Search Results

Search found 39069 results on 1563 pages for 'without compiler'.

Page 44/1563 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Beginner C++ Question

    - by Donal Rafferty
    I have followed the code example here toupper c++ example And implemented it in my own code as follows void CharString::MakeUpper() { char* str[strlen(m_pString)]; int i=0; str[strlen(m_pString)]=m_pString; char* c; while (str[i]) { c=str[i]; putchar (toupper(c)); i++; } } But this gives me the following compiler error CharString.cpp: In member function 'void CharString::MakeUpper()': CharString.cpp:276: error: invalid conversion from 'char*' to 'int' CharString.cpp:276: error: initializing argument 1of 'int toupper(int)' CharString.cpp: In member function 'void CharString::MakeLower()': This is line 276 putchar (toupper(c)); I understand that toupper is looking for int as a parameter and returns an int also, is that the problem? If so how does the example work?

    Read the article

  • What types of conditions can be used for conditional compilation in C++?

    - by user1002288
    This is an exam question for C++: Which of the following statements accurately describe the condition that can be used for conditional compilation in C++? A. The condition can depend on the value of environment variables. B. The condition can depend on the value of any const variables. C. The condition can depend on the value of program variables. D. The condition can use the sizeof() operator to make decision about compiler-dependent operations based on the size of standard data type. E. The condition must evaluate to either a 0 or 1 during preprocessing. I think the answer is E. Is this correct?

    Read the article

  • Are unspecified and undefined behavior required to be consistent between compiles?

    - by sharptooth
    Let's pretend my program contains a specific construct the C++ Standard states to be unspecified behavior. This basically means the implementation has to do something reasonable but is allowed not to document it. But is the implementation required to produce the same behavior every time it compiles a specific construct with unspecified behavior or is it allowed to produce different behavior in different compiles? What about undefined behavior? Let's pretend my program contains a construct that is UB according to the Standard. The implementation is allowed to exhibit any behavior. But can this behavior differ between compiles of the same program on the same compiler with same settings in the same environment? In other words, if I dereference a null pointer on line 78 in file X.cpp and the implementation formats the drive in such case does it mean that it will do the same after the program is recompiled?

    Read the article

  • variable scope in statement blocks

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { Foo(); } int i = 10; // error, 'i' already exists ---------------------------------------- for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { Foo(); } i = 10; // error, 'i' doesn't exist By my understanding of scope, the first example should be fine. The fact neither of them are allowed seems even more odd. Surely 'i' is either in scope or not. Is there something non-obvious about scope I don't understand which means the compiler genuinely can't resolve this? Or is just a case of nanny-state compilerism?

    Read the article

  • How does an optimizing compiler react to a program with nested loops?

    - by D.Singh
    Say you have a bunch of nested loops. public void testMethod() { for(int i = 0; i<1203; i++){ //some computation for(int k=2; k<123; k++){ //some computation for(int j=2; j<12312; j++){ //some computation for(int l=2; l<123123; l++){ //some computation for(int p=2; p<12312; p++){ //some computation } } } } } } When the above code reaches the stage where the compiler will try to optimize it (I believe it's when the intermediate language needs to converted to machine code?), what will the compiler try to do? Is there any significant optimization that will take place? I understand that the optimizer will break up the loops by means of loop fission. But this is only per loop isn't it? What I mean with my question is will it take any action exclusively based on seeing the nested loops? Or will it just optimize the loops one by one? If the Java VM complicates the explanation then please just assume that it's C or C++ code.

    Read the article

  • Is there a precedent for the license on a compiler restricting the kind of development you can use it for?

    - by Jim McKeeth
    It was recently let slip that the new EULA for Delphi XE3 will prohibit Client Server development with the Professional edition without the additional purchase of a Client Server license pack. This is not to say the Professional version will lack the features, but the license will specifically prohibit the developer from using the compiler for a specific class of development, even with 3rd party or home grown solutions. So my question is if there is a precedent of a compiler or similar creative tool prohibiting the class of work you can use it for. Specifically a commercially licensed "professional" tool like Delphi XE3. Also, would such a restriction be legally enforceable? I know there have been educational edition or starter edition tools in the past that have restricted their use for commercial purposes, but those were not sold as "professional" tools. Also I know that a lot of computing software and equipment will have a disclaimer that it is not for use in "life support equipment" or "nuclear power" but that is more of avoiding liability than prohibiting activity. Seems like I recall Microsoft putting a restriction in FrontPage that you couldn't use it to create a web site that reflected poorly on Microsoft, but they pulled that restriction before it could be tested legally.

    Read the article

  • how to build openvpn without libpam?

    - by hugemeow
    Since I have no root privilege to install libpam, I failed to run ./configure. So is there any method with which I can build openvpn without libpam? checking for OPENSSL_CRYPTO... yes checking for OPENSSL_SSL... yes checking for EVP_CIPHER_CTX_set_key_length... yes checking for ENGINE_load_builtin_engines... yes checking for ENGINE_register_all_complete... yes checking for ENGINE_cleanup... yes checking for ssl_init in -lpolarssl... no checking for aes_crypt_cbc in -lpolarssl... no checking for lzo1x_1_15_compress in -llzo2... no checking for lzo1x_1_15_compress in -llzo... no checking for PKCS11_HELPER... no checking git checkout... yes configure: error: libpam required but missing What's more, why I cannot disable libpam option? [mirror@innov openvpn]$ ./configure --help | grep libpam --enable-pam-dlopen dlopen libpam [default=no] C compiler flags for libpam LIBPAM_LIBS linker flags for libpam

    Read the article

  • Backup to disk, encrypted, without any installed local software

    - by user30064
    Hi, Ok, this is a tough one, and it might not even be possible, but no harm in asking I guess. I have a Buffalo Terastation file server that I use for network attached storage. After a couple of phone calls to customer services I realised that there is no way to backup to disk encrypted. In effect, I would be carrying unencrypted company data off-site daily, which is obviously unacceptable. I had a go at TrueCrypt, EncFS, and a few others, and as far as I could see all of them required that you install some software on the machine that is to use the file system, which makes sense. Unfortunately the firmware on the Terastation is closed and I cannot install any software (and I can't build from source either, since Buffalo didn't include a compiler). Are there any ways to copy files to disk, where as soon as they are written to the disk they are transparently encrypted, without having to install additional software? I'm not sure it matters too much, but the Terastation firmware is Linux based, although as I mentioned, closed. Many thanks, Andreas

    Read the article

  • How do I empty Drupal Cache (without Devel)

    - by alexanderpas
    Okay... Seems i can't find it with google... so here you go SO ;) How do i empty the drupal caches: without the Devel module without running some PHP Statement in a new node etc. without going into the database itself Effectively, how do you instruct a luser to clear his caches

    Read the article

  • ILMerge - Unresolved assembly reference not allowed: System.Core

    - by Steve Michelotti
    ILMerge is a utility which allows you the merge multiple .NET assemblies into a single binary assembly more for convenient distribution. Recently we ran into problems when attempting to use ILMerge on a .NET 4 project. We received the error message: An exception occurred during merging: Unresolved assembly reference not allowed: System.Core.     at System.Compiler.Ir2md.GetAssemblyRefIndex(AssemblyNode assembly)     at System.Compiler.Ir2md.GetTypeRefIndex(TypeNode type)     at System.Compiler.Ir2md.VisitReferencedType(TypeNode type)     at System.Compiler.Ir2md.GetMemberRefIndex(Member m)     at System.Compiler.Ir2md.PopulateCustomAttributeTable()     at System.Compiler.Ir2md.SetupMetadataWriter(String debugSymbolsLocation)     at System.Compiler.Ir2md.WritePE(Module module, String debugSymbolsLocation, BinaryWriter writer)     at System.Compiler.Writer.WritePE(String location, Boolean writeDebugSymbols, Module module, Boolean delaySign, String keyFileName, String keyName)     at System.Compiler.Writer.WritePE(CompilerParameters compilerParameters, Module module)     at ILMerging.ILMerge.Merge()     at ILMerging.ILMerge.Main(String[] args) It turns out that this issue is caused by ILMerge.exe not being able to find the .NET 4 framework by default. The answer was ultimately found here. You either have to use the /lib option to point to your .NET 4 framework directory (e.g., “C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319” or “C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4.0.30319”) or just use an ILMerge.exe.config file that looks like this: 1: <configuration> 2: <startup useLegacyV2RuntimeActivationPolicy="true"> 3: <requiredRuntime safemode="true" imageVersion="v4.0.30319" version="v4.0.30319"/> 4: </startup> 5: </configuration> This was able to successfully resolve my issue.

    Read the article

  • Partial specialization with reference template parameter fails to compile in VS2005

    - by Blair Holloway
    I have code that boils down to the following: template struct Foo {}; template & I struct FooBar {}; //////// template struct Baz {}; template & I struct Baz< FooBar { static void func(FooBar& value); }; //////// struct MyStruct { static const Foo s_floatFoo; }; // Elsewhere: const Foo MyStruct::s_floatFoo; void callBaz() { typedef FooBar FloatFooBar; FloatFooBar myFloatFooBar; Baz::func(myFloatFooBar); } This compiles successfully under GCC, however, under VS2005, I get: error C2039: 'func' : is not a member of 'Baz' with [ T=FloatFooBar ] error C3861: 'func': identifier not found However, if I change const Foo<T>& I to const Foo<T>* I (passing I by pointer rather than by reference), and defining FloatFooBar as: typedef FooBar FloatFooBar; Both GCC and VS2005 are happy. What's going on? Is this some kind of subtle template substitution failure that VS2005 is handling differently to GCC, or a compiler bug? (The strangest thing: I thought I had the above code working in VS2005 earlier this morning. But that was before my morning coffee. I'm now not entirely certain I wasn't under some sort of caffeine-craving-induced delirium...)

    Read the article

  • GCC emits extra code for boost::shared_ptr dereference

    - by Checkers
    I have the following code: #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> struct Foo { int a; }; static int A; void func_shared(const boost::shared_ptr<Foo> &foo) { A = foo->a; } void func_raw(Foo * const foo) { A = foo->a; } I thought the compiler would create identical code, but for shared_ptr version an extra seemingly redundant instruction is emitted. Disassembly of section .text: 00000000 <func_raw(Foo*)>: 0: 55 push ebp 1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp 3: 8b 45 08 mov eax,DWORD PTR [ebp+8] 6: 5d pop ebp 7: 8b 00 mov eax,DWORD PTR [eax] 9: a3 00 00 00 00 mov ds:0x0,eax e: c3 ret f: 90 nop 00000010 <func_shared(boost::shared_ptr<Foo> const&)>: 10: 55 push ebp 11: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp 13: 8b 45 08 mov eax,DWORD PTR [ebp+8] 16: 5d pop ebp 17: 8b 00 mov eax,DWORD PTR [eax] 19: 8b 00 mov eax,DWORD PTR [eax] 1b: a3 00 00 00 00 mov ds:0x0,eax 20: c3 ret I'm just curious, is this necessary, or it is just an optimizer's shortcoming? Compiling with g++ 4.1.2, -O3 -NDEBUG.

    Read the article

  • Is there a standard lexer/parser tool for Python?

    - by Salim Fadhley
    A volunteer job requires us to convert a large number of LaTeX documents into ePub format. It's a series of open-source fiction book which has so far only been produced only on paper via a print on demand service. We'd like to be able to offer the book to users of book-reader devices (such as Kindle) which require the ePub format for best results. Fortunately, ePub is a very simple format, however there's no trivial way for LaTeX to produce the XHTML outut required. We experimented with alternative LaTeX compilers (e.g. plastex) but in the end we figured that it would probably be a lot easier to simply write our own compiler which understands a tiny subset of the LaTeX language and compiles directly to XHTML / ePub. Previously I used a tool on Windows called GOLD. This allowed me to go directly from BNF grammars to a stub parser. It also alllowed me to implement the parser in any language I liked. (I'd choose Python). This product has to work on Linux, so I'm wondering if there's an equivalent toolchain that works as well under Ubutnu / Eclipse / Python. The idea is that we will take the grammar of TeX and just implement a teeny subset of that, but we do not want to spend a huge amount of time worrying about grammar and parsing. A parser generator would obviously save us a great deal of time. Sal UPDATE 1: Bonus marks for a solution with excellent documentation or tutorials.

    Read the article

  • Anonymous union definition/declaration in a macro GNU vs VS2008

    - by Alan_m
    I am attempting to alter an IAR specific header file for a lpc2138 so it can compile with Visual Studio 2008 (to enable compatible unit testing). My problem involves converting register definitions to be hardware independent (not at a memory address) The "IAR-safe macro" is: #define __IO_REG32_BIT(NAME, ADDRESS, ATTRIBUTE, BIT_STRUCT) \ volatile __no_init ATTRIBUTE union \ { \ unsigned long NAME; \ BIT_STRUCT NAME ## _bit; \ } @ ADDRESS //declaration //(where __gpio0_bits is a structure that names //each of the 32 bits as P0_0, P0_1, etc) __IO_REG32_BIT(IO0PIN,0xE0028000,__READ_WRITE,__gpio0_bits); //usage IO0PIN = 0x0xAA55AA55; IO0PIN_bit.P0_5 = 0; This is my comparable "hardware independent" code: #define __IO_REG32_BIT(NAME, BIT_STRUCT)\ volatile union \ { \ unsigned long NAME; \ BIT_STRUCT NAME##_bit; \ } NAME; //declaration __IO_REG32_BIT(IO0PIN,__gpio0_bits); //usage IO0PIN.IO0PIN = 0xAA55AA55; IO0PIN.IO0PIN_bit.P0_5 = 1; This compiles and works but quite obviously my "hardware independent" usage does not match the "IAR-safe" usage. How do I alter my macro so I can use IO0PIN the same way I do in IAR? I feel this is a simple anonymous union matter but multiple attempts and variants have proven unsuccessful. Maybe the IAR GNU compiler supports anonymous unions and vs2008 does not. Thank you.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >