Search Results

Search found 3255 results on 131 pages for 'pointers'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 6/131 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • A few questions about char pointers.

    - by m4design
    1- How does this work: char *ptr = "hi"; Now the compiler will put this string in the memory (I'm guessing the stack), and create a pointer to it? Is this is how it works? 2- Also if it is created locally in a function, when the function returns will the memory occupied by the string be freed? 3- Last but not least, why is this not allowed: ptr[0] = 'H'; ?

    Read the article

  • Templates, Function Pointers and C++0x

    - by user328543
    One of my personal experiments to understand some of the C++0x features: I'm trying to pass a function pointer to a template function to execute. Eventually the execution is supposed to happen in a different thread. But with all the different types of functions, I can't get the templates to work. #include `<functional`> int foo(void) {return 2;} class bar { public: int operator() (void) {return 4;}; int something(int a) {return a;}; }; template <class C> int func(C&& c) { //typedef typename std::result_of< C() >::type result_type; typedef typename std::conditional< std::is_pointer< C >::value, std::result_of< C() >::type, std::conditional< std::is_object< C >::value, std::result_of< typename C::operator() >::type, void> >::type result_type; result_type result = c(); return result; } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { // call with a function pointer func(foo); // call with a member function bar b; func(b); // call with a bind expression func(std::bind(&bar::something, b, 42)); // call with a lambda expression func( [](void)->int {return 12;} ); return 0; } The result_of template alone doesn't seem to be able to find the operator() in class bar and the clunky conditional I created doesn't compile. Any ideas? Will I have additional problems with const functions?

    Read the article

  • Pointers in For loops

    - by Bobby
    Quick question: I am a C# guy debugging a C++ app so I am not used to memory management. In the following code: for(int i = 0; i < TlmMsgDB.CMTGetTelemMsgDBCount(); i++) { CMTTelemetryMsgCls* telm = TlmMsgDB.CMTGetTelemetryMsg(i); CMT_SINT32_Tdef id = telm->CMTGetPackingMapID(); ManualScheduleTables.SetManualMsg(i,id); ManualScheduleTables.SetManExec(i,false); } Am I leaking memory every iteration b/c of CMTTelemetryMsgCls* telm = TlmMsgDB.CMTGetTelemetryMsg(i);? The "CMTGetTelemetryMsg(int)" method returns a pointer. Do I have to "delete telm;" at the end of each iteration?

    Read the article

  • How to use pointers and pointer aritmetic

    - by booby
    : error C2064: term does not evaluate to a function taking 1 arguments : error C2227: left of '-name' must point to class/struct/union/generic type how do i fix this so this error doesn't happen for(int index = 0; index < (numStudents); index++) { if (student(index + 1)->score >= 90 ) student(index + 1)->grade = 'A'; else if (student(index + 1)->score >= 80 ) student(index + 1)->grade = 'B'; else if (student(index + 1)->score >= 70 ) student(index + 1)->grade = 'C'; else if (student(index + 1)->score >= 60 ) student(index + 1)->grade = 'D'; else student(index + 1)->grade = 'F'; }

    Read the article

  • typedef to store pointers in C

    - by seriouslion
    The Size of pointer depends on the arch of the machine. So sizeof(int*)=sizeof(int) or sizeof(int*)=sizeof(long int) I want to have a custom data type which is either int or long int depending on the size of pointer. I tried to use macro #if, but the condition for macros does not allow sizeof operator. Also when using if-else, typedef is limited to the scope of if. if((sizeof(int)==sizeof(int *)){ typedef int ptrtype; } else{ typedef long int ptrtype; } //ptrtype not avialble here Is there any way to define ptrtype globally?

    Read the article

  • Assign pointers in objective C

    - by Tattat
    -(id)setBigObject:(BigObject *)abc{ self.wl = abc; abc.smallObject = self.smallObject; } I have a abc, which is a big Object, when the user pass the bigObject, abc. I assign to my wl value, so , I write "self.wl = abc;", but I want my smallObject assign to the abc's smallObject, so, I do "abc.smallObject = self.smallObject; " So, when I edit the smallObject in self, it will also changed in the abc's also? Am I right?

    Read the article

  • Function pointers uasage

    - by chaitanyavarma
    Hi All, Why these two codes give the same output, Case - 1: #include <stdio.h> typedef void (*mycall) (int a ,int b); void addme(int a,int b); void mulme(int a,int b); void subme(int a,int b); main() { mycall x[10]; x[0] = &addme; x[1] = &subme; x[2] = &mulme; (x[0])(5,2); (x[1])(5,2); (x[2])(5,2); } void addme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a+b)); } void mulme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a*b)); } void subme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a-b)); } Output: the value is 7 the value is 3 the value is 10 Case -2 : #include <stdio.h> typedef void (*mycall) (int a ,int b); void addme(int a,int b); void mulme(int a,int b); void subme(int a,int b); main() { mycall x[10]; x[0] = &addme; x[1] = &subme; x[2] = &mulme; (*x[0])(5,2); (*x[1])(5,2); (*x[2])(5,2); } void addme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a+b)); } void mulme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a*b)); } void subme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a-b)); } Output: the value is 7 the value is 3 the value is 10

    Read the article

  • Function pointers usage

    - by chaitanyavarma
    Hi All, Why these two codes give the same output, Case 1: #include <stdio.h> typedef void (*mycall) (int a ,int b); void addme(int a,int b); void mulme(int a,int b); void subme(int a,int b); main() { mycall x[10]; x[0] = &addme; x[1] = &subme; x[2] = &mulme; (x[0])(5,2); (x[1])(5,2); (x[2])(5,2); } void addme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a+b)); } void mulme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a*b)); } void subme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a-b)); } Output: the value is 7 the value is 3 the value is 10 Case 2 : #include <stdio.h> typedef void (*mycall) (int a ,int b); void addme(int a,int b); void mulme(int a,int b); void subme(int a,int b); main() { mycall x[10]; x[0] = &addme; x[1] = &subme; x[2] = &mulme; (*x[0])(5,2); (*x[1])(5,2); (*x[2])(5,2); } void addme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a+b)); } void mulme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a*b)); } void subme(int a, int b) { printf("the value is %d\n",(a-b)); } Output: the value is 7 the value is 3 the value is 10

    Read the article

  • Pointers in C with binary file

    - by darkie15
    Hi All, I am reading the contents of the file using fread into an char array. But I am not sure why it is not getting printed in the output. Here is the code: void getInfo(FILE* inputFile) { char chunk[4]; int liIndex; for (liIndex = 0 ; liIndex < 4 ; liIndex++) { fread(chunk, sizeof(char), 4, inputFile); } printf("\n chunk %s", chunk); } Output prints nothing at all. Where am I going wrong? Regards , darkie

    Read the article

  • Proper way to reassign pointers in c++

    - by user272689
    I want to make sure i have these basic ideas correct before moving on (I am coming from a Java/Python background). I have been searching the net, but haven't found a concrete answer to this question yet. When you reassign a pointer to a new object, do you have to call delete on the old object first to avoid a memory leak? My intuition is telling me yes, but i want a concrete answer before moving on. For example, let say you had a class that stored a pointer to a string class MyClass { private: std::string *str; public: MyClass (const std::string &_str) { str=new std::string(_str); } void ChangeString(const std::string &_str) { // I am wondering if this is correct? delete str; str = new std::string(_str) /* * or could you simply do it like: * str = _str; */ } .... In the ChangeString method, which would be correct? I think i am getting hung up on if you dont use the new keyword for the second way, it will still compile and run like you expected. Does this just overwrite the data that this pointer points to? Or does it do something else? Any advice would be greatly appricated :D

    Read the article

  • How does dereferencing of a function pointer happen?

    - by eSKay
    Why and how does dereferencing a function pointer just "do nothing"? This is what I am talking about: #include<stdio.h> void hello() { printf("hello"); } int main(void) { (*****hello)(); } From a comment over here: function pointers dereference just fine, but the resulting function designator will be immediately converted back to a function pointer And from an answer here: Dereferencing (in way you think) a function's pointer means: accessing a CODE memory as it would be a DATA memory. Function pointer isn't suppose to be dereferenced in that way. Instead, it is called. I would use a name "dereference" side by side with "call". It's OK. Anyway: C is designed in such a way that both function name identifier as well as variable holding function's pointer mean the same: address to CODE memory. And it allows to jump to that memory by using call () syntax either on an identifier or variable. How exactly does dereferencing of a function pointer work?

    Read the article

  • C++ and function pointers assessment: lack of inspiration

    - by OlivierDofus
    I've got an assessment to give to my students. It's about C++ and function pointers. Their skill is middle: it the first year of a programming school after bachelor. To give you something precise, here's a sample of a solution of one of 3 exercices they had to do in 30 minutes (the question was: "here's a version of a code that could be written with function pointers, write down the same thing but with function pointers"): typedef void (*fcPtr) (istream &); fcPtr ArrayFct [] = { Delete , Insert, Swap, Move }; void HandleCmd (const string && Cmd) { string AvalaibleCommands ("DISM"); string::size_type Pos; istringstream Flux (Cmd); char CodeOp; Flux >> CodeOp; Pos = AvalaibleCommands.find (toupper (CodeOp)); if (Pos != string::npos) { ArrayFct [Pos](Flux); } } Any idea where I could find some inspiration? Some of the students have understood the principles, even though it's very hard for them to write C++ code. I know them, I know they're clever, and I'm pretty sure they should be very good project managers. So, writing C++ code is not that important after all. Understanding is the most important part (IMHO). I'm wondering about maybe break the habits, and give half of the questions about the principle, or even better, give some sample in other language and ask them why it's better to use function pointers instead of classical programming (usually a big switch case). Any idea where I could look? Find some inspiration?

    Read the article

  • What is the underlying reason for not being able to put arrays of pointers in unsafe structs in C#?

    - by cons
    If one could put an array of pointers to child structs inside unsafe structs in C# like one could in C, constructing complex data structures without the overhead of having one object per node would be a lot easier and less of a time sink, as well as syntactically cleaner and much more readable. Is there a deep architectural reason why fixed arrays inside unsafe structs are only allowed to be composed of "value types" and not pointers? I assume only having explicitly named pointers inside structs must be a deliberate decision to weaken the language, but I can't find any documentation about why this is so, or the reasoning for not allowing pointer arrays inside structs, since I would assume the garbage collector shouldn't care what is going on in structs marked as unsafe. Digital Mars' D handles structs and pointers elegantly in comparison, and I'm missing not being able to rapidly develop succinct data structures; by making references abstract in C# a lot of power seems to have been removed from the language, even though pointers are still there at least in a marketing sense. Maybe I'm wrong to expect languages to become more powerful at representing complex data structures efficiently over time.

    Read the article

  • help Implementing Object Oriented ansi-C approach??

    - by No Money
    Hey there, I am an Intermediate programmer in Java and know some of the basics in C++. I recently started to scam over "C language" [please note that i emphasized on C language and want to stick with C as i found it to be a perfect tool, so no need for suggestions focusing on why should i move back to C++ or Java]. Moving on, I code an Object Oriented approach in C but kindda scramble with the pointers part. Please understand that I am just a noob trying to extend my knowledge beyond what i learned in High School. Here is my code..... #include <stdio.h> typedef struct per{ int privateint; char *privateString; struct per (*New) (); void (*deleteperOBJ) (struct t_person *); void (*setperNumber) ((struct*) t_person,int); void (*setperString) ((struct*) t_person,char *); void (*dumpperState) ((struct*) t_person); }t_person; void setperNumber(t_person *const per,int num){ if(per==NULL) return; per->privateint=num; } void setperString(t_person *const per,char *string){ if(per==NULL) return; per->privateString=string; } void dumpperState(t_person *const per){ if(per==NULL) return; printf("value of private int==%d\n", per->privateint); printf("value of private string==%s\n", per->privateString); } void deleteperOBJ(struct t_person *const per){ free((void*)t_person->per); t_person ->per = NULL; } main(){ t_person *const per = (struct*) malloc(sizeof(t_person)); per = t_person -> struct per -> New(); per -> setperNumber (t_person *per, 123); per -> setperString(t_person *per, "No money"); dumpperState(t_person *per); deleteperOBJ(t_person *per); } Just to warn you, this program has several errors and since I am a beginner I couldn't help except to post this thread as a question. I am looking forward for assistance. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Problem using void pointer as a function argument

    - by Nazgulled
    Hi, I can't understand this result... The code: void foo(void * key, size_t key_sz) { HashItem *item = malloc(sizeof(HashItem)); printf("[%d]\n", (int)key); ... item->key = malloc(key_sz); memcpy(item->key, key, key_sz); } void bar(int num) { foo(&num, sizeof(int)); } And I do this call: bar(900011009); But the printf() output is: [-1074593956] I really need key to be a void pointer, how can I fix this?

    Read the article

  • C - Complicated pointer declarations - help understanding

    - by Emmel
    In my burgeoning new self-education in the C language, I've come across a set of declarations that I do not understand how to read. I'd love for someone to break these down. I'll explain at the bottom where I got these examples from. 1. char (*(*x())[])() "x: function returning pointer to array[] of pointer to function returning char" - huh? 2. char (*(*x[3])())[5] "x: array[3] of pointer to function returning pointer to array[5] of char" - come again? 3. char **argv This I understand. "Pointer to pointer to char." But what I don't understand is -- what's the use case for a pointer to a pointer? Follow-up question: does anyone every use declarations this complex or is this just academic fun on the part of the authors of the examples I got this from? These examples are from section 5.12 of the K&R book. This is the first time I'm genuinely stumped by an explanation, in an otherwise well-written classic. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Function pointer demo

    - by AKN
    Hi, Check the below code void functionptrdemo() { typedef int *(funcPtr) (int,int); funcPtr ptr; ptr = add; //IS THIS CORRECT? (*ptr)(2,3); } In the place where I try to assign a function to function ptr with same function signature, it shows a compilation error as error C2659: '=' : function as left operand

    Read the article

  • Assign C++ instance method to a global-function-pointer ?

    - by umanga
    Greetings, My project structure is as follows: \- base (C static library) callbacks.h callbacks.c paint_node.c . . * libBase.a \-app (C++ application) main.cpp In C library 'base' , I have declared global-function-pointer as: in singleheader file callbacks.h #ifndef CALLBACKS_H_ #define CALLBACKS_H_ extern void (*putPixelCallBack)(); extern void (*putImageCallBack)(); #endif /* CALLBACKS_H_ */ in single C file they are initialized as callbacks.c #include "callbacks.h" void (*putPixelCallBack)(); void (*putImageCallBack)(); Other C files access this callback-functions as: paint_node.c #include "callbacks.h" void paint_node(node *node,int index){ //Call callbackfunction . . putPixelCallBack(node->x,node->y,index); } I compile these C files and generate a static library 'libBase.a' Then in C++ application, I want to assign C++ instance method to this global function-pointer: I did something like follows : in Sacm.cpp file #include "Sacm.h" extern void (*putPixelCallBack)(); extern void (*putImageCallBack)(); void Sacm::doDetection() { putPixelCallBack=(void(*)())&paintPixel; //call somefunctions in 'libBase' C library } void Sacm::paintPixel(int x,int y,int index) { qpainter.begin(this); qpainter.drawPoint(x,y); qpainter.end(); } But when compiling it gives the error: sacmtest.cpp: In member function ‘void Sacm::doDetection()’: sacmtest.cpp:113: error: ISO C++ forbids taking the address of an unqualified or parenthesized non-static member function to form a pointer to member function. Say ‘&Sacm::paintPixel’ sacmtest.cpp:113: error: converting from ‘void (Sacm::)(int, int, int)’ to ‘void ()()’ Any tips?

    Read the article

  • Passing a pointer to a function that doesn't match the requirements of the formal parameter

    - by Andreas Grech
    int valid (int x, int y) { return x + y; } int invalid (int x) { return x; } int func (int *f (int, int), int x, int y) { //f is a pointer to a function taking 2 ints and returning an int return f(x, y); } int main () { int val = func(valid, 1, 2), inval = func(invalid, 1, 2); // <- 'invalid' does not match the contract printf("Valid: %d\n", val); printf("Invalid: %d\n", inval); /* Output: * Valid: 3 * Invalid: 1 */ } At the line inval = func(invalid, 1, 2);, why am I not getting a compiler error? If func expects a pointer to a function taking 2 ints and I pass a pointer to a function that takes a single int, why isn't the compiler complaining? Also, since this is happening, what happens to the second parameter y in the invalid function?

    Read the article

  • Why can operator-> be overloaded manually?

    - by FredOverflow
    Wouldn't it make sense if p->m was just syntactic sugar for (*p).m? Essentially, every operator-> that I have ever written could have been implemented as follows: Foo::Foo* operator->() { return &**this; } Is there any case where I would want p->m to mean something else than (*p).m?

    Read the article

  • Start a thread using a method pointer

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

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >