Search Results

Search found 43467 results on 1739 pages for 'member function pointers'.

Page 81/1739 | < Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • std::cin >> *aa results in a bus error

    - 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

  • Simple dynamic memory allocation bug.

    - by M4design
    I'm sure you (pros) can identify the bug's' in my code, I also would appreciate any other comments on my code. BTW, the code crashes after I run it. #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdbool.h> typedef struct { int x; int y; } Location; typedef struct { bool walkable; unsigned char walked; // number of times walked upon } Cell; typedef struct { char name[40]; // Name of maze Cell **grid; // 2D array of cells int rows; // Number of rows int cols; // Number of columns Location entrance; } Maze; Maze *maz_new() { int i = 0; Maze *mazPtr = (Maze *)malloc(sizeof (Maze)); if(!mazPtr) { puts("The memory couldn't be initilised, Press ENTER to exit"); getchar(); exit(-1); } else { // allocating memory for the grid mazPtr->grid = (Cell **) malloc((sizeof (Cell)) * (mazPtr->rows)); for(i = 0; i < mazPtr->rows; i++) mazPtr->grid[i] = (Cell *) malloc((sizeof (Cell)) * (mazPtr->cols)); } return mazPtr; } void maz_delete(Maze *maz) { int i = 0; if (maz != NULL) { for(i = 0; i < maz->rows; i++) free(maz->grid[i]); free(maz->grid); } } int main() { Maze *ptr = maz_new(); maz_delete(ptr); getchar(); return 0; } Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Segmentation fault on writing char to char* address

    - by Lukas Dojcak
    hi guys, i've got problem with my little C program. Maybe you could help me. char* shiftujVzorku(char* text, char* pattern, int offset){ char* pom = text; int size = 0; int index = 0; while(*(text + size) != '\0'){ size++; } while(*(pom + index) != '\0'){ if(overVzorku(pom + index, pattern)){ while(*pattern != '\0'){ //vyment *pom s *pom + offset if(pom + index + offset < text + size){ char x = *(pom + index + offset); char y = *(pom + index); int adresa = *(pom + index + offset); *(pom + index + offset) = y; <<<<<< SEGMENTATION FAULT *(pom + index) = x; //*pom = *pom - *(pom + offset); //*(pom + offset) = *(pom + offset) + *pom; //*pom = *(pom + offset) - *pom; } else{ *pom = *pom - *(pom + offset - size); *(pom + offset - size) = *(pom + offset - size) + *pom; *pom = *(pom + offset - size) - *pom; } pattern++; } break; } index++; } return text; } Isn't important what's the programm doing. Mayby there's lot of bugs. But, why do I get SEGMENTATION FAULT (for destination see code) at this line? I'm, trying to write some char value to memory space, with help of address "pom + offset + index". Thanks for everything helpful. :)

    Read the article

  • Is auto_ptr deprecated?

    - by idimba
    Is auto_ptr deprecated in incomming C++ standard? Is unique_ptr should be used for ownershipt transfer instead of share ptr? If unique_ptr is not in standard, than do I need use shared_ptr instead?

    Read the article

  • pointer and reference question (linked lists)

    - by sil3nt
    Hi there, I have the following code struct Node { int accnumber; float balance; Node *next; }; Node *A, *B; int main() { A = NULL; B = NULL; AddNode(A, 123, 99.87); AddNode(B, 789, 52.64); etc… } void AddNode(Node * & listpointer, int a, float b) { // add a new node to the FRONT of the list Node *temp; temp = new Node; temp->accnumber = a; temp->balance = b; temp->next = listpointer; listpointer = temp; } in this here void AddNode(Node * & listpointer, int a, float b) { what does *& listpointer mean exactly.

    Read the article

  • Pointer initialization

    - by SoulBeaver
    Sorry if this question has been asked before. On my search through SO I didn't find one that asked what I wanted to know. Basically, when I have this: typedef struct node { int data; node *node; } *head; and do node *newItem = new node; I am under the impression that I am declaring and reserving space, but not defining, a pointer to struct node, is that correct? So when I do newItem->data = 100 and newItem->next = 0 I get confused. newItem = 0would declare what exactly? Both data and next? The object as a whole? I'm especially confused when I use typedef. Which part is the macro? I assume node because that's how I call it, but why do I need it? Finally, what happens when I do: node *temp; temp = new node; temp = head->next; head->next = newItem; newItem->next = temp; I mean, head-next is a pointer pointing to object newItem, so I assume not to newItem.data or next themselves. So how can I use an uninitialized pointer that I described above safely like here? is head now not pointing to an uninitialized pointer?

    Read the article

  • Explain this C# code: byte* p = (byte*) (void*) Scan0;

    - by qulzam
    I found the code from the net in which i cant understand this line:- byte* p = (byte*)(void*)Scan0; There Scan0 is System.IntPtr. It is code of C#.Net. Plz Explain the above line. The complete code is given below. this is code to convert a image in grayscale. public static Image GrayScale(Bitmap b) { BitmapData bmData = b.LockBits(new Rectangle(0, 0, b.Width, b.Height), ImageLockMode.ReadWrite, PixelFormat.Format24bppRgb); int stride = bmData.Stride; System.IntPtr Scan0 = bmData.Scan0; unsafe { byte* p = (byte*)(void*)Scan0; int nOffset = stride - b.Width * 3; byte red, green, blue; for (int y = 0; y < b.Height; ++y) { for (int x = 0; x < b.Width; ++x) { blue = p[0]; green = p[1]; red = p[2]; p[0] = p[1] = p[2] = (byte)(.299 * red + .587 * green + .114 * blue); p += 3; } p += nOffset; } } b.UnlockBits(bmData); return (Image)b; } I understand all the code but only have the problem on this line. byte* p = (byte*)(void*)Scan0;

    Read the article

  • How can I free all allocated memory at once?

    - by Tommy
    Here is what I am working with: char* qdat[][NUMTBLCOLS]; char** tdat[]; char* ptr_web_data; // Loop thru each table row of the query result set for(row_index = 0; row_index < number_rows; row_index++) { // Loop thru each column of the query result set and extract the data for(col_index = 0; col_index < number_cols; col_index++) { ptr_web_data = (char*) malloc((strlen(Data) + 1) * sizeof(char)); memcpy (ptr_web_data, column_text, strlen(column_text) + 1); qdat[row_index][web_data_index] = ptr_web_data; } } tdat[row_index] = qdat[col_index]; After the data is used, the memory allocated is released one at a time using free(). for(row_index = 0; row_index < number_rows; row_index++) { // Loop thru all columns used for(col_index = 0; col_index < SARWEBTBLCOLS; col_index++) { // Free memory block pointed to by results set array free(tdat[row_index][col_index]); } } Is there a way to release all the allocated memory at once, for this array? Thank You.

    Read the article

  • C++: casting to void* and back

    - by MInner
    * ---Edit - now the whole sourse* When I debug it on the end, "get" and "value" have different values! Probably, I convert to void* and back to User the wrong way? #include <db_cxx.h> #include <stdio.h> struct User{ User(){} int name; int town; User(int a){}; inline int get_index(int a){ return town; } //for another stuff }; int main(){ try { DbEnv* env = new DbEnv(NULL); env->open("./", DB_CREATE | DB_INIT_MPOOL | DB_THREAD | DB_INIT_LOCK | DB_INIT_TXN | DB_RECOVER | DB_INIT_LOG, 0); Db* datab = new Db(env, 0); datab->open(NULL, "db.dbf", NULL, DB_BTREE, DB_CREATE | DB_AUTO_COMMIT, 0); Dbt key, value, get; char a[10] = "bbaaccd"; User u; u.name = 1; u.town = 34; key.set_data(a); key.set_size(strlen(a) + 1 ); value.set_data((void*)&u); value.set_size(sizeof(u)); get.set_flags(DB_DBT_MALLOC); DbTxn* txn; env->txn_begin(NULL, &txn, 0); datab->put(txn, &key, &value, 0); datab->get(txn, &key, &get, 0); txn->commit(0); User g; g = *((User*)&get); printf("%d", g.town); getchar(); return 0; }catch (DbException &e){ printf("%s", e.what()); getchar(); } solution create a kind of "serializator" what would convert all POD's into void* and then will unite these pieces PS Or I'd rewrite User into POD type and everything will be all right, I hope. Add It's strange, but... I cast a defenetly non-pod object to void* and back (it has std::string inside) and it's all right (without sending it to the db and back). How could it be? And after I cast and send 'trough' db defenetly pod object (no extra methods, all members are pod, it's a simple struct {int a; int b; ...}) I get back dirted one. What's wrong with my approach? Add about week after first 'add' Damn... I've compiled it ones, just for have a look at which kind of dirt it returnes, and oh! it's okay!... I can't ! ... AAh!.. Lord... A reasonable question (in 99.999 percent of situations right answer is 'my', but... here...) - whos is this fault? My or VSs?

    Read the article

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