Search Results

Search found 11618 results on 465 pages for 'shared storage'.

Page 89/465 | < Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >

  • Java Thread - Memory consistency errors

    - by Yatendra Goel
    I was reading a Sun's tutorial on Concurrency. But I couldn't understand exactly what memory consistency errors are? I googled about that but didn't find any helpful tutorial or article about that. I know that this question is a subjective one, so you can provide me links to articles on the above topic. It would be great if you explain it with a simple example.

    Read the article

  • Advice for keeping large C++ project modular?

    - by Jay
    Our team is moving into much larger projects in size, many of which use several open source projects within them. Any advice or best practices to keep libraries and dependancies relatively modular and easily upgradable when new releases for them are out? To put it another way, lets say you make a program that is a fork of an open source project. As both projects grow, what is the easiest way to maintain and share updates to the core? Advice regarding what I'm asking only please...I don't need "well you should do this instead" or "why are you"..thanks.

    Read the article

  • `enable_shared_from_this` has a non-virtual destructor

    - by Shtééf
    I have a pet project with which I experiment with new features of the upcoming C++0x standard. While I have experience with C, I'm fairly new to C++. To train myself into best practices, (besides reading a lot), I have enabled some strict compiler parameters (using GCC 4.4.1): -std=c++0x -Werror -Wall -Winline -Weffc++ -pedantic-errors This has worked fine for me. Until now, I have been able to resolve all obstacles. However, I have a need for enable_shared_from_this, and this is causing me problems. I get the following warning (error, in my case) when compiling my code (probably triggered by -Weffc++): base class ‘class std::enable_shared_from_this<Package>’ has a non-virtual destructor So basically, I'm a bit bugged by this implementation of enable_shared_from_this, because: A destructor of a class that is intended for subclassing should always be virtual, IMHO. The destructor is empty, why have it at all? I can't imagine anyone would want to delete their instance by reference to enable_shared_from_this. But I'm looking for ways to deal with this, so my question is really, is there a proper way to deal with this? And: am I correct in thinking that this destructor is bogus, or is there a real purpose to it?

    Read the article

  • Multiset of shared_ptrs as a dynamic priority queue: Concept and practice

    - by Sarah
    I was using a vector-based priority queue typedef std::priority_queue< Event, vector< Event >, std::greater< Event > > EventPQ; to manage my Event objects. Now my simulation has to be able to find and delete certain Event objects not at the top of the queue. I'd like to know if my planned work-around can do what I need it to, and if I have the syntax right. I'd also like to know if dramatically better solutions exist. My plan is to make EventPQ a multiset of smart pointers to Event objects: typedef std::multi_set< boost::shared_ptr< Event > > EventPQ; I'm borrowing functions of the Event class from a related post on a multimap priority queue. // Event.h #include <cstdlib> using namespace std; #include <set> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> class Event; typedef std::multi_set< boost::shared_ptr< Event > > EventPQ; class Event { public: Event( double t, int eid, int hid ); ~Event(); void add( EventPQ& q ); void remove(); bool operator < ( const Event & rhs ) const { return ( time < rhs.time ); } bool operator > ( const Event & rhs ) const { return ( time > rhs.time ); } double time; int eventID; int hostID; EventPQ* mq; EventPQ::iterator mIt; }; // Event.cpp Event::Event( double t, int eid, int hid ) { time = t; eventID = eid; hostID = hid; } Event::~Event() {} void Event::add( EventPQ& q ) { mq = &q; mIt = q.insert( boost::shared_ptr<Event>(this) ); } void Event::remove() { mq.erase( mIt ); mq = 0; mIt = EventPQ::iterator(); } I was hoping that by making EventPQ a container of pointers, I could avoid wasting time copying Events into the container and avoid accidentally editing the wrong copy. Would it be dramatically easier to store the Events themselves in EventPQ instead? Does it make more sense to remove the time keys from Event objects and use them instead as keys in a multimap? Assuming the current implementation seems okay, my questions are: Do I need to specify how to sort on the pointers, rather than the objects, or does the multiset automatically know to sort on the objects pointed to? If I have a shared_ptr ptr1 to an Event that also has a pointer in the EventPQ container, how do I find and delete the corresponding pointer in EventPQ? Is it enough to .find( ptr1 ), or do I instead have to find by the key (time)? Is the Event::remove() sufficient for removing the pointer in the EventPQ container? There's a small chance multiple events could be created with the same time (obviously implied in the use of multiset). If the find() works on event times, to avoid accidentally deleting the wrong event, I was planning to throw in a further check on eventID and hostID. Does this seem reasonable? (Dumb syntax question) In Event.h, is the declaration of dummy class Event;, then the EventPQ typedef, and then the real class Event declaration appropriate? I'm obviously an inexperienced programmer with very spotty background--this isn't for homework. Would love suggestions and explanations. Please let me know if any part of this is confusing. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to install the program depending on libstdc++ library

    - by Alex Farber
    My program is written in C++, using GCC on Ubuntu 9.10 64 bit. If depends on /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 which actually points to /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13. Now I copy this program to virgin Ubuntu 7.04 system and try to run it. It doesn't run, as expected. Then I add to the program directory the following files: libstdc++.so.6.0.13 libstdc++.so.6 (links to libstdc++.so.6.0.13) and execute command: LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./myprogram Now everything is OK. The question: how can I write installation script for such program? myprogram file itself should be placed to /usr/local/bin. What can I do with dependencies? For example, on destination computer, /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 link points to /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.8. What can I do with this? Note: the program is closed-source, I cannot provide source code and makefile.

    Read the article

  • Same address, multiple shared_ptr counters, is it forbidden by C++ standard?

    - by icando
    Suppose I have some needs to do the following (This is just some imaginative code for discussion of the C++ standard, thus I won't discuss why I design it this way, so don't bother me something like: your design is wrong.) T* ptr = new T; shared_ptr<T> p(ptr); shared_ptr<T> q(ptr, SomeDeleterThatDoesnotDeleteButDoSomeOtherStuff()); Suppose the logic guarantees that p or some of its copies lives longer than any copies of q, so practically there won't be any problem. My question is, is it forbidden by C++ standard, e.g. explicitly stated as UB by C++ standard, that different shared_ptr counters share the same address? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the boost::shared_ptr -> operator inlined?

    - by Alan
    Since boost::shared_ptr could be called very frequently and simply returns a pointer, isn't the -> operator a good candidate for being inlined? T * operator-> () const // never throws { BOOST_ASSERT(px != 0); return px; } Would a good compiler automatically inline this anyway? Should I lose any sleep over this? :-)

    Read the article

  • Which libraries use the "We Know Where You Live" optimization for std::make_shared?

    - by KnowItAllWannabe
    Over two years ago, Stephan T. Lavavej described a space-saving optimization he implemented in Microsoft's implementation of std::make_shared, and I know from speaking with him that Microsoft has nothing against other library implementations adopting this optimization. If you know for sure whether other libraries (e.g., for Gnu C++, Clang, Intel C++, plus Boost (for boost::make_shared)) have adopted this implementation, please contribute an answer. I don't have ready access to that many make_shared implementations, nor am I wild about digging into the bowels of the ones I have to see if they've implemented the WKWYL optimization, but I'm hoping that SO readers know the answers for some libraries off-hand. I know from looking at the code that as of Boost 1.52, the WKWYL optimization had not been implemented, but Boost is now up to version 1.55. Note that this optimization is different from std::make_shared's ability to avoid a dedicated heap allocation for the reference count used by std::shared_ptr. For a discussion of the difference between WKWYL and that optimication, consult this question.

    Read the article

  • PHP: Mapped Network Drives

    - by Abs
    Hello all, I have mapped a network drive to a computer in my home network. Now I am trying to access it via PHP - I did this quick test: echo opendir('Z:\\'); This gives me: Warning: opendir(Z:\) [function.opendir]: failed to open dir: No error in C:\wamp\www\webs\tester-function.php on line 3 What have I done wrong here? I don't want my users typing in the UNC path so is there a way to get the UNC path for them and maybe that will work when I try to access it? This is possible in Microsoft languages but I am not sure how to get PHP to do this - maybe using a cmd.exe command? Please note, the mapped drive does exist as I can see it and I can access it. It also does not appear to be a permissions problem as I am assuming it would of complained about this IF it could access that drive...right? Thanks all for any help

    Read the article

  • shared_ptr as class member

    - by idimba
    It's common to declared contained objects as a pointers to that class, while "forward declarating" them in header file. This in order to reduce physical dependencies in code. For example class B; // forward declaration class A { private: B* pB; }; Would it be good idea to declare such a member as shared_ptr, instead of naked pointer? I would prefer scoped_ptr, but AFAIKit it won't be in standard.

    Read the article

  • C - fork() and sharing memory

    - by Ben
    I need my parent and child process to both be able to read and write the same variable (of type int) so it is "global" between the two processes. I'm assuming this would use some sort of cross-process communication and have one variable on one process being updated. I did a quick google and IPC and various techniques come up but I don't know which is the most suitable for my situation. So what technique is best and could you provide a link to a noobs tutorial for it. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • C++ static classes & shared_ptr memory leaks

    - by HardCoder1986
    Hello! I can't understand why does the following code produce memory leaks (I am using boost::shared_ptr with static class instance). Could someone help me? #include <crtdbg.h> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> using boost::shared_ptr; #define _CRTDBG_MAP_ALLOC #define NEW new(_NORMAL_BLOCK, __FILE__, __LINE__) static struct myclass { static shared_ptr<int> ptr; myclass() { ptr = shared_ptr<int>(NEW int); } } myclass_instance; shared_ptr<int> myclass::ptr; int main() { _CrtSetDbgFlag(_CRTDBG_ALLOC_MEM_DF | _CRTDBG_LEAK_CHECK_DF | _CRTDBG_CHECK_ALWAYS_DF | _CrtSetDbgFlag(_CRTDBG_REPORT_FLAG)); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • C++/Qt - Memory allocation question

    - by HardCoder1986
    Hello! I recently started investigating Qt for myself and have the following question: Suppose I have some QTreeWidget* widget. At some moment I want to add some items to it and this is done via the following call: QList<QTreeWidgetItem*> items; // Prepare the items QTreeWidgetItem* item1 = new QTreeWidgetItem(...); QTreeWidgetItem* item2 = new QTreeWidgetItem(...); items.append(item1); items.append(item2); widget->addTopLevelItems(items); So far it looks ok, but I don't actually understand who should control the objects' lifetime. I should explain this with an example: Let's say, another function calls widget->clear();. I don't know what happens beneath this call but I do think that memory allocated for item1 and item2 doesn't get disposed here, because their ownage wasn't actually transfered. And, bang, we have a memory leak. The question is the following - does Qt have something to offer for this kind of situation? I could use boost::shared_ptr or any other smart pointer and write something like shared_ptr<QTreeWidgetItem> ptr(new QTreeWidgetItem(...)); items.append(ptr.get()); but I don't know if the Qt itself would try to make explicit delete calls on my pointers (which would be disastrous since I state them as shared_ptr-managed). How would you solve this problem? Maybe everything is evident and I miss something really simple?

    Read the article

  • Force an object to be allocated on the heap

    - by Warren Seine
    A C++ class I'm writing uses shared_from_this() to return a valid boost::shared_ptr<>. Besides, I don't want to manage memory for this kind of object. At the moment, I'm not restricting the way the user allocates the object, which causes an error if shared_from_this() is called on a stack-allocated object. I'd like to force the object to be allocated with new and managed by a smart pointer, no matter how the user declares it. I thought it could be done through a proxy or an overloaded new operator, but I can't find a proper way of doing that. Is there a common design pattern for such usage? If it's not possible, how can I test it at compile time?

    Read the article

  • What factors could cause the scalability issue on a 10-core CPU?

    - by JackWM
    I am tuning the performance of parallel Java programs. And want to check the impacts from the Architecture. I'm look into the Intel 10-core CPU, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-L8867. I found my program only scales up to 5 cores. What could be the causes? I'm considering the Architecture effects. e.g. memory contention? More specifically, Are the 10 cores symmetric to each other? How many memory controllers does it have?

    Read the article

  • Why is std::tr1::shared_ptr<>.reset() so expensive?

    - by Paul Oyster
    Profiling some code that heavily uses shared_ptrs, I discovered that reset() was surprisingly expensive. For example: struct Test { int i; Test() { this->i = 0; } Test(int i) { this->i = i; } } ; ... auto t = make_shared<Test>(1); ... t.reset(somePointerToATestObject); Tracing the reset() in the last line (under VC++ 2010), I discovered that it creates a new reference-counting object. Is there a cheaper way, that reuses the existing ref-count and does not bother the heap?

    Read the article

  • Can Silverlight be linked with a C++ static library ?

    - by Niklaos
    Hi, I'm currently doing research to start a new project. This project will be in 2 parts a light Client (probably console) and an heavy one using silverlight. The light client must be cross-platform. However, they will both use the same Core (by the way, the core will need to use the sockets). I'd like to use C++ to build the light client but given that the core is common to both applications, it would be much appreciated if it's could be the same code. So the question is quite simple : Can Silverlight be compilated with a C++ static library ? And if it's possible, what about cross-platform issues (with moonlight) ? If it's not possible. Which language can i use to work with silverlight while being cross-platform ? Because of performance, a compilated language will be better ! Thanks for your expertise :)

    Read the article

  • Unsafe, super-fast cross-process memory buffer?

    - by John
    Cross-process memory buffers always have some overhead, and my understanding is this is quite high. But what if you're implementing a cross-process render-buffer, this isn't critically important in the same way as other data so are there techniques we can use to get 'raw' access to a chunk of memory from multiple processes, with no safety nets apart from it not crashing? Or do modern operating systems simply not work with unabstracted memory in a way to make this possible? I'm working in C++ but the question applies to Win XP/Vista/7, MacOSX 10.5+ (& Linux less importantly).

    Read the article

  • C++: how to build my own utility library?

    - by augustin
    I am starting to be proficient enough with C++ so that I can write my own C++ based scripts (to replace bash and PHP scripts I used to write before). I find that I am starting to have a very small collection of utility functions and sub-routines that I'd like to use in several, otherwise unrelated C++ scripts. I know I am not supposed to reinvent the wheel and that I could use external libraries for some of the utilities I'm creating for myself. However, it's fun to create my own utility functions, they are perfectly tailored to the job I have in mind, and it's for me a large part of the learning process. I'll see about using more polished external libraries when I am proficient enough to work on more serious, long term projects. So, the question is: how do I manage my personal utility library in a way that the functions can be easily included in my various scripts? I am using linux/Kubuntu, vim, g++, etc. and mostly coding CLI scripts. Don't assume too much in terms of experience! ;) Links to tutorials or places where relevant topics are properly documented are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Does OpenCL allow concurrent writes to same memory address?

    - by Wonko
    Is two (or more) different threads allowed to write to the same memory location in global space in OpenCL? The write is always changing a uchar from 0 to 1 so the outcome should be predictable, but I'm getting erratic results in my program, so I'm wondering if the reason can be that some of the writes fail. Could it help to declare the buffer write-only and copy it to a read-only buffer afterwards?

    Read the article

  • How to track folder permission event?

    - by Sushant
    Hi, This is about folder level permissions. We have a document library with break inheritance. While adding folders, sub folders through code, again we coded for break inheritance. Now the requirement is, when a user/group is added to subfolder permission list, we need to track this event. Which sharepoint event do we use and on what level. Please help.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >