Search Results

Search found 3887 results on 156 pages for 'pointer arithmetic'.

Page 9/156 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • How does delete deal with pointer constness?

    - by aJ
    I was reading this question Deleting a const pointer and wanted to know more about delete behavior. Now, as per my understanding: delete expression works in two steps: invoke destructor then releases the memory (often with a call to free()) by calling operator delete. operator delete accepts a void*. As part of a test program I overloaded operator delete and found that operator delete doesn't accept const pointer. Since operator delete does not accept const pointer and delete internally calls operator delete, how does Deleting a const pointer work ? Does delete uses const_cast internally?

    Read the article

  • Official names for pointer operators

    - by FredOverflow
    What are the official names for the operators * and & in the context of pointers? They seem to be frequently called dereference operator and address-of operator respectively, but unfortunately, the section on unary operators in the standard does not name them. I really don't want to name & address-of anymore, because & returns a pointer, not an address. (A pointer is a language mechanism, while an address is an implementation detail. Addresses are untyped, while pointers aren't, except for void*.) The standard is very clear about this: The result of the unary & operator is a pointer to its operand. Symmetry suggests to name & reference operator which is a little unfortunate because of the collision with references in C++. The fact that & returns a pointer suggests pointer operator. Are there any official sources that would confirm these (or other) namings?

    Read the article

  • What's your preferred pointer declaration style, and why?

    - by Owen
    I know this is about as bad as it gets for "religious" issues, as Jeff calls them. But I want to know why the people who disagree with me on this do so, and hear their justification for their horrific style. I googled for a while and couldn't find a style guide talking about this. So here's how I feel pointers (and references) should be declared: int* pointer = NULL; int& ref = *pointer; int*& pointer_ref = pointer; The asterisk or ampersand goes with the type, because it modifies the type of the variable being declared. EDIT: I hate to keep repeating the word, but when I say it modifies the type I'm speaking semantically. "int* something;" would translate into English as something like "I declare something, which is a pointer to an integer." The "pointer" goes along with the "integer" much more so than it does with the "something." In contrast, the other uses of the ampersand and asterisk, as address-of and dereferencing operators, act on a variable. Here are the other two styles (maybe there are more but I really hope not): int *ugly_but_common; int * uglier_but_fortunately_less_common; Why? Really, why? I can never think of a case where the second is appropriate, and the first only suitable perhaps with something like: int *hag, *beast; But come now... multiple variable declarations on one line is kind of ugly form in itself already.

    Read the article

  • Double pointer const-correctness warnings in C

    - by Michael Koval
    You can obviously cast a pointer to non-const data to a a pointer of the same type to const data: int *x = NULL; int const *y = x; Adding additional const qualifiers to match the additional indirection should logically work the same way: int * *x = NULL; int *const *y = x; /* okay */ int const *const *z = y; /* warning */ Compiling this with GCC or Clang with the -Wall flag, however, results in the following warning: test.c:4:23: warning: initializing 'int const *const *' with an expression of type 'int *const *' discards qualifiers in nested pointer types int const *const *z = y; /* warning */ ^ ~ Why does adding an additional const qualifier "discard qualifiers in nested pointer types"?

    Read the article

  • Why implement DB connection pointer object as a reference counting pointer? (C++)

    - by DVK
    At our company one of the core C++ classes (Database connection pointer) is implemented as a reference counting pointer. To be clear, the objects are NOT DB connections themselves, but pointers to a DB connection object. The library is very old, and nobody who designed is around anymore. So far, nether I, nor any C++ experts in the company that I asked have come up with a good reason for why this particular design was chosen. Any ideas? It is introducing some problems (partially due to awful reference pointer implementation used), and I'm trying to understand if this design actually has some deep underlying reasons? The usage pattern these days seems to be that the DB connection pointer object is returned by a DB connection manager class, and it's somewhat unclear whether DB connection pointers were designed to be able to be used independently of DB connection manager.

    Read the article

  • LLVM: Passing a pointer to a struct, which holds a pointer to a function, to a JIT function

    - by Rusky
    I have an LLVM (version 2.7) module with a function that takes a pointer to a struct. That struct contains a function pointer to a C++ function. The module function is going to be JIT-compiled, and I need to build that struct in C++ using the LLVM API. I can't seem get the pointer to the function as an LLVM value, let alone pass a pointer to the ConstantStruct that I can't build. I'm not sure if I'm even on the track, but this is what I have so far: void print(char*); vector<Constant*> functions; functions.push_back(ConstantExpr::getIntToPtr( ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt32Ty(context), (int)print), /* function pointer type here, FunctionType::get(...) doesn't seem to work */ )); ConstantStruct* struct = cast<ConstantStruct>(ConstantStruct::get( cast<StructType>(m->getTypeByName("printer")), functions )); Function* main = m->getFunction("main"); vector<GenericValue> args; args[0].PointerVal = /* not sure what goes here */ ee->runFunction(main, args);

    Read the article

  • How to assign a value to an pointer-pointer passed in call by reference?

    - by mystify
    I want to achieve something similar to what these guys do here: - (NSUInteger)countForFetchRequest:(NSFetchRequest *)request error:(NSError **)error like you can see, you pass an NSError pointer and that nice method will assign a real NSError object to your pointer in case there is an error. So the cool thing about this is, that the method returns an NSUInteger but can ALSO return an NSError, without having to mess around with ugly and fat arrays or dictionaries. So how could I assign an object to the passed-in error pointer?

    Read the article

  • Initializing and accessing a pointer from an array of pointers

    - by idealistikz
    Suppose I have the following: void **Init(int numElems) { //What is the best way to intialize 'ptrElems' to store an array of void *'s? void **ptrElems = malloc(numElems * sizeof(void *)); return ptrElems; } //What is the best way to return a pointer pointing at the index passed as a parameter? void **GetPtr(void **ptrElems, int index) { void **elem = elems + (index * sizeof(void *)); return elem; } First, what is the best way to intialize 'ptrElems' to store an array of pointers? I use malloc because assigning it to an array will not persist after the end of the function. Second, what is the best way to point to the pointer at the specified index? I tried typecasting the first line of the 'GetPtr' function to ensure proper pointer arithmetic, but I receive the warning, 'initialization from incompatible pointer type'. Is it necessary to typecast?

    Read the article

  • How do you delete a pointer without deleting the data the pointer points to?

    - by Faken
    I have a pointer that points to an array and another pointer referencing the same array. How do i delete any one of those pointers without killing the array such that the second undeleted pointer still works? for example: int* pointer1 = new int [1000]; int* pointer2; pointer2 = pointer1; Now i want to get rid of pointer1, how would i do it such that i can continue to access the array normaly through pointer2?

    Read the article

  • Detect pointer arithmetics because of LARGEADDRESSAWARE

    - by Suma
    I would like to switch my application to LARGEADDRESSAWARE. One of issues to watch for is pointer arithmetic, as pointer difference can no longer be represented as signed 32b. Is there some way how to find automatically all instances of pointer subtraction in a large C++ project? If not, is there some "least effort" manual or semi-automatic method how to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • boost::function function pointer to parameters?

    - by high6
    How does boost::function take a function pointer and get parameters from it? I want wrap a function pointer so that it can be validated before being called. And it would be nice to be able to call it like boost::function is with the () operator and not having to access the function pointer member. Wrapper func; func(5); //Yes :D func.Ptr(5) //Easy to do, but not as nice looking

    Read the article

  • Determining if Memory Pointer is Valid - C++

    - by Jim Fell
    It has been my observation that if free( ptr ) is called where ptr is not a valid pointer to system-allocated memory, an access violation occurs. Let's say that I call free like this: LPVOID ptr = (LPVOID)0x12345678; free( ptr ); This will most definitely cause an access violation. Is there a way to test that the memory location pointed to by ptr is valid system-allocated memory? It seems to me that the the memory management part of the Windows OS kernel must know what memory has been allocated and what memory remains for allocation. Otherwise, how could it know if enough memory remains to satisfy a given request? (rhetorical) That said, it seems reasonable to conclude that there must be a function (or set of functions) that would allow a user to determine if a pointer is valid system-allocated memory. Perhaps Microsoft has not made these functions public. If Microsoft has not provided such an API, I can only presume that it was for an intentional and specific reason. Would providing such a hook into the system prose a significant threat to system security? Situation Report Although knowing whether a memory pointer is valid could be useful in many scenarios, this is my particular situation: I am writing a driver for a new piece of hardware that is to replace an existing piece of hardware that connects to the PC via USB. My mandate is to write the new driver such that calls to the existing API for the current driver will continue to work in the PC applications in which it is used. Thus the only required changes to existing applications is to load the appropriate driver DLL(s) at startup. The problem here is that the existing driver uses a callback to send received serial messages to the application; a pointer to allocated memory containing the message is passed from the driver to the application via the callback. It is then the responsibility of the application to call another driver API to free the memory by passing back the same pointer from the application to the driver. In this scenario the second API has no way to determine if the application has actually passed back a pointer to valid memory.

    Read the article

  • Start a thread using a method pointer

    - by Michael
    Hi ! I'm trying to develop a thread abstraction (POSIX thread and thread from the Windows API), and I would very much like it to be able to start them with a method pointer, and not a function pointer. What I would like to do is an abstraction of thread being a class with a pure virtual method "runThread", which would be implanted in the future threaded class. I don't know yet about the Windows thread, but to start a POSIX thread, you need a function pointer, and not a method pointer. And I can't manage to find a way to associate a method with an instance so it could work as a function. I probably just can't find the keywords (and I've been searching a lot), I think it's pretty much what Boost::Bind() does, so it must exist. Can you help me ?

    Read the article

  • [C++] Start a thread using a method pointer

    - by Michael
    Hi ! I'm trying to develop a thread abstraction (POSIX thread and thread from the Windows API), and I would very much like it to be able to start them with a method pointer, and not a function pointer. What I would like to do is an abstraction of thread being a class with a pure virtual method "runThread", which would be implanted in the future threaded class. I don't know yet about the Windows thread, but to start a POSIX thread, you need a function pointer, and not a method pointer. And I can't manage to find a way to associate a method with an instance so it could work as a function. I probably just can't find the keywords (and I've been searching a lot), I think it's pretty much what Boost::Bind() does, so it must exist. Can you help me ?

    Read the article

  • command&pointer&malloc [closed]

    - by gcc
    input 23 3 4 4 42 n 23 0 9 9 n n n 3 9 9 x //according to input,i should create int pointer arrays. pointer arrays starting from 1 (that is initial arrays is arrays[1].when program sees n ,it must be jumb to arrays 2 expected output arrays[1] 3 4 5 42 arrays[2] 23 0 9 9 arrays[5] 3 9 9 x is stopper n is comman to create new pointer array i am new in this site anyone help me how can i write

    Read the article

  • Initialize void pointer to point to an array

    - by idealistikz
    Suppose I have the following: typedef struct { int itemSize; int count; void *list; } Mystruct; Mystruct *InitStruct(int itemSize, int count) { Mystruct *my = malloc(sizeof(Mystruct)); my->itemSize = itemSize; my->count = count; //What is the best way to initialize list? For example: //my->list = malloc(count * sizeof(void *)); OR //my->list = malloc(count * sizeof(itemSize)); } //The following should return a pointer to the element stored at a given index void *Retrieve(const MyStruct *my, int index) { void *item; //What is the best way to return a pointer to the item at the given index from //my->list? } Mystruct is similar to an array and void *list is supposed to store the elements or pointers to the elements. Mystruct *InitStruct is a function that initializes a Mystruct pointer and void *Retrieve is a function that returns a pointer to the element stored at a given index. First, how should I initialize void* list? Should it hold the actual elements or be an array of pointers pointing to the elements? Second, using the void *Retrieve function, how do I return a pointer to the element stored at a given index in my-list?

    Read the article

  • When is "this" pointer initialized in C++?

    - by skydoor
    Hi I have a question about this pointer, when an object is constructed, when it is initialized? Which means, when can I use it? The virtual table is constructed in the constructor, is the same with this pointer? For example, I have a code like this. The output is 8. Does it mean that before the constructor is entered, this pointer is already initialized? class A{ public: A() { cout<<sizeof(*this);} int i; int *p; }; int main() { A a; } If it is true, what else would happen before the constructor is entered? If it is not true, when is the this pointer initialized?

    Read the article

  • Workstation 7 build 203739 - Capture Movie Mouse Pointer Not Visible

    - by BMIVM
    Hi, I have noticed that whenever I create a Capture Movie, the movie is fine but the mouse pointer is not visible at all. The clicks are on buttons file menus are executed but is hard for a viewer of the capturre movie session to follow the recording smoothly. This was not a problem in previous versions of WorkStation. Is this a bug or is there a setting I can set to see the mouse pointer? Note: VM Tools are installed, Host is Vista Ultimate Edtion SP1, x64 and the guest is a Win XP SP2. Thanks in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • VMware Workstation 7 build 203739 - Capture Movie Mouse Pointer Not Visible

    - by BMIVM
    Hi, I have noticed that whenever I create a Capture Movie, the movie is fine but the mouse pointer is not visible at all. The clicks are on buttons file menus are executed but is hard for a viewer of the capturre movie session to follow the recording smoothly. This was not a problem in previous versions of WorkStation. Is this a bug or is there a setting I can set to see the mouse pointer? Note: VM Tools are installed, Host is Vista Ultimate Edtion SP1, x64 and the guest is a Win XP SP2. Thanks in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • How can I add floats together in different orders, and always get the same total?

    - by splicer
    Let's say I have three 32-bit floating point values, a, b, and c, such that (a + b) + c != a + (b + c). Is there summation algorithm, perhaps similar to Kahan summation, that guarantees that these values can be summed in any order and always arrive at the exact same (fairly accurate) total? I'm looking for the general case (i.e. not a solution that only deals with 3 numbers). Is arbitrary precision arithmetic the only way to go? I'm dealing with very large data sets, so I'd like to avoid the overhead of using arbitrary precision arithmetic if possible. Thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >