF_MULTI #define DEV_PARAM_ONLY dev_t *IFACE #define DEV_PARAM DEV_PARAM_ONLY, #else extern dev_t DEV; #define IFACE (&DEV) #define DEV_PARAM_ONLY void #define DEV_PARAM #endif int bar_function( DEV_PARAM_ONLY); // I don't like the missing comma between DEV_PARAM and arg2... int foo_function( DEV_PARAM int a, long b, char *c); // network.c #ifndef IF_MULTI dev_t DEV; #endif int bar_function( DEV_PARAM_ONLY) { memset( IFACE, 0, sizeof *IFACE); return 0; } int foo_function( DEV_PARAM int a, long b, char *c) { bar_function( IFACE); IFACE->var = a; IFACE->othervar = b; strcpy( IFACE->name, c); return 0; } The C code to access either method remains the same: // multi.c - example of multiple interfaces #define IF_MULTI #include "network.h" dev_t if0, if1; int main() { foo_function( &if0, -1, 3.1415926, "public"); foo_function( &if1, 42, 3.1415926, "private"); return 0; } // single.c - example of a single interface #include "network.h" int main() { foo_function( 11, 1.0, "network"); return 0; } Is there a cleaner method that I haven't figured out? I lean toward the second since it should be easier to maintain, and it's clearer that there's some macro magic in the parameters to the function. Also, the first method requires prefixing the function names with "_" when I want to use them as function pointers. I really do want to remove the parameter in the "single interface" case to eliminate unnecessary code to push the parameter onto the stack, and to allow the function to access the first "real" parameter in a register instead of loading it from the stack. And, if at all possible, I don't want to have to maintain two separate codebases. Thoughts? Ideas? Examples of something similar in existing code? (Note that using C++ isn't an option, since some of the planned targets don't have a C++ compiler available.)

    Read the article

  • Cross platform millisecond timer lasting more than 49 days?

    - by Cetra
    Hey guys, I'm going to be developing a small dedicated server in C/C++ that will require uptime of forever. I've been looking into some time functions as millisecond timing is required for calculations. I have 2 problems that I'm facing: Using a 32bit integer to store the number of milliseconds since the operation began will wrap around at about the 49 days mark resetting to zero. There doesn't seem to be any standard system calls for getting elapsed milliseconds that are platform independant What should I do to resolve both these issues?

    Read the article

  • How to handle dependency files in a cross-platform manner?

    - by Brian Knoblauch
    I'm working on updating an old app. It has some dependency files that live in the same directory as the app. Obviously this broke when Windows Vista came out (since it violates the API and Vista/7 now enforce that (XP didn't)). Ideally, I'd like to avoid hardcoding anything into the app for just Windows. I can live with that if I have to though. I've already been down that path with pulling the APPDATA and LOCALAPPDATA environment variables, but that doesn't help any since they just give you the current user area... I need these to live somewhere accessible for all users, and I'd like to obey the Windows API expectations that they go into the all user appdata area. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • How to replace auto-implemented c# get body at runtime or compile time?

    - by qstarin
    I've been trying to figure this out all night, but I guess my knowledge of the .Net Framework just isn't that deep and the problem doesn't exactly Google well, but if I can get a nod in the right direction I'm sure I can implement it, one way or another. I'd like to be able to declare a property decorated with a custom attribute as such: public MyClass { [ReplaceWithExpressionFrom(typeof(SomeOtherClass))] public virtual bool MyProperty { get; } } public SomeOtherClass : IExpressionHolder<MyClass, bool> { ... } public interface IExpressionHolder<TArg, TResult> { Expression<Func<TArg, TResult>> Expression { get; } } And then somehow - this is the part I'm having trouble figuring - replace the automatically generated implementation of that getter with a piece of custom code, something like: Type expressionHolderType = LookupAttributeCtorArgTypeInDeclarationOfPropertyWereReplacing(); return ReplaceWithExpressionFromAttribute.GetCompiledExpressionFrom(expressionHolderType)(this); The main thing I'm not sure how to do is replace the automatic implementation of the get. The first thing that came to mind was PostSharp, but that's a more complicated dependency than I care for. I'd much prefer a way to code it without using post-processing attached to the build (I think that's the jist of how PostSharp sinks its hooks in anyway). The other part of this I'm not so sure about is how to retrieve the type parameter passed to the particular instantiation of the ReplaceWithExpressionFrom attribute (where it decorates the property whose body I want to replace; in other words, how do I get typeof(SomeOtherClass) where I'm coding the get body replacement). I plan to cache compiled expressions from concrete instances of IExpressionHolder, as I don't want to do that every time the property gets retrieved. I figure this has just got to be possible. At the very least I figure I should be able to search an assembly for any method decorated with the attribute and somehow proxy the class or just replace the IL or .. something? And I'd like to make the integration as smooth as possible, so if this can be done without explicitly calling a registration or initialization method somewhere that'd be super great. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Java JIT compiler compiles at compile time or runtime ?

    - by Tony
    From wiki: In computing, just-in-time compilation (JIT), also known as dynamic translation, is a technique for improving the runtime performance of a computer program. So I guess JVM has another compiler, not javac, that only compiles bytecode to machine code at runtime, while javac compiles sources to bytecode,is that right?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET: how can I compile in DEBUG mode?

    - by Budda
    AFAIK, usual ASP.NET web site/web application switched on into DEBUG mode when web/app-config setting "compilation" has debug="false". But I don't clearly understand how it works. Let's consider example: I have <compilation debug="true" />. I've added the following line into "Page_Load" method: System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Page_Load"); When I launched web-site in 'debug' mode (using F5 button) It put me 'Page_Load' into output window. Everything is ok so far. When I change application compilation mode into non-debug: Will it recompile everything for 'non-debug' mode? Is this enough to go into "production" environment with this change only? I guess, it should be enough for web-site that doesn't use other project. Otherwise, I would better switch whole configuration into "Release" mode. In this case EACH project will be recompiled in "Release" mode. Am I right? Could you please point me if something is wrong here? Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • What work has been done on cross-platform mobile development?

    - by Nicholas
    Have any well-documented or open source projects targeted iPhone, Blackberry, and Android? Are there other platforms which are better-suited to such an endeavor? Note that I am particularly asking about client-side software, not web apps, though any information about the difficulties of using web apps across multiple mobile platforms is also interesting.

    Read the article

  • Can I create a cross-project source reference in redmine?

    - by UlfR
    If you have two separate projects that is somehow connected. How can one make a reference to the source of the other project? For referencing the source of your own project you use: source:some/file But since I want to refer to code in another project my thought was that I could write something like: other_project:source:some/file Anyone that knows if this is possible in some way? I have read http://www.redmine.org/wiki/redmine/RedmineTextFormatting#Redmine-links but found no clues there.

    Read the article

  • C# Why does code compile fine when there is an ambiguous virtual method?

    - by Jimbo
    I have a class (Class B) that inherits another class (Class A) that contains virtual methods. Mistakenly, I omitted the override keyword when declaring a (supposed to be) overriding method in Class B. Class A public class ClassA{ public virtual void TestMethod(){ } } Class B public class ClassB : ClassA{ public void TestMethod(){ } } The code compiled without a problem. Can anyone explain why?

    Read the article

  • How to strip debug code during compile time in C++?

    - by juvenis
    Say I have a C++ function debugPrint(int foo). How can I most conveniently strip that from release builds? I do not want to surround every call to debugPrint with #ifdefs as it would be really time consuming. On the other hand, I want to be 100% sure that the compiler strips all the calls to that function, and the function itself from release builds. The stripping should happen also, if it's called with a parameter that results from a function call. E.g., debugPrint(getFoo());. In that case I want also the getFoo() call to be stripped. I understand that function inlining could be an option, but inlining is not guaranteed to be supported.

    Read the article

  • Should I use an interface or factory (and interface) for a cross-platform implementation?

    - by nbolton
    Example A: // pseudo code interface IFoo { void bar(); } class FooPlatformA : IFoo { void bar() { /* ... */ } } class FooPlatformB : IFoo { void bar() { /* ... */ } } class Foo : IFoo { IFoo m_foo; public Foo() { if (detectPlatformA()} { m_foo = new FooPlatformA(); } else { m_foo = new FooPlatformB(); } } // wrapper function - downside is we'd have to create one // of these for each function, which doesn't seem right. void bar() { m_foo.bar(); } } Main() { Foo foo = new Foo(); foo.bar(); } Example B: // pseudo code interface IFoo { void bar(); } class FooPlatformA : IFoo { void bar() { /* ... */ } } class FooPlatformB : IFoo { void bar() { /* ... */ } } class FooFactory { IFoo newFoo() { if (detectPlatformA()} { return new FooPlatformA(); } else { return new FooPlatformB(); } } } Main() { FooFactory factory = new FooFactory(); IFoo foo = factory.newFoo(); foo.bar(); } Which is the better option, example A, B, neither, or "it depends"?

    Read the article

  • Where to find algorithms for standard math functions?

    - by dsimcha
    I'm looking to submit a patch to the D programming language standard library that will allow much of std.math to be evaluated at compile time using the compile-time function evaluation facilities of the language. Compile-time function evaluation has several limitations, the most important ones being: You can't use assembly language. You can't call C code or code for which the source is otherwise unavailable. Several std.math functions violate these and compile-time versions need to be written. Where can I get information on good algorithms for computing things such as logarithms, exponents, powers, and trig functions? I prefer just high level descriptions of algorithms to actual code, for two reasons: To avoid legal ambiguity and the need to make my code look "different enough" from the source to make sure I own the copyright. I want simple, portable algorithms. I don't care about micro-optimization as long as they're at least asymptotically efficient. Edit: D's compile time function evaluation model allows floating point results computed at compile time to differ from those computed at runtime anyhow, so I don't care if my compile-time algorithms don't give exactly the same result as the runtime version as long as they aren't less accurate to a practically significant extent.

    Read the article

  • Don Knuth and MMIXAL vs. Chuck Moore and Forth -- Algorithms and Ideal Machines -- was there cross-pollination / influence in their ideas / work?

    - by AKE
    Question: To what extent is it known (or believed) that Chuck Moore and Don Knuth had influence on each other's thoughts on ideal machines, or their work on algorithms? I'm interested in citations, interviews, articles, links, or any other sort of evidence. It could also be evidence of the form of A and B here suggest that Moore might have borrowed or influenced C and D from Knuth here, or vice versa. (Opinions are of course welcome, but references / links would be better!) Context: Until fairly recently, I have been primarily familiar with Knuth's work on algorithms and computing models, mostly through TAOCP but also through his interviews and other writings. However, the more I have been using Forth, the more I am struck by both the power of a stack-based machine model, and the way in which the spareness of the model makes fundamental algorithmic improvements more readily apparent. A lot of what Knuth has done in fundamental analysis of algorithms has, it seems to me, a very similar flavour, and I can easily imagine that in a parallel universe, Knuth might perhaps have chosen Forth as his computing model. That's the software / algorithms / programming side of things. When it comes to "ideal computing machines", Knuth in the 70s came up with the MIX computer model, and then, collaborating with designers of state-of-the-art RISC chips through the 90s, updated this with the modern MMIX model and its attendant assembly language MMIXAL. Meanwhile, Moore, having been using and refining Forth as a language, but using it on top of whatever processor happened to be in the computer he was programming, began to imagine a world in which the efficiency and value of stack-based programming were reflected in hardware. So he went on in the 80s to develop his own stack-based hardware chips, defining the term MISC (Minimal Instruction Set Computers) along the way, and ending up eventually with the first Forth chip, the MuP21. Both are brilliant men with keen insight into the art of programming and algorithms, and both work at the intersection between algorithms, programs, and bare metal hardware (i.e. hardware without the clutter of operating systems). Which leads me to the headlined question... Question:To what extent is it known (or believed) that Chuck Moore and Don Knuth had influence on each other's thoughts on ideal machines, or their work on algorithms?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >