Search Results

Search found 4423 results on 177 pages for 'compiler'.

Page 152/177 | < Previous Page | 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159  | Next Page >

  • Preprocessor "macro function" vs. function pointer - best practice?

    - by Dustin
    I recently started a small personal project (RGB value to BGR value conversion program) in C, and I realised that a function that converts from RGB to BGR can not only perform the conversion but also the inversion. Obviously that means I don't really need two functions rgb2bgr and bgr2rgb. However, does it matter whether I use a function pointer instead of a macro? For example: int rgb2bgr (const int rgb); /* * Should I do this because it allows the compiler to issue * appropriate error messages using the proper function name, * not to mention possible debugging benefits? */ int (*bgr2rgb) (const int bgr) = rgb2bgr; /* * Or should I do this since it is merely a convenience * and they're really the same function anyway? */ #define bgr2rgb(bgr) (rgb2bgr (bgr)) I'm not necessarily looking for a change in execution efficiency as it's more of a subjective question out of curiosity. I am well aware of the fact that type safety is neither lost nor gained using either method. Would the function pointer merely be a convenience or are there more practical benefits to be gained of which I am unaware?

    Read the article

  • Java Generics Class Type Parameter Inference

    - by Pindatjuh
    Given the interface: public interface BasedOnOther<T, U extends BasedList<T>> { public T getOther(); public void staticStatisfied(final U list); } The BasedOnOther<T, U extends BasedList<T>> looks very ugly in my use-cases. It is because the T type parameter is already defined in the BasedList<T> part, so the "uglyness" comes from that T needs to be typed twice. Problem: is it possible to let the Java compiler infer the generic T type from BasedList<T> in a generic class/interface definition? Ultimately, I'd like to use the interface like: class X extends BasedOnOther<BasedList<SomeType>> { public SomeType getOther() { ... } public void staticStatisfied(final BasedList<SomeType> list) { ... } } Instead: class X extends BasedOnOther<SomeType, BasedList<SomeType>> { public SomeType getOther() { ... } public void staticStatisfied(final BasedList<SomeType> list) { ... } }

    Read the article

  • what is meant by normalization in huge pointers

    - by wrapperm
    Hi, I have a lot of confusion on understanding the difference between a "far" pointer and "huge" pointer, searched for it all over in google for a solution, couldnot find one. Can any one explain me the difference between the two. Also, what is the exact normalization concept related to huge pointers. Please donot give me the following or any similar answers: "The only difference between a far pointer and a huge pointer is that a huge pointer is normalized by the compiler. A normalized pointer is one that has as much of the address as possible in the segment, meaning that the offset is never larger than 15. A huge pointer is normalized only when pointer arithmetic is performed on it. It is not normalized when an assignment is made. You can cause it to be normalized without changing the value by incrementing and then decrementing it. The offset must be less than 16 because the segment can represent any value greater than or equal to 16 (e.g. Absolute address 0x17 in a normalized form would be 0001:0001. While a far pointer could address the absolute address 0x17 with 0000:0017, this is not a valid huge (normalized) pointer because the offset is greater than 0000F.). Huge pointers can also be incremented and decremented using arithmetic operators, but since they are normalized they will not wrap like far pointers." Here the normalization concept is not very well explained, or may be I'm unable to understand it very well. Can anyone try explaining this concept from a beginners point of view. Thanks, Rahamath

    Read the article

  • Why is Func<T> ambiguous with Func<IEnumerable<T>>?

    - by Matt Hamilton
    This one's got me flummoxed, so I thought I'd ask here in the hope that a C# guru can explain it to me. Why does this code generate an error? class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Foo(X); // the error is on this line } static String X() { return "Test"; } static void Foo(Func<IEnumerable<String>> x) { } static void Foo(Func<String> x) { } } The error in question: Error 1 The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: 'ConsoleApplication1.Program.Foo(System.Func<System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<string>>)' and 'ConsoleApplication1.Program.Foo(System.Func<string>)' C:\Users\mabster\AppData\Local\Temporary Projects\ConsoleApplication1\Program.cs 12 13 ConsoleApplication1 It doesn't matter what type I use - if you replace the "String" declarations with "int" in that code you'll get the same sort of error. It's like the compiler can't tell the difference between Func<T> and Func<IEnumerable<T>>. Can someone shed some light on this?

    Read the article

  • passing multidimensional arrays to function

    - by Pegah
    hi! I have a method in my class which uses a 3dimensional tfpairexp as input parameter. and I need to use the values in tfpairexp later. void calctfpairexp (int tf1, int tf2, double tfpairexp[][2][3]) { int ctr,c; for (int j = 0; j < cchips && (c = chips[j].crepls); j += c) { int ctrl_no=0; for (int *p = chips[j].ctrl ; p && (ctr=*p)>=0; ++p,ctrl_no++) { for (int k = 0; k < c; ++k) { tfpairexp[j][ctrl_no][k]=interactionFunc(2,3,1); } } } } I call the method inside the class like this: calctfpairexp(tf1,tf2,tfpairexp); and I need to use values inside tfpairexp in next lines. but the compiler gives error in this line: tfpairexp[j][ctrl_no][k]=interactionFunc(2,3,1); and says that the tfpairexp variable is not defined in the calctfpairexp function. any idea?

    Read the article

  • ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code sscanf

    - by Need4Sleep
    I'm getting a strange error attempting to compile my unit test code,. For some reason the compiler treats my sscanf call as a mixed declaration? I don't quite understand, here is the entire error: cc1: warnings being treated as errors /home/brlcad/brlcad/src/libbn/tests/bn_complex.c: In function 'main': /home/brlcad/brlcad/src/libbn/tests/bn_complex.c:53: error: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code make[2]: *** [src/libbn/tests/CMakeFiles/tester_bn_complex.dir/bn_complex.c.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [src/libbn/tests/CMakeFiles/tester_bn_complex.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { double expRe1, expIm2, expSqRe1, expSqIm2; double actRe1, actIm2, actSqRe1, actSqIm2; actRe1 = actIm2 = actSqRe1 = actSqIm2 = expRe1 = expIm2 = expSqRe1 = expSqIm2 = 0.0; bn_complex_t com1,com2; //a struct that holds two doubles if(argc < 5) bu_exit(1, "ERROR: Invalid parameters[%s]\n", argv[0]); sscanf(argv[1], "%lf,%lf", &com1.re, &com1.im); /* Error is HERE */ sscanf(argv[2], "%lf,%lf", &com2.re, &com2.im); sscanf(argv[3], "%lf,%lf", &expRe1, &expIm2); sscanf(argv[4], "%lf,%lf", &expSqRe1, &expSqIm2); test_div(com1, com2, &actRe1, &actIm2); test_sqrt(com1,com2, &actSqRe1, &actSqIm2); if((fabs(actRe1 - expRe1) < 0.00001) || (fabs(actIm2 - expIm2) < 0.00001)){ printf("Division failed...\n"); return 1; } if((fabs(actSqRe1 - expSqRe1) < 0.00001) || (fabs(actSqIm2 - expSqIm2) < 0.00001)){ printf("Square roots failed...\n"); return 1; } return 0; }

    Read the article

  • c# Why can't open generic types be passed as parameters?

    - by Rich Oliver
    Why can't open generic types be passed as parameters. I frequently have classes like: public class Example<T> where T: BaseClass { public int a {get; set;} public List<T> mylist {get; set;} } Lets say BaseClass is as follows; public BaseClass { public int num; } I then want a method of say: public int MyArbitarySumMethod(Example example)//This won't compile Example not closed { int sum = 0; foreach(BaseClass i in example.myList)//myList being infered as an IEnumerable sum += i.num; sum = sum * example.a; return sum; } I then have to write an interface just to pass this one class as a parameter as follows: public interface IExample { public int a {get; set;} public IEnumerable<BaseClass> myIEnum {get;} } The generic class then has to be modified to: public class Example<T>: IExample where T: BaseClass { public int a {get; set;} public List<T> mylist {get; set;} public IEnumerable<BaseClass> myIEnum {get {return myList;} } } That's a lot of ceremony for what I would have thought the compiler could infer. Even if something can't be changed I find it psychologically very helpful if I know the reasons / justifications for the absence of Syntax short cuts.

    Read the article

  • final transient fields and serialization

    - by doublep
    Is it possible to have final transient fields that are set to any non-default value after serialization in Java? My usecase is a cache variable — that's why it is transient. I also have a habit of making Map fields that won't be changed (i.e. contents of the map is changed, but object itself remains the same) final. However, these attributes seem to be contradictory — while compiler allows such a combination, I cannot have the field set to anything but null after unserialization. I tried the following, without success: simple field initialization (shown in the example): this is what I normally do, but the initialization doesn't seem to happen after unserialization; initialization in constructor (I believe this is semantically the same as above though); assigning the field in readObject() — cannot be done since the field is final. In the example cache is public only for testing. import java.io.*; import java.util.*; public class test { public static void main (String[] args) throws Exception { X x = new X (); System.out.println (x + " " + x.cache); ByteArrayOutputStream buffer = new ByteArrayOutputStream (); new ObjectOutputStream (buffer).writeObject (x); x = (X) new ObjectInputStream (new ByteArrayInputStream (buffer.toByteArray ())).readObject (); System.out.println (x + " " + x.cache); } public static class X implements Serializable { public final transient Map <Object, Object> cache = new HashMap <Object, Object> (); } } Output: test$X@1a46e30 {} test$X@190d11 null

    Read the article

  • Foreign key relationships in Entity Framework

    - by Anders Svensson
    I'm trying to add an object created from Entity Data Model classes. I have a table called Users, which has turned into a User EDM class. And I also have a table Pages, which has become a Page EDM class. These tables have a foreign key relationship, so that each page is associated with many users. Now I want to be able to add a page, but I can't get how to do it. I get a nullreference exception on Users below. I'm still rather confused by all this, so I'm sure it's a simple error, but I just can't see how to do it. Also, by the way, the compiler requires that I set PageID in the object initializer, even though this field is set to be an automatic id in the table. Am I doing it right just setting it to 0, expecting it to be updated automatically in the table when saved, or how should I do that? Any help appreciated! The method in question: private Page GetPage(User currentUser) { string url = _request.ServerVariables["url"].ToLower(); var userPages = from p in _context.PageSet where p.Users.UserID == currentUser.UserID select p; var existingPage = userPages.FirstOrDefault(e => e.Url == url); //Could be combined with above, but hard to read? if (existingPage != null) return existingPage; Page page = new Page() { Count = 0, Url = _request.ServerVariables["url"].ToLower(), PageID = 0, //Only initial value, changed later? }; _context.AddToPageSet(page); page.Users.UserID = currentUser.UserID; //Here's the problem... return page; }

    Read the article

  • Can C++ do something like an ML case expression?

    - by Nathan Andrew Mullenax
    So, I've run into this sort of thing a few times in C++ where I'd really like to write something like case (a,b,c,d) of (true, true, _, _ ) => expr | (false, true, _, false) => expr | ... But in C++, I invariably end up with something like this: bool c11 = color1.count(e.first)>0; bool c21 = color2.count(e.first)>0; bool c12 = color1.count(e.second)>0; bool c22 = color2.count(e.second)>0; // no vertex in this edge is colored // requeue if( !(c11||c21||c12||c22) ) { edges.push(e); } // endpoints already same color // failure condition else if( (c11&&c12)||(c21&&c22) ) { results.push_back("NOT BICOLORABLE."); return true; } // nothing to do: nodes are already // colored and different from one another else if( (c11&&c22)||(c21&&c12) ) { } // first is c1, second is not set else if( c11 && !(c12||c22) ) { color2.insert( e.second ); } // first is c2, second is not set else if( c21 && !(c12||c22) ) { color1.insert( e.second ); } // first is not set, second is c1 else if( !(c11||c21) && c12 ) { color2.insert( e.first ); } // first is not set, second is c2 else if( !(c11||c21) && c22 ) { color1.insert( e.first ); } else { std::cout << "Something went wrong.\n"; } I'm wondering if there's any way to clean all of those if's and else's up, as it seems especially error prone. It would be even better if it were possible to get the compiler complain like SML does when a case expression (or statement in C++) isn't exhaustive. I realize this question is a bit vague. Maybe, in sum, how would one represent an exhaustive truth table with an arbitrary number of variables in C++ succinctly? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is std::move really needed on initialization list of constructor for heavy members passed by value?

    - by PiotrNycz
    Recently I read an example from cppreference.../vector/emplace_back: struct President { std::string name; std::string country; int year; President(std::string p_name, std::string p_country, int p_year) : name(std::move(p_name)), country(std::move(p_country)), year(p_year) { std::cout << "I am being constructed.\n"; } My question: is this std::move really needed? My point is that compiler sees that this p_name is not used in the body of constructor, so, maybe, there is some rule to use move semantics for it by default? That would be really annoying to add std::move on initialization list to every heavy member (like std::string, std::vector). Imagine hundreds of KLOC project written in C++03 - shall we add everywhere this std::move? This question: move-constructor-and-initialization-list answer says: As a golden rule, whenever you take something by rvalue reference, you need to use it inside std::move, and whenever you take something by universal reference (i.e. deduced templated type with &&), you need to use it inside std::forward But I am not sure: passing by value is rather not universal reference?

    Read the article

  • map operator [] operands

    - by Jamie Cook
    Hi all I have the following in a member function int tt = 6; vector<set<int>>& temp = m_egressCandidatesByDestAndOtMode[tt]; set<int>& egressCandidateStops = temp.at(dest); and the following declaration of a member variable map<int, vector<set<int>>> m_egressCandidatesByDestAndOtMode; However I get an error when compiling (Intel Compiler 11.0) 1>C:\projects\svn\bdk\Source\ZenithAssignment\src\Iteration\PtBranchAndBoundIterationOriginRunner.cpp(85): error: no operator "[]" matches these operands 1> operand types are: const std::map<int, std::vector<std::set<int, std::less<int>, std::allocator<int>>, std::allocator<std::set<int, std::less<int>, std::allocator<int>>>>, std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<const int, std::vector<std::set<int, std::less<int>, std::allocator<int>>, std::allocator<std::set<int, std::less<int>, std::allocator<int>>>>>>> [ const int ] 1> vector<set<int>>& temp = m_egressCandidatesByDestAndOtMode[tt]; 1> ^ I know it's got to be something silly but I can't see what I've done wrong.

    Read the article

  • Run arbitrary subprocesses on Windows and still terminate cleanly?

    - by Weeble
    I have an application A that I would like to be able to invoke arbitrary other processes as specified by a user in a configuration file. Batch script B is one such process a user would like to be invoked by A. B sets up some environment variables, shows some messages and invokes a compiler C to do some work. Does Windows provide a standard way for arbitrary processes to be terminated cleanly? Suppose A is run in a console and receives a CTRL+C. Can it pass this on to B and C? Suppose A runs in a window and the user tries to close the window, can it cancel B and C? TerminateProcess is an option, but not a very good one. If A uses TerminateProcess on B, C keeps running. This could cause nasty problems if C is long-running, since we might start another instance of C to operate on the same files while the first instance of C is still secretly at work. In addition, TerminateProcess doesn't result in a clean exit. GenerateConsoleCtrlEvent sounds nice, and might work when everything's running in a console, but the documentation says that you can only send CTRL+C to your own console, and so wouldn't help if A were running in a window. Is there any equivalent to SIGINT on Windows? I would love to find an article like this one: http://www.cons.org/cracauer/sigint.html for Windows.

    Read the article

  • How to keep track of call statistics? C++

    - by tf.rz
    I'm working on a project that delivers statistics to the user. I created a class called Dog, And it has several functions. Speak, woof, run, fetch, etc. I want to have a function that spits out how many times each function has been called. I'm also interested in the constructor calls and destructor calls as well. I have a header file which defines all the functions, then a separate .cc file that implements them. My question is, is there a way to keep track of how many times each function is called? I have a function called print that will fetch the "statistics" and then output them to standard output. I was considering using static integers as part of the class itself, declaring several integers to keep track of those things. I know the compiler will create a copy of the integer and initialize it to a minimum value, and then I'll increment the integers in the .cc functions. I also thought about having static integers as a global variable in the .cc. Which way is easier? Or is there a better way to do this? Any help is greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • cython setup.py gives .o instead of .dll

    - by alok1974
    Hi, I am a newbie to cython, so pardon me if I am missing something obvious here. I am trying to build c extensions to be used in python for enhanced performance. I have fc.py module with a bunch of function and trying to generate a .dll through cython using dsutils and running on win64: c:\python26\python c:\cythontest\setup.py build_ext --inplace I have the dsutils.cfg in C:\Python26\Lib\distutils. As required the disutils.cfg has the following config settings: [build] compiler = mingw32 My startup.py looks like this: from distutils.core import setup from distutils.extension import Extension from Cython.Distutils import build_ext ext_modules = [Extension('fc', [r'C:\cythonTest\fc.pyx'])] setup( name = 'FC Extensions', cmdclass = {'build_ext': build_ext}, ext_modules = ext_modules ) I have latest version mingw for target/host amdwin64 type builds. I have the latest version of cython for python26 for win64. Cython does give me an fc.c without errors, only a few warning for type conversions, which I will handle once I have it right. Further it produces fc.def an fc.o files Instead of giving a .dll. I get no errors. I find on threads that it will create the .so or .dll automatically as required, which is not happening.

    Read the article

  • Some questions about special operators i've never seen in C++ code.

    - by toto
    I have downloaded the Phoenix SDK June 2008 (Tools for compilers) and when I'm reading the code of the Hello sample, I really feel lost. public ref class Hello { //-------------------------------------------------------------------------- // // Description: // // Class Variables. // // Remarks: // // A normal compiler would have more flexible means for holding // on to all this information, but in our case it's simplest (if // somewhat inelegant) if we just keep references to all the // structures we'll need to access as classstatic variables. // //-------------------------------------------------------------------------- static Phx::ModuleUnit ^ module; static Phx::Targets::Runtimes::Runtime ^ runtime; static Phx::Targets::Architectures::Architecture ^ architecture; static Phx::Lifetime ^ lifetime; static Phx::Types::Table ^ typeTable; static Phx::Symbols::Table ^ symbolTable; static Phx::Phases::PhaseConfiguration ^ phaseConfiguration; 2 Questions : What's that ref keyword? What is that sign ^ ? What is it doing protected: virtual void Execute ( Phx::Unit ^ unit ) override; }; override is a C++ keyword too? It's colored as such in my Visual Studio. I really want to play with this framework, but this advanced C++ is really an obstacle right now. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Beginner C++ - Trouble using global constants in a header file

    - by Francisco P.
    Hello! Yet another Scrabble project question... This is a simple one. It seems I am having trouble getting my global constants recognized: My board.h: http://pastebin.com/R10HrYVT Errors returned: 1>C:\Users\Francisco\Documents\FEUP\1A2S\PROG\projecto3\projecto3\Board.h(34): error: variable "TOTAL_ROWS" is not a type name 1> vector< vector<Cell> > _matrix(TOTAL_ROWS , vector<Cell>(TOTAL_COLUMNS)); 1> 1>main.cpp 1>compilation aborted for .\Game.cpp (code 2) 1>Board.cpp 1>.\Board.h(34): error: variable "TOTAL_ROWS" is not a type name 1> vector< vector<Cell> > _matrix(TOTAL_ROWS , vector<Cell>(TOTAL_COLUMNS)); 1> ^ 1> Why does this happen? Why is the compiler expecting types? Thanks for your time!

    Read the article

  • display multiple errors via bool flag c++

    - by igor
    Been a long night, but stuck on this and now am getting "segmentation fault" in my compiler.. Basically I'm trying to display all the errors (the cout) needed. If there is more than one error, I am to display all of them. bool validMove(const Square board[BOARD_SIZE][BOARD_SIZE], int x, int y, int value) { int index; bool moveError = true; const int row_conflict(0), column_conflict(1), grid_conflict(2); int v_subgrid=x/3; int h_subgrid=y/3; getCoords(x,y); for(index=0;index<9;index++) if(board[x][index].number==value){ cout<<"That value is in conflict in this row\n"; moveError=false; } for(index=0;index<9;index++) if(board[index][y].number==value){ cout<<"That value is in conflict in this column\n"; moveError=false; } for(int i=v_subgrid*3;i<(v_subgrid*3 +3);i++){ for(int j=h_subgrid*3;j<(h_subgrid*3+3);j++){ if(board[i][j].number==value){ cout<<"That value is in conflict in this subgrid\n"; moveError=false; } } } return true; }

    Read the article

  • Scala path dependent return type from parameter

    - by Rich Oliver
    In the following code using 2.10.0M3 in Eclipse plugin 2.1.0 for 2.10M3. I'm using the default setting which is targeting JVM 1.5 class GeomBase[T <: DTypes] { abstract class NewObjs { def newHex(gridR: GridBase, coodI: Cood): gridR.HexRT } class GridBase { selfGrid => type HexRT = HexG with T#HexTr def uniformRect (init: NewObjs) { val hexCood = Cood(2 ,2) val hex: HexRT = init.newHex(selfGrid, hexCood)// won't compile } } } Error message: Description Resource Path Location Type type mismatch; found: GeomBase.this.GridBase#HexG with T#HexTr required: GridBase.this.HexRT (which expands to) GridBase.this.HexG with T#HexTr GeomBase.scala Why does the compiler think the method returns the type projection GridBase#HexG when it should be this specific instance of GridBase? Edit transferred to a simpler code class in responce to comments now getting a different error message. package rStrat class TestClass { abstract class NewObjs { def newHex(gridR: GridBase): gridR.HexG } class GridBase { selfGrid => def uniformRect (init: NewObjs) { val hex: HexG = init.newHex(this) //error here } class HexG { val test12 = 5 } } } . Error line 11:Description Resource Path Location Type type mismatch; found : gridR.HexG required: GridBase.this.HexG possible cause: missing arguments for method or constructor TestClass.scala /SStrat/src/rStrat line 11 Scala Problem Update I've switched to 2.10.0M4 and updated the plug-in to the M4 version on a fresh version of Eclipse and switched to JVM 1.6 (and 1.7) but the problems are unchanged.

    Read the article

  • Creating an object in the loop

    - by Jacob
    std::vector<double> C(4); for(int i = 0; i < 1000;++i) for(int j = 0; j < 2000; ++j) { C[0] = 1.0; C[1] = 1.0; C[2] = 1.0; C[3] = 1.0; } is much faster than for(int i = 0; i < 1000;++i) for(int j = 0; j < 2000; ++j) { std::vector<double> C(4); C[0] = 1.0; C[1] = 1.0; C[2] = 1.0; C[3] = 1.0; } I realize this happens because std::vector is repeatedly being created and instantiated in the loop, but I was under the impression this would be optimized away. Is it completely wrong to keep variables local in a loop whenever possible? I was under the (perhaps false) impression that this would provide optimization opportunities for the compiler. EDIT: I use VC++2005 (release mode) with full optimization (/Ox)

    Read the article

  • Would an immutable keyword in Java be a good idea?

    - by berry120
    Generally speaking, the more I use immutable objects in Java the more I'm thinking they're a great idea. They've got lots of advantages from automatically being thread-safe to not needing to worry about cloning or copy constructors. This has got me thinking, would an "immutable" keyword go amiss? Obviously there's the disadvantages with adding another reserved word to the language, and I doubt it will actually happen primarily for the above reason - but ignoring that I can't really see many disadvantages. At present great care has to be taken to make sure objects are immutable, and even then a dodgy javadoc comment claiming a component object is immutable when it's in fact not can wreck the whole thing. There's also the argument that even basic objects like string aren't truly immutable because they're easily vunerable to reflection attacks. If we had an immutable keyword the compiler could surely recursively check and give an iron clad guarantee that all instances of a class were immutable, something that can't presently be done. Especially with concurrency becoming more and more used, I personally think it'd be good to add a keyword to this effect. But are there any disadvantages or implementation details I'm missing that makes this a bad idea?

    Read the article

  • how to write binary copy of structure array to file

    - by cerr
    I would like to write a binary image of a structure array to a binary file. I have tried this so far: #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #define NUM 256 const char *fname="binary.bin"; typedef struct foo_s { int intA; int intB; char string[20]; }foo_t; void main (void) { foo_t bar[NUM]; bar[0].intA = 10; bar[0].intB = 999; strcpy(bar[0].string,"Hello World!"); Save(bar); printf("%s written succesfully!\n",fname); } int Save(foo_t* pData) { FILE *pFile; int ptr = 0; int itr = 0; pFile = fopen(fname, "w"); if (pFile == NULL) { printf("couldn't open %s\n", fname); return; } for (itr = 0; itr<NUM; itr++) { for (ptr=0; ptr<sizeof(foo_t); ptr++) { fputc((unsigned char)*((&pData[itr])+ptr), pFile); } fclose(pFile); } } but the compiler is saying aggregate value used where an integer was expected fputc((unsigned char)*((&pData[itr])+ptr), pFile); and I don't quite understand why, what am I doing wrong? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Trying to make a plugin system in C++

    - by Pirate for Profit
    I'm making a task-based program that needs to have plugins. Tasks need to have properties which can be easily edited, I think this can be done with Qt's Meta-Object Compiler reflection capabilities (I could be wrong, but I should be able to stick this in a QtPropertyBrowser?) So here's the base: class Task : public QObject { Q_OBJECT public: explicit Task(QObject *parent = 0) : QObject(parent){} virtual void run() = 0; signals: void taskFinished(bool success = true); } Then a plugin might have this task: class PrinterTask : public Task { Q_OBJECT public: explicit PrinterTask(QObject *parent = 0) : Task(parent) {} void run() { Printer::getInstance()->Print(this->getData()); // fictional emit taskFinished(true); } inline const QString &getData() const; inline void setData(QString data); Q_PROPERTY(QString data READ getData WRITE setData) // for reflection } In a nutshell, here's what I want to do: // load plugin // find all the Tasks interface implementations in it // have user able to choose a Task and edit its specific Q_PROPERTY's // run the TASK It's important that one .dll has multiple tasks, because I want them to be associated by their module. For instance, "FileTasks.dll" could have tasks for deleting files, making files, etc. The only problem with Qt's plugin setup is I want to store X amount of Tasks in one .dll module. As far as I can tell, you can only load one interface per plugin (I could be wrong?). If so, the only possible way to do accomplish what I want is to create a FactoryInterface with string based keys which return the objects (as in Qt's Plug-And-Paint example), which is a terrible boilerplate that I would like to avoid. Anyone know a cleaner C++ plugin architecture than Qt's to do what I want? Also, am I safely assuming Qt's reflection capabilities will do what I want (i.e. able to edit an unknown dynamically loaded tasks' properties with the QtPropertyBrowser before dispatching)?

    Read the article

  • Delphi: How to avoid EIntOverflow underflow when subtracting?

    - by Ian Boyd
    Microsoft already says, in the documentation for GetTickCount, that you could never compare tick counts to check if an interval has passed. e.g.: Incorrect (pseudo-code): DWORD endTime = GetTickCount + 10000; //10 s from now ... if (GetTickCount > endTime) break; The above code is bad because it is suceptable to rollover of the tick counter. For example, assume that the clock is near the end of it's range: endTime = 0xfffffe00 + 10000 = 0x00002510; //9,488 decimal Then you perform your check: if (GetTickCount > endTime) Which is satisfied immediatly, since GetTickCount is larger than endTime: if (0xfffffe01 > 0x00002510) The solution Instead you should always subtract the two time intervals: DWORD startTime = GetTickCount; ... if (GetTickCount - startTime) > 10000 //if it's been 10 seconds break; Looking at the same math: if (GetTickCount - startTime) > 10000 if (0xfffffe01 - 0xfffffe00) > 10000 if (1 > 10000) Which is all well and good in C/C++, where the compiler behaves a certain way. But what about Delphi? But when i perform the same math in Delphi, with overflow checking on ({Q+}, {$OVERFLOWCHECKS ON}), the subtraction of the two tick counts generates an EIntOverflow exception when the TickCount rolls over: if (0x00000100 - 0xffffff00) > 10000 0x00000100 - 0xffffff00 = 0x00000200 What is the intended solution for this problem? Edit: i've tried to temporarily turn off OVERFLOWCHECKS: {$OVERFLOWCHECKS OFF}] delta = GetTickCount - startTime; {$OVERFLOWCHECKS ON} But the subtraction still throws an EIntOverflow exception. Is there a better solution, involving casts and larger intermediate variable types?

    Read the article

  • Does it ever make sense to make a fundamental (non-pointer) parameter const?

    - by Scott Smith
    I recently had an exchange with another C++ developer about the following use of const: void Foo(const int bar); He felt that using const in this way was good practice. I argued that it does nothing for the caller of the function (since a copy of the argument was going to be passed, there is no additional guarantee of safety with regard to overwrite). In addition, doing this prevents the implementer of Foo from modifying their private copy of the argument. So, it both mandates and advertises an implementation detail. Not the end of the world, but certainly not something to be recommended as good practice. I'm curious as to what others think on this issue. Edit: OK, I didn't realize that const-ness of the arguments didn't factor into the signature of the function. So, it is possible to mark the arguments as const in the implementation (.cpp), and not in the header (.h) - and the compiler is fine with that. That being the case, I guess the policy should be the same for making local variables const. One could make the argument that having different looking signatures in the header and source file would confuse others (as it would have confused me). While I try to follow the Principle of Least Astonishment with whatever I write, I guess it's reasonable to expect developers to recognize this as legal and useful.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159  | Next Page >