Search Results

Search found 18079 results on 724 pages for 'compiler options'.

Page 212/724 | < Previous Page | 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219  | Next Page >

  • Are nested functions a bad thing in gcc ?

    - by LB
    Hi, I know that nested functions are not part of the standard C, but since they're present in gcc (and the fact that gcc is the only compiler i care about), i tend to use them quite often. Is this a bad thing ? If so, could you show me some nasty examples ? What's the status of nested functions in gcc ? Are they going to be removed ? thanks

    Read the article

  • Minimalist array creation in c#

    - by sipwiz
    I've always wanted to be able to use the line below but the C# compiler won't let me. To me it seems obvious and unambiguos as to what I want. myString.Trim({'[', ']'}); I can acheive my goal using: myString.Trim(new char[]{'[', ']'}); So I don't die wondering is there any other way to do it that is closer to the first approach?

    Read the article

  • C# enum to string auto-conversion?

    - by dcompiled
    Is it possible to have the compiler automatically convert my Enum values to strings so I can avoid explicitly calling the ToString method every time. Here's an example of what I'd like to do: enum Rank { A, B, C } Rank myRank = Rank.A; string myString = Rank.A; // Error: Cannot implicitly convert type 'Rank' to 'string' string myString2 = Rank.A.ToString(); // OK: but is extra work

    Read the article

  • Difference of function argument as (const int &) and (int & a) in C++

    - by Narek
    I know that if you write void function_name(int& a), then function will not do local copy of your variable passed as argument. Also have met in literature that you should write void function_name(const int & a) in order to say compiler, that I dont want the variable passed as argument to be copied. So my question: what is the difference with this two cases (except that "const" enshures that the variable passes will not be changed by function!!!)???

    Read the article

  • Does armcc optimizes non-volatile variables with -O0 ?

    - by Dor
    int* Register = 0x00FF0000; // Address of micro-seconds timer while(*Register != 0); Should I declare *Register as volatile while using armcc compiler and -O0 optimization ? In other words: Does -O0 optimization requires qualifying that sort of variables as volatile ? (which is probably required in -O2 optimization)

    Read the article

  • overloading new/delete problem

    - by hidayat
    This is my scenario, Im trying to overload new and delete globally. I have written my allocator class in a file called allocator.h. And what I am trying to achieve is that if a file is including this header file, my version of new and delete should be used. So in a header file "allocator.h" i have declared the two functions extern void* operator new(std::size_t size); extern void operator delete(void *p, std::size_t size); I the same header file I have a class that does all the allocator stuff, class SmallObjAllocator { ... }; I want to call this class from the new and delete functions and I would like the class to be static, so I have done this: template<unsigned dummy> struct My_SmallObjectAllocatorImpl { static SmallObjAllocator myAlloc; }; template<unsigned dummy> SmallObjAllocator My_SmallObjectAllocatorImpl<dummy>::myAlloc(DEFAULT_CHUNK_SIZE, MAX_OBJ_SIZE); typedef My_SmallObjectAllocatorImpl<0> My_SmallObjectAllocator; and in the cpp file it looks like this: allocator.cc void* operator new(std::size_t size) { std::cout << "using my new" << std::endl; if(size > MAX_OBJ_SIZE) return malloc(size); else return My_SmallObjectAllocator::myAlloc.allocate(size); } void operator delete(void *p, std::size_t size) { if(size > MAX_OBJ_SIZE) free(p); else My_SmallObjectAllocator::myAlloc.deallocate(p, size); } The problem is when I try to call the constructor for the class SmallObjAllocator which is a static object. For some reason the compiler are calling my overloaded function new when initializing it. So it then tries to use My_SmallObjectAllocator::myAlloc.deallocate(p, size); which is not defined so the program crashes. So why are the compiler calling new when I define a static object? and how can I solve it?

    Read the article

  • Object of an abstract class

    - by webgenius
    Why is it not possible to create an object of an abstract class? I understand that the compiler creates a VTABLE with VPTR pointing to NULL. Does this prevent from creating an object of an abstract class?

    Read the article

  • Detect use of older Java libraries

    - by Tony Morris
    Is there a third party library to detect the use of a Java 1.5 library when compiling with a 1.5 compiler with -source 1.4 and -target 1.4? I could use a 1.4 rt.jar in the bootclasspath however I hope there is a better way. To be used, for example, to fail the compile/build if a newer library is used.

    Read the article

  • What does =*> mean with regards to context free grammars?

    - by incrediman
    I've been reading a couple books/online references about compiler theory, and keep seeing that particular operator coming up every once in a while (as seen here), specifically when the current topic is context free grammars. What does it mean? As well, how does it differ from =>? Explanations with examples distinguishing => from =*> would be most helpful.

    Read the article

  • Good practice : compare a value with a boolean?

    - by NLemay
    Most of the time, I prefer to write this : if(isWelcome() == true){} if(isWelcome() == false){} instead of this if(isWelcome()){} if(!isWelcome()){} Because I feel that it is easier to read (but I do understand that it doesn't make sense). I would like to know if there is a common agreement about this practice. What most developer do? And I'm wondering if the compiler is doing the extra comparaison, or if it understand that it is useless.

    Read the article

  • Qt inheriting from QGraphicsEllipseItem

    - by JHollanti
    I was trying to inherit from QGraphicsEllipseItem 'cause i wanted to add some functionality to it. However i was faced with this error, which probably has something to do with the compiler/precompiler or moc? error: 'staticMetaObject' is not a member of 'QGraphicsEllipseItem' And here's the class code: class MyEllipseItem : public QGraphicsEllipseItem { Q_OBJECT public: MyEllipseItem (const QRectF & outline) : QGraphicsEllipseItem(outline) { } };

    Read the article

  • what happens when two exceptions occur?

    - by ashish yadav
    what will the operating system and compiler behave when they have two exceptions. And none of them have been caught yet. what type of handler will be called . lets say both the exceptions were of different type. i apologize if i am not clear but i feel i have made myself clear enough. thank you!!!

    Read the article

  • C++ delete[] operator

    - by Betamoo
    Is this the right way to use delete[] operator? int* a=new int[size]; delete[] a; If yes, Who (compiler or GC or whoever) will determine the size of the newly created array? and where will it store the array size? Thanks

    Read the article

  • A program that creates another program

    - by zaidwaqi
    Hi, I need to create a program that creates another program but not a compiler though. For example, I write a program that accepts a string input from the user. Let's say user enter "Pluto". This program should then create a separate .exe that says "Hello Pluto" when executed. How can I do this? If you could give example in C# and Windows Forms, it's better. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to make a private property?

    - by mystify
    I tried to make a private property in my *.m file: @interface MyClass (Private) @property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray *stuff; @end @implementation MyClass @synthesize stuff; // not ok Compiler claims that there's no stuff property declared. But there's a stuff. Just in an anonymous category. Let me guess: Impossible. Other solutions?

    Read the article

  • How is it possible to legally write ::: in C++ and ??? in C#?

    - by daveny
    These questions are a kind of game, and I did not find the solution for them. It is possible to write ::: in C++ without using quotes or anything like this and the compiler will accept it (macros are prohibited too). And the same is true for C# too, but in C#, you have to write ???. I think C++ will use the :: scope operator and C# will use ? : , but I do not know the answers to them. Any idea?

    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

< Previous Page | 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219  | Next Page >