Search Results

Search found 4771 results on 191 pages for 'aspnet compiler'.

Page 161/191 | < Previous Page | 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168  | Next Page >

  • Compile time float packing/punning

    - by detly
    I'm writing C for the PIC32MX, compiled with Microchip's PIC32 C compiler (based on GCC 3.4). My problem is this: I have some reprogrammable numeric data that is stored either on EEPROM or in the program flash of the chip. This means that when I want to store a float, I have to do some type punning: typedef union { int intval; float floatval; } IntFloat; unsigned int float_as_int(float fval) { IntFloat intf; intf.floatval = fval; return intf.intval; } // Stores an int of data in whatever storage we're using void StoreInt(unsigned int data, unsigned int address); void StoreFPVal(float data, unsigned int address) { StoreInt(float_as_int(data), address); } I also include default values as an array of compile time constants. For (unsigned) integer values this is trivial, I just use the integer literal. For floats, though, I have to use this Python snippet to convert them to their word representation to include them in the array: import struct hex(struct.unpack("I", struct.pack("f", float_value))[0]) ...and so my array of defaults has these indecipherable values like: const unsigned int DEFAULTS[] = { 0x00000001, // Some default integer value, 1 0x3C83126F, // Some default float value, 0.005 } (These actually take the form of X macro constructs, but that doesn't make a difference here.) Commenting is nice, but is there a better way? It's be great to be able to do something like: const unsigned int DEFAULTS[] = { 0x00000001, // Some default integer value, 1 COMPILE_TIME_CONVERT(0.005), // Some default float value, 0.005 } ...but I'm completely at a loss, and I don't even know if such a thing is possible. Notes Obviously "no, it isn't possible" is an acceptable answer if true. I'm not overly concerned about portability, so implementation defined behaviour is fine, undefined behaviour is not (I have the IDB appendix sitting in front of me). As fas as I'm aware, this needs to be a compile time conversion, since DEFAULTS is in the global scope. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

    Read the article

  • Should i enforce realloc check if the new block size is smaller than the initial ?

    - by nomemory
    Can realloc fail in this case ? int *a = NULL; a = calloc(100, sizeof(*a)); printf("1.ptr: %d \n", a); a = realloc(a, 50 * sizeof(*a)); printf("2.ptr: %d \n", a); if(a == NULL){ printf("Is it possible?"); } return (0); } The output in my case is: 1.ptr: 4072560 2.ptr: 4072560 So 'a' points to the same adress. So should i enforce realloc check ? Later edit: Using MinGW compiler under Windows XP. Is the behaviour similar with gcc on Linux ? Later edit 2: Is it OK to check this way ? int *a = NULL, *b = NULL; a = calloc(100, sizeof(*a)); b = realloc(a, 50 * sizeof(*a)); if(b == NULL){ return a; } a = b; return a;

    Read the article

  • Constructor or Assignment Operator

    - by ju
    Can you help me is there definition in C++ standard that describes which one will be called constructor or assignment operator in this case: #include <iostream> using namespace std; class CTest { public: CTest() : m_nTest(0) { cout << "Default constructor" << endl; } CTest(int a) : m_nTest(a) { cout << "Int constructor" << endl; } CTest(const CTest& obj) { m_nTest = obj.m_nTest; cout << "Copy constructor" << endl; } CTest& operatorint rhs) { m_nTest = rhs; cout << "Assignment" << endl; return *this; } protected: int m_nTest; }; int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { CTest b = 5; return 0; } Or is it just a matter of compiler optimization?

    Read the article

  • Potential g++ template bug?

    - by Evan Teran
    I've encountered some code which I think should compile, but doesn't. So I'm hoping some of the local standards experts here at SO can help :-). I basically have some code which resembles this: #include <iostream> template <class T = int> class A { public: class U { }; public: U f() const { return U(); } }; // test either the work around or the code I want... #ifndef USE_FIX template <class T> bool operator==(const typename A<T>::U &x, int y) { return true; } #else typedef A<int> AI; bool operator==(const AI::U &x, int y) { return true; } #endif int main() { A<int> a; std::cout << (a.f() == 1) << std::endl; } So, to describe what is going on here. I have a class template (A) which has an internal class (U) and at least one member function which can return an instance of that internal class (f()). Then I am attempting to create an operator== function which compares this internal type to some other type (in this case an int, but it doesn't seem to matter). When USE_FIX is not defined I get the following error: test.cc: In function 'int main()': test.cc:27:25: error: no match for 'operator==' in 'a.A<T>::f [with T = int]() == 1' Which seems odd, because I am clearly (I think) defining a templated operator== which should cover this, in fact if I just do a little of the work for the compiler (enable USE_FIX), then I no longer get an error. Unfortunately, the "fix" doesn't work generically, only for a specific instantiation of the template. Is this supposed to work as I expected? Or is this simply not allowed? BTW: if it matters I am using gcc 4.5.2.

    Read the article

  • Compiling Objective-C project on Linux (Ubuntu)

    - by Alex
    How to make an Objective-C project work on Ubuntu? My files are: Fraction.h #import <Foundation/NSObject.h> @interface Fraction: NSObject { int numerator; int denominator; } -(void) print; -(void) setNumerator: (int) n; -(void) setDenominator: (int) d; -(int) numerator; -(int) denominator; @end Fraction.m #import "Fraction.h" #import <stdio.h> @implementation Fraction -(void) print { printf( "%i/%i", numerator, denominator ); } -(void) setNumerator: (int) n { numerator = n; } -(void) setDenominator: (int) d { denominator = d; } -(int) denominator { return denominator; } -(int) numerator { return numerator; } @end main.m #import <stdio.h> #import "Fraction.h" int main( int argc, const char *argv[] ) { // create a new instance Fraction *frac = [[Fraction alloc] init]; // set the values [frac setNumerator: 1]; [frac setDenominator: 3]; // print it printf( "The fraction is: " ); [frac print]; printf( "\n" ); // free memory [frac release]; return 0; } I've tried two approaches to compile it: Pure gcc: $ sudo apt-get install gobjc gnustep gnustep-devel $ gcc `gnustep-config --objc-flags` -o main main.m -lobjc -lgnustep-base /tmp/ccIQKhfH.o:(.data.rel+0x0): undefined reference to `__objc_class_name_Fraction' I created a GNUmakefile Makefile: include ${GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES}/common.make TOOL_NAME = main main_OBJC_FILES = main.m include ${GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES}/tool.make ... and ran: $ source /usr/share/GNUstep/Makefiles/GNUstep.sh $ make Making all for tool main... Linking tool main ... ./obj/main.o:(.data.rel+0x0): undefined reference to `__objc_class_name_Fraction' So in both cases compiler gets stuck at undefined reference to `__objc_class_name_Fraction' Do you have and idea how to resolve this issue?

    Read the article

  • Case class copy() method abstraction.

    - by Joa Ebert
    I would like to know if it is possible to abstract the copy method of case classes. Basically I have something like sealed trait Op and then something like case class Push(value: Int) extends Op and case class Pop() extends Op. The first problem: A case class without arguments/members does not define a copy method. You can try this in the REPL. scala> case class Foo() defined class Foo scala> Foo().copy() <console>:8: error: value copy is not a member of Foo Foo().copy() ^ scala> case class Foo(x: Int) defined class Foo scala> Foo(0).copy() res1: Foo = Foo(0) Is there a reason why the compiler makes this exception? I think it is rather unituitive and I would expect every case class to define a copy method. The second problem: I have a method def ops: List[Op] and I would like to copy all ops like ops map { _.copy() }. How would I define the copy method in the Op trait? I get a "too many arguments" error if I say def copy(): this.type. However, since all copy() methods have only optional arguments: why is this incorrect? And, how do I do that correct? By making another method named def clone(): this.type and write everywhere def clone() = copy() for all the case classes? I hope not.

    Read the article

  • How can I marshal JSON to/from a POJO for BlackBerry Java?

    - by sowbug
    I'm writing a RIM BlackBerry client app. BlackBerry uses a simplified version of Java (no generics, no annotations, limited collections support, etc.; roughly a Java 1.3 dialect). My client will be speaking JSON to a server. We have a bunch of JAXB-generated POJOs, but they're heavily annotated, and they use various classes that aren't available on this platform (ArrayList, BigDecimal, XMLGregorianCalendar). We also have the XSD used by the JAXB-XJC compiler to generate those source files. Being the lazy programmer that I am, I'd really rather not manually translate the existing source files to Java 1.3-compatible JSON-marshalling classes. I already tried JAXB 1.0.6 xjc. Unfortunately, it doesn't understand the XSD file well enough to emit proper classes. Do you know of a tool that will take JAXB 2.0 XSD files and emit Java 1.3 classes? And do you know of a JSON marshalling library that works with old Java? I think I am doomed because JSON arrived around 2006, and Java 5 was released in late 2004, meaning that people probably wouldn't be writing JSON-parsing code for old versions of Java. However, it seems that there must be good JSON libraries for J2ME, which is why I'm holding out hope.

    Read the article

  • gcc compilation without using system defined header locations

    - by bogertron
    I am attempting to compile a c++ class using gcc. Due to the nature of the build, I need to invoke gcc from a non-standard location and include non-system defined headers, only to add a set from a different location. However, when I do this, I run into an issue where I cannot find some base symbols (suprise suprise). So i am basically running this command to compile my code: -->(PARENT_DIR)/usr/bin/gcc # invoke compiler -B$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/lib64/gcc/suselinux-x8664 -B$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/lib64 #C/C++ flags -fPIC -fvisibility=default -g -c -Wall -m64 -nostdinc # source files -I$(SRC_DIR_ONE)/ -I$(SRC_DIR_TWO) -I../include # 'Mock' include the system header files -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/include/c++/$(GCC_VERSION) -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/include/c++/$(GCC_VERSION)/backward -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/include/c++/$(GCC_VERSION)/x86_64-suse-linux -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/lib64/x86_64-suse-linux/$(GCC_VERSION)/include -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/$(GCC_VERSION)/include -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/$(GCC_VERSION)/include-fixed -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/src/linux/include -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/x86_64-suse-linux/include -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/include/suselinux-x8664 -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/suselinux-x8664/include -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/include -I$(PARENT_DIR)/usr/include/linux file.cpp I am getting several errors which indicate that the base headers are not being included: such as: $(PARENT_DIR)/usr/include/c++/$(GCC_VERSION)/cstddef ::prtdiff_t has not been declared $(PARENT_DIR)/usr/include/c++/$(GCC_VERSION)/cstddef ::size_t has not bee declared. Is there something that I am doing wrong when I include the header file directories? Or am I looking in the wrong place?

    Read the article

  • C++ Beginner Delete Question

    - by Pooch
    Hi all, This is my first year learning C++ so bear with me. I am attempting to dynamically allocate memory to the heap and then delete the allocated memory. Below is the code that is giving me a hard time: // String.cpp #include "String.h" String::String() {} String::String(char* source) { this->Size = this->GetSize(source); this->CharArray = new char[this->Size + 1]; int i = 0; for (; i < this->Size; i++) this->CharArray[i] = source[i]; this->CharArray[i] = '\0'; } int String::GetSize(const char * source) { int i = 0; for (; source[i] != '\0'; i++); return i; } String::~String() { delete[] this->CharArray; } Here is the error I get when the compiler tries to delete the CharArray: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0xccccccc0. And here is the last call on the stack: msvcr100d.dll!operator delete(void * pUserData) Line 52 + 0x3 bytes C++ I am fairly certain the error exists within this piece of code but will provide you with any other information needed. Oh yeah, using VS 2010 for XP. Thanks for any and all help!

    Read the article

  • Float addition promoted to double?

    - by Andreas Brinck
    I had a small WTF moment this morning. Ths WTF can be summarized with this: float x = 0.2f; float y = 0.1f; float z = x + y; assert(z == x + y); //This assert is triggered! (Atleast with visual studio 2008) The reason seems to be that the expression x + y is promoted to double and compared with the truncated version in z. (If i change z to double the assert isn't triggered). I can see that for precision reasons it would make sense to perform all floating point arithmetics in double precision before converting the result to single precision. I found the following paragraph in the standard (which I guess I sort of already knew, but not in this context): 4.6.1. "An rvalue of type float can be converted to an rvalue of type double. The value is unchanged" My question is, is x + y guaranteed to be promoted to double or is at the compiler's discretion? UPDATE: Since many people has claimed that one shouldn't use == for floating point, I just wanted to state that in the specific case I'm working with, an exact comparison is justified. Floating point comparision is tricky, here's an interesting link on the subject which I think hasn't been mentioned.

    Read the article

  • Strange Behaviour in Swift: constant defined with LET but behaving like a variable defined with VAR

    - by Sam
    Stuck on the below for a day! Any insight would be greatly appreciated. The constant in the first block match0 behaves as expected. The constant defined in the second block does not behave as nicely in the face of a change to its "source": var str = "+y+z*1.0*sum(A1:A3)" if let range0 = str.rangeOfString("^\\+|^\\-|^\\*|^\\/", options: NSStringCompareOptions.RegularExpressionSearch){ let match0 = str[range0] println(match0) //yields "+" - as expexted str.removeRange(range0) println(match0) //yields "+" - as expected str.removeRange(range0) println(match0) //yields "+" - as expected } if let range1 = str.rangeOfString("^\\+|^\\-|^\\*|^\\/", options: NSStringCompareOptions.RegularExpressionSearch){ let match1 = str[range1] println(match1) //yields "+" as expected str.removeRange(range1) println(match1) //!@#$ OMG!!!!!!!!!!! a constant variable has changed! This prints "z" } The following are the options I can see: match1 has somehow obtained a reference to its source instead of being copied by value [Problem: Strings are value types in Swift] match1 has somehow obtained a closure to its source instead of just being a normal constant/variable? [Problem: sounds like science fiction & then why does match0 behave so well?] Could there be a bug in the Swift compiler? [Problem: Experience has taught me that this is very very very rarely the solution to your problem...but it is still in beta]

    Read the article

  • help understanding differences between #define, const and enum in C and C++ on assembly level.

    - by martin
    recently, i am looking into assembly codes for #define, const and enum: C codes(#define): 3 #define pi 3 4 int main(void) 5 { 6 int a,r=1; 7 a=2*pi*r; 8 return 0; 9 } assembly codes(for line 6 and 7 in c codes) generated by GCC: 6 mov $0x1, -0x4(%ebp) 7 mov -0x4(%ebp), %edx 7 mov %edx, %eax 7 add %eax, %eax 7 add %edx, %eax 7 add %eax, %eax 7 mov %eax, -0x8(%ebp) C codes(enum): 2 int main(void) 3 { 4 int a,r=1; 5 enum{pi=3}; 6 a=2*pi*r; 7 return 0; 8 } assembly codes(for line 4 and 6 in c codes) generated by GCC: 6 mov $0x1, -0x4(%ebp) 7 mov -0x4(%ebp), %edx 7 mov %edx, %eax 7 add %eax, %eax 7 add %edx, %eax 7 add %eax, %eax 7 mov %eax, -0x8(%ebp) C codes(const): 4 int main(void) 5 { 6 int a,r=1; 7 const int pi=3; 8 a=2*pi*r; 9 return 0; 10 } assembly codes(for line 7 and 8 in c codes) generated by GCC: 6 movl $0x3, -0x8(%ebp) 7 movl $0x3, -0x4(%ebp) 8 mov -0x4(%ebp), %eax 8 add %eax, %eax 8 imul -0x8(%ebp), %eax 8 mov %eax, 0xc(%ebp) i found that use #define and enum, the assembly codes are the same. The compiler use 3 add instructions to perform multiplication. However, when use const, imul instruction is used. Anyone knows the reason behind that?

    Read the article

  • C# - Referencing a type in a dynamically generated assembly

    - by Ashley
    I'm trying to figure out if it's possible when you are dynamically generating assemblies, to reference a type in a previously dynamically generated assembly. For example: using System; using System.CodeDom.Compiler; using System.Reflection; using Microsoft.CSharp; CodeDomProvider provider = new CSharpCodeProvider(); CompilerParameters parameters = new CompilerParameters(); parameters.GenerateInMemory = true; CompilerResults results = provider.CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, @" namespace Dynamic { public class A { } } "); Assembly assem = results.CompiledAssembly; CodeDomProvider provider2 = new CSharpCodeProvider(); CompilerParameters parameters2 = new CompilerParameters(); parameters2.ReferencedAssemblies.Add(assem.FullName); parameters2.GenerateInMemory = true; CompilerResults results2 = provider2.CompileAssemblyFromSource(parameters, @" namespace Dynamic { public class B : A { } } "); if (results2.Errors.HasErrors) { foreach (CompilerError error in results2.Errors) { Console.WriteLine(error.ErrorText); } } else { Assembly assem2 = results2.CompiledAssembly; } This code prints the following on the console: The type or namespace name 'A' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) I've tried it lots of different ways, but nothing seems to be working. Am I missing something? Is this even possible?

    Read the article

  • Converting Generic Type into reference type after checking its type using GetType(). How ?

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    i am trying to call a function that is defined in a class RFIDeas_Wrapper(dll being used). But when i checked for type of reader and after that i used it to call function it shows me error Cannot convert type T to RFIDeas_Wrapper. EDIT private List<string> GetTagCollection<T>(T Reader) { TagCollection = new List<string>(); if (Reader.GetType() == typeof(RFIDeas_Wrapper)) { ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).OpenDevice(); // here Reader is of type RFIDeas_Wrapper //, but i m not able to convert Reader into its datatype. string Tag_Id = ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).TagID(); //Adds Valid Tag Ids into the collection if(Tag_Id!="0") TagCollection.Add(Tag_Id); } else if (Reader.GetType() == typeof(AlienReader)) TagCollection = ((AlienReader)Reader).TagCollection; return TagCollection; } ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).OpenDevice(); , ((AlienReader)Reader).TagCollection; I want this line to be executed without any issue. As Reader will always be of the type i m specifying. How to make compiler understand the same thing.

    Read the article

  • Writing a VM - well formed bytecode?

    - by David Titarenco
    Hi, I'm writing a virtual machine in C just for fun. Lame, I know, but luckily I'm on SO so hopefully no one will make fun :) I wrote a really quick'n'dirty VM that reads lines of (my own) ASM and does stuff. Right now, I only have 3 instructions: add, jmp, end. All is well and it's actually pretty cool being able to feed lines (doing it something like write_line(&prog[1], "jmp", regA, regB, 0); and then running the program: while (machine.code_pointer <= BOUNDS && DONE != true) { run_line(&prog[machine.cp]); } I'm using an opcode lookup table (which may not be efficient but it's elegant) in C and everything seems to be working OK. My question is more of a "best practices" question but I do think there's a correct answer to it. I'm making the VM able to read binary files (storing bytes in unsigned char[]) and execute bytecode. My question is: is it the VM's job to make sure the bytecode is well formed or is it just the compiler's job to make sure the binary file it spits out is well formed? I only ask this because what would happen if someone would edit a binary file and screw stuff up (delete arbitrary parts of it, etc). Clearly, the program would be buggy and probably not functional. Is this even the VM's problem? I'm sure that people much smarter than me have figured out solutions to these problems, I'm just curious what they are!

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason to use C instead of C++ for embedded development?

    - by Piotr Czapla
    Question I have two compilers on my hardware C++ and C89 I'm thinking about using C++ with classes but without polymorphism (to avoid vtables). The main reasons I’d like to use C++ are: I prefer to use “inline” functions instead of macro definitions. I’d like to use namespaces as I prefixes clutter the code. I see C++ a bit type safer mainly because of templates, and verbose casting. I really like overloaded functions and constructors (used for automatic casting). Do you see any reason to stick with C89 when developing for very limited hardware (4kb of RAM)? Conclusion Thank you for your answers, they were really helpful! I though the subject through and I will stick with C mainly because: It is easier to predict actual code in C and this is really important if you have only 4kb of ram. My team consists of C developers mainly so advance features of C++ won't be frequently used. I've found a way to inline functions in my C compiler (C89). It is hard to accept one answer as you provided so many good answers. Unfortunately I can't create a wiki and accept it so I will choose one answer that made me think most.

    Read the article

  • C++0x rvalue references and temporaries

    - by Doug
    (I asked a variation of this question on comp.std.c++ but didn't get an answer.) Why does the call to f(arg) in this code call the const ref overload of f? void f(const std::string &); //less efficient void f(std::string &&); //more efficient void g(const char * arg) { f(arg); } My intuition says that the f(string &&) overload should be chosen, because arg needs to be converted to a temporary no matter what, and the temporary matches the rvalue reference better than the lvalue reference. This is not what happens in GCC and MSVC. In at least G++ and MSVC, any lvalue does not bind to an rvalue reference argument, even if there is an intermediate temporary created. Indeed, if the const ref overload isn't present, the compilers diagnose an error. However, writing f(arg + 0) or f(std::string(arg)) does choose the rvalue reference overload as you would expect. From my reading of the C++0x standard, it seems like the implicit conversion of a const char * to a string should be considered when considering if f(string &&) is viable, just as when passing a const lvalue ref arguments. Section 13.3 (overload resolution) doesn't differentiate between rvalue refs and const references in too many places. Also, it seems that the rule that prevents lvalues from binding to rvalue references (13.3.3.1.4/3) shouldn't apply if there's an intermediate temporary - after all, it's perfectly safe to move from the temporary. Is this: Me misreading/misunderstand the standard, where the implemented behavior is the intended behavior, and there's some good reason why my example should behave the way it does? A mistake that the compiler vendors have somehow all made? Or a mistake based on common implementation strategies? Or a mistake in e.g. GCC (where this lvalue/rvalue reference binding rule was first implemented), that was copied by other vendors? A defect in the standard, or an unintended consequence, or something that should be clarified?

    Read the article

  • Function parameters evaluation order: is undefined behaviour if we pass reference?

    - by bolov
    This is undefined behaviour: void feedMeValue(int x, int a) { cout << x << " " << a << endl; } int main() { int a = 2; int &ra = a; feedMeValue(ra = 3, a); return 0; } because depending on what parameter gets evaluated first we could call (3, 2) or (3, 3). However this: void feedMeReference(int x, int const &ref) { cout << x << " " << ref << endl; } int main() { int a = 2; int &ra = a; feedMeReference(ra = 3, a); return 0; } will always output 3 3 since the second parameter is a reference and all parameters have been evaluated before the function call, so even if the second parameter is evaluated before of after ra = 3, the function received a reference to a wich will have a value of 2 or 3 at the time of the evaluation, but will always have the value 3 at the time of the function call. Is the second example UB? It is important to know because the compiler is free to do anything if he detects undefined behaviour, even if I know it would always yield the same results. *Note: I think that feedMeReference(a = 3, a) is the exact same situation as feedMeReference(ra = 3, a). However it seems not everybody agrees, in the addition to having 2 completely different answers.

    Read the article

  • C/C++ Control Structure Limitations?

    - by STingRaySC
    I have heard of a limitation in VC++ (not sure which version) on the number of nested if statements (somewhere in the ballpark of 300). The code was of the form: if (a) ... else if (b) ... else if (c) ... ... I was surprised to find out there is a limit to this sort of thing, and that the limit is so small. I'm not looking for comments about coding practice and why to avoid this sort of thing altogether. Here's a list of things that I'd imagine could have some limitation: Number of functions in a scope (global, class, or namespace). Number of expressions in a single statement (e.g., compound conditionals). Number of cases in a switch. Number of parameters to a function. Number of classes in a single hierarchy (either inheritance or containment). What other control structures/language features have limits such as this? Do the language standards say anything about these limits (perhaps minimum requirements for an implementation)? Has anyone run into a particular language limitation like this with a particular compiler/implementation? EDIT: Please note that the above form of if statements is indeed "nested." It is equivalent to: if (a) { //... } else { if (b) { //... } else { if (c) { //... } else { //... } } }

    Read the article

  • Is a call to the following method considered late binding?

    - by AspOnMyNet
    1) Assume: • B1 defines methods virtualM() and nonvirtualM(), where former method is virtual while the latter is non-virtual • B2 derives from B1 • B2 overrides virtualM() • B2 is defined inside assembly A • Application app doesn’t have a reference to assembly A In the following code application app dynamically loads an assembly A, creates an instance of a type B2 and calls methods virtualM() and nonvirtualM(): Assembly a=Assembly.Load(“A”); Type t= a.GetType(“B2”); B1 a = ( B1 ) Activator.CreateInstance ( “t” ); a.virtualM(); a.nonvirtualM(); a) Is call to a.virtualM() considered early binding or late binding? b) I assume a call to a.nonvirtualM() is resolved during compilation time? 2) Does the term late binding refer only to looking up the target method at run time or does it also refer to creating an instance of given type at runtime? thanx EDIT: 1) A a=new A(); a.M(); As far as I know, it is not known at compile time where on the heap (thus at which memory address ) will instance a be created during runtime. Now, with early binding the function calls are replaced with memory addresses during compilation process. But how can compiler replace function call with memory address, if it doesn’t know where on the heap will object a be created during runtime ( here I’m assuming the address of method a.M will also be at same memory location as a )? 2) The method slot is determined at compile time I assume that by method slot you’re referring to the entry point in V-table?

    Read the article

  • How do I mock a method with an open array parameter in PascalMock?

    - by Oliver Giesen
    I'm currently in the process of getting started with unit testing and mocking for good and I stumbled over the following method that I can't seem to fabricate a working mock implementation for: function GetInstance(const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID = CID_DEFAULT): Boolean; (TImplContextID is just an alias for Integer) I thought it would have to look something like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; begin Result := AddCall('GetInstance') .WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]) .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) .ReturnValue; end; But the compiler complains about the .ReturnsOutParams([AInstance]) saying "Bad argument type in variable type array constructor.". Also I haven't found a way to specify the open array parameter AArgs at all. Also, is using the @-notation for the TGUID-typed parameter the right way to go? Is it possible to mock this method with the current version of PascalMock at all? Update: I now realize I got the purpose of ReturnsOutParams completely wrong: It's intended to be used for populating the values to be returned when defining the expectations rather than for mocking the call itself. I now think the correct syntax for mocking the out parameter would probably have to look more like this: function TImplementationProviderMock.GetInstance( const AIID: TGUID; out AInstance; const AArgs: array of const; const AContextID: TImplContextID): Boolean; var lCall: TMockMethod; begin lCall := AddCall('GetInstance').WithParams([@AIID, AContextID]); Pointer(AInstance) := lCall.OutParams[0]; Result := lCall.ReturnValue; end; The questions that remain are how to mock the open array parameter AArgs and whether passing the TGUID argument (i.e. a value type) by address will work out...

    Read the article

  • How is it legal to reference an undefined type inside a structure?

    - by paxdiablo
    As part of answering another question, I came across a piece of code like this, which gcc compiles without complaint. typedef struct { struct xyz *z; } xyz; int main (void) { return 0; } This is the means I've always used to construct types that point to themselves (e.g., linked lists) but I've always thought you had to name the struct so you could use self-reference. In other words, you couldn't use xyz *z within the structure because the typedef is not yet complete at that point. But this particular sample does not name the structure and it still compiles. I thought originally there was some black magic going on in the compiler that automatically translated the above code because the structure and typedef names were the same. But this little beauty works as well: typedef struct { struct NOTHING_LIKE_xyz *z; } xyz; What am I missing here? This seems a clear violation since there is no struct NOTHING_LIKE_xyz type defined anywhere. When I change it from a pointer to an actual type, I get the expected error: typedef struct { struct NOTHING_LIKE_xyz z; } xyz; qqq.c:2: error: field `z' has incomplete type Also, when I remove the struct, I get an error (parse error before "NOTHING ...). Is this allowed in ISO C?

    Read the article

  • Dynamic stack allocation in C++

    - by Poni
    I want to allocate memory on the stack. Heard of _alloca / alloca and I understand that these are compiler-specific stuff, which I don't like. So, I came-up with my own solution (which might have it's own flaws) and I want you to review/improve it so for once and for all we'll have this code working: /*#define allocate_on_stack(pointer, size) \ __asm \ { \ mov [pointer], esp; \ sub esp, [size]; \ }*/ /*#define deallocate_from_stack(size) \ __asm \ { \ add esp, [size]; \ }*/ void test() { int buff_size = 4 * 2; char *buff = 0; __asm { // allocate mov [buff], esp; sub esp, [buff_size]; } // playing with the stack-allocated memory for(int i = 0; i < buff_size; i++) buff[i] = 0x11; __asm { // deallocate add esp, [buff_size]; } } void main() { __asm int 3h; test(); } Compiled with VC9. What flaws do you see in it? Me for example, not sure that subtracting from ESP is the solution for "any kind of CPU". Also, I'd like to make the commented-out macros work but for some reason I can't.

    Read the article

  • Casting to specify unknown object type?

    - by fuzzygoat
    In the following code I have a view object that is an instance of UIScrollView, if I run the code below I get warnings saying that "UIView might not respond to -setContentSize etc." UIImage *image = [UIImage imageNamed:@"Snowy_UK.jpg"]; imageView = [[UIImageView alloc] initWithImage:image]; [[self view] addSubview:imageView]; [[self view] setContentSize:[image size]]; [[self view] setMaximumZoomScale:2.0]; [[self view] setMinimumZoomScale: [[self view] bounds].size.width / [image size].width]; I have checked the type of the object and [self view] is indeed a UIScrollView. I am guessing that this is just the compiler making a bad guess as to the type and the solution is simply to cast the object to the correct type manually, am I getting this right? UIScrollView *scrollView = (UIScrollView *)[self view]; UIImage *image = [UIImage imageNamed:@"Snowy_UK.jpg"]; imageView = [[UIImageView alloc] initWithImage:image]; [[self view] addSubview:imageView]; [scrollView setContentSize:[image size]]; [scrollView setMaximumZoomScale:2.0]; [scrollView setMinimumZoomScale: [scrollView bounds].size.width / [image size].width]; cheers Gary.

    Read the article

  • Strange inheritance behaviour in Objective-C

    - by Smikey
    Hi all, I've created a class called SelectableObject like so: #define kNumberKey @"Object" #define kNameKey @"Name" #define kThumbStringKey @"Thumb" #define kMainStringKey @"Main" #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> @interface SelectableObject : NSObject <NSCoding> { int number; NSString *name; NSString *thumbString; NSString *mainString; } @property (nonatomic, assign) int number; @property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *name; @property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *thumbString; @property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *mainString; @end So far so good. And the implementation section conforms to the NSCoding protocol as expected. HOWEVER, when I add a new class which inherits from this class, i.e. #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> #import "SelectableObject.h" @interface Pet : SelectableObject <NSCoding> { } @end I suddenly get the following compiler error in the Selectable object class! SelectableObject.h:16: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before 'interface' This makes no sense to me. Why is the interface declaration for the SelectableObject class suddenly broken? I also import it in a couple of other classes I've written... Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks! Michael

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168  | Next Page >