Search Results

Search found 7020 results on 281 pages for 'shared ptr'.

Page 42/281 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

  • Is stack address shared by Heap addresses ??

    - by numerical25
    I read On most operating systems, the addresses in memory starts from highest to lowest. So I am wondering if the heap, stack, and global memory all fall under the same ordering..? If I created... pointerType* pointer = new pointerType //creates memory address 0xffffff And then created a local varible on the stack localObject object would localObjects address be 0xfffffe Or is heap and stack ordering completely different.

    Read the article

  • Adding and sorting a linked list in C

    - by user1202963
    In my assignment, I have to write a function that takes as arguments a pointer to a "LNode" structure and an integer argument. Then, I have to not only add that integer into the linked list, but also put place it so that the list is in proper ascending order. I've tried several various attempts at this, and this is my code as of posting. LNode* AddItem(LNode *headPtr, int newItem) { auto LNode *ptr = headPtr; ptr = malloc(sizeof(LNode)); if (headPtr == NULL) { ptr->value = newItem; ptr->next = headPtr; return ptr; } else { while (headPtr->value > newItem || ptr->next != NULL) { printf("While\n"); // This is simply to let me know how many times the loop runs headPtr = headPtr->next; } ptr->value = newItem; ptr->next = headPtr; return ptr; } } // end of "AddItem" When I run it, and try to insert say a 5 and then a 3, the 5 gets inserted, but then the while loop runs once and I get a segmentation fault. Also I cannot change the arguments as it's part of a skeletal code for this project. Thanks to anyone who can help. If it helps this is what the structure looks like typedef struct LNode { int value; struct LNode *next; } LNode;

    Read the article

  • C++ destructor problem with boost::scoped_ptr

    - by bb-generation
    I have a question about the following code: #include <iostream> #include <boost/scoped_ptr.hpp> class Interface { }; class A : public Interface { public: A() { std::cout << "A()" << std::endl; } virtual ~A() { std::cout << "~A()" << std::endl; } }; Interface* get_a() { A* a = new A; return a; } int main() { { std::cout << "1" << std::endl; boost::scoped_ptr<Interface> x(get_a()); std::cout << "2" << std::endl; } std::cout << "3" << std::endl; } It creates the following output: 1 A() 2 3 As you can see, it doesn't call the destructor of A. The only way I see to get the destructor of A being called, is to add a destructor for the Interface class like this: virtual ~Interface() { } But I really want to avoid any Implementation in my Interface class and virtual ~Interface() = 0; doesn't work (produces some linker errors complaining about a non existing implementation of ~Interface(). So my question is: What do I have to change in order to make the destructor being called, but (if possible) leave the Interface as an Interface (only abstract methods).

    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

  • java objects, shared variables

    - by raven
    hello, I have a simple question here. If I declare a variable inside an object which was made [declared] in the main class, like this: public static int number; ( usually I declare it like this : private int number; ) can it be used in a different object which was also made [declared] in the main class? btw I do not care about security atm, I just want to make something work, don't care about protection)

    Read the article

  • Immutability and shared references - how to reconcile?

    - by davetron5000
    Consider this simplified application domain: Criminal Investigative database Person is anyone involved in an investigation Report is a bit of info that is part of an investigation A Report references a primary Person (the subject of an investigation) A Report has accomplices who are secondarily related (and could certainly be primary in other investigations or reports These classes have ids that are used to store them in a database, since their info can change over time (e.g. we might find new aliases for a person, or add persons of interest to a report) If these are stored in some sort of database and I wish to use immutable objects, there seems to be an issue regarding state and referencing. Supposing that I change some meta-data about a Person. Since my Person objects immutable, I might have some code like: class Person( val id:UUID, val aliases:List[String], val reports:List[Report]) { def addAlias(name:String) = new Person(id,name :: aliases,reports) } So that my Person with a new alias becomes a new object, also immutable. If a Report refers to that person, but the alias was changed elsewhere in the system, my Report now refers to the "old" person, i.e. the person without the new alias. Similarly, I might have: class Report(val id:UUID, val content:String) { /** Adding more info to our report */ def updateContent(newContent:String) = new Report(id,newContent) } Since these objects don't know who refers to them, it's not clear to me how to let all the "referrers" know that there is a new object available representing the most recent state. This could be done by having all objects "refresh" from a central data store and all operations that create new, updated, objects store to the central data store, but this feels like a cheesy reimplementation of the underlying language's referencing. i.e. it would be more clear to just make these "secondary storable objects" mutable. So, if I add an alias to a Person, all referrers see the new value without doing anything. How is this dealt with when we want to avoid mutability, or is this a case where immutability is not helpful?

    Read the article

  • Force an object to be allocated on the heap

    - by Warren Seine
    A C++ class I'm writing uses shared_from_this() to return a valid boost::shared_ptr<>. Besides, I don't want to manage memory for this kind of object. At the moment, I'm not restricting the way the user allocates the object, which causes an error if shared_from_this() is called on a stack-allocated object. I'd like to force the object to be allocated with new and managed by a smart pointer, no matter how the user declares it. I thought it could be done through a proxy or an overloaded new operator, but I can't find a proper way of doing that. Is there a common design pattern for such usage? If it's not possible, how can I test it at compile time?

    Read the article

  • Updating a modul leve shared dictionary

    - by Vishal
    Hi, A module level dictionary 'd' and is accessed by different threads/requests in a django web application. I need to update 'd' every minute with a new data and the process takes about 5 seconds. What could be best solution where I want the users to get either the old value or the new value of d and nothing in between. I can think of a solution where a temp dictionary is constructed with a new data and assigned to 'd' but not sure how this works! Appreciate your ideas. Thanks

    Read the article

  • modal forms and shared data,

    - by Tumble
    I've written a couple of c# forms applications which use a lot of the same data/objects which would better be combined. I realise I could use modal forms to launch each of these but where should I state .dll's and other resources, on the parent form? or on each other form where necessary?

    Read the article

  • Make password case unsensitive in shared ASP.Net membership tables web ap

    - by bill
    Hi all, i have two webapps.. that share ASP.Net membership tables. Everything works fine except i cannot remove case-sensitivity in one of the apps the way i am doing it in the other. in the non-working app void Login1_LoggingIn(object sender, LoginCancelEventArgs e) { string username = Login1.UserName.Trim(); if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(username)) { MembershipUser user = Membership.GetUser(username); if (user != null) { // Only adjust the UserName if the password is correct. This is more secure // so a hacker can't find valid usernames if we adjust the case of mis-cased // usernames with incorrect passwords. string password = Login1.Password.ToUpper(); if (Membership.ValidateUser(user.UserName, password)) { Login1.UserName = user.UserName; } } } } is not working. the password is stored as all upper case. Converted at the time the membership user is created! So if the password is PASSWORD, typing PASSWORD allows me to authenticate. but typing password does not! Even though i can see the string being sent is PASSWORD (converted with toUpper()). I am at a complete loss on this.. in the other app i can type in lower or upper or mixed and i am able to authenticate. In the other app i am not using the textboxes from the login control though.. not sure if this is making the difference??

    Read the article

  • shared_ptr as class member

    - by idimba
    It's common to declared contained objects as a pointers to that class, while "forward declarating" them in header file. This in order to reduce physical dependencies in code. For example class B; // forward declaration class A { private: B* pB; }; Would it be good idea to declare such a member as shared_ptr, instead of naked pointer? I would prefer scoped_ptr, but AFAIKit it won't be in standard.

    Read the article

  • Why it's can be compiled in GNU/C++, can't compiled in VC++2010 RTM?

    - by volnet
    #include #include #include #include "copy_of_auto_ptr.h" #ifdef _MSC_VER #pragma message("#include ") #include // http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnostic-Pragmas.html#Diagnostic-Pragmas #endif /* case 1-4 is the requirement of the auto_ptr. which form http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/020163371X/autoptrupdate/auto_ptr_update.html */ /* case 1. (1) Direct-initialization, same type, e.g. */ std::auto_ptr source_int() { // return std::auto_ptr(new int(3)); std::auto_ptr tmp(new int(3)); return tmp; } /* case 2. (2) Copy-initialization, same type, e.g. */ void sink_int(std::auto_ptr p) { std::cout source_derived() { // return std::auto_ptr(new Derived()); std::auto_ptr tmp(new Derived()); return tmp; } /* case 4. (4) Copy-initialization, base-from-derived, e.g. */ void sink_base( std::auto_ptr p) { p-go(); } int main(void) { /* // auto_ptr */ // case 1. // auto_ptr std::auto_ptr p_int(source_int()); std::cout p_derived(source_derived()); p_derived-go(); // case 4. // auto_ptr sink_base(source_derived()); return 0; } In Eclipse(GNU C++.exe -v gcc version 3.4.5 (mingw-vista special r3)) it's two compile error: Description Resource Path Location Type initializing argument 1 of void sink_base(std::auto_ptr<Base>)' from result ofstd::auto_ptr<_Tp::operator std::auto_ptr<_Tp1() [with _Tp1 = Base, _Tp = Derived]' auto_ptr_ref_research.cpp auto_ptr_ref_research/auto_ptr_ref_research 190 C/C++ Problem Description Resource Path Location Type no matching function for call to `std::auto_ptr::auto_ptr(std::auto_ptr)' auto_ptr_ref_research.cpp auto_ptr_ref_research/auto_ptr_ref_research 190 C/C++ Problem But it's right in VS2010 RTM. Questions: Which compiler stand for the ISO C++ standard? The content of case 4 is the problem "auto_ptr & auto_ptr_ref want to resolve?"

    Read the article

  • java threads don't see shared boolean changes

    - by andymur
    Here the code class Aux implements Runnable { private Boolean isOn = false; private String statusMessage; private final Object lock; public Aux(String message, Object lock) { this.lock = lock; this.statusMessage = message; } @Override public void run() { for (;;) { synchronized (lock) { if (isOn && "left".equals(this.statusMessage)) { isOn = false; System.out.println(statusMessage); } else if (!isOn && "right".equals(this.statusMessage)) { isOn = true; System.out.println(statusMessage); } if ("left".equals(this.statusMessage)) { System.out.println("left " + isOn); } } } } } public class Question { public static void main(String [] args) { Object lock = new Object(); new Thread(new Aux("left", lock)).start(); new Thread(new Aux("right", lock)).start(); } } In this code I expect to see: left, right, left right and so on, but when Thread with "left" message changes isOn to false, Thread with "right" message don't see it and I get ("right true" and "left false" console messages), left thread don't get isOn in true, but right Thread can't change it cause it always see old isOn value (true). When i add volatile modifier to isOn nothing changes, but if I change isOn to some class with boolean field and change this field then threads are see changes and it works fine Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Updating a module level shared dictionary

    - by Vishal
    Hi, A module level dictionary 'd' and is accessed by different threads/requests in a django web application. I need to update 'd' every minute with a new data and the process takes about 5 seconds. What could be best solution where I want the users to get either the old value or the new value of d and nothing in between. I can think of a solution where a temp dictionary is constructed with a new data and assigned to 'd' but not sure how this works! Appreciate your ideas. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Iterating through boost ptr_vector

    - by Ockonal
    Hello, I have a ptr_vector list of my own objects. Something like this: boost::ptr_vector<SomeClass> *list; list.push_back(new SomeClass()>; ... BOOST_FOREACH(SomeClass *tempObj, list) // [x] { tempObj->... } >‘boost::ptr_vector<SomeClass>*’ is not a class, struct, or union type

    Read the article

  • Why is std::tr1::shared_ptr<>.reset() so expensive?

    - by Paul Oyster
    Profiling some code that heavily uses shared_ptrs, I discovered that reset() was surprisingly expensive. For example: struct Test { int i; Test() { this->i = 0; } Test(int i) { this->i = i; } } ; ... auto t = make_shared<Test>(1); ... t.reset(somePointerToATestObject); Tracing the reset() in the last line (under VC++ 2010), I discovered that it creates a new reference-counting object. Is there a cheaper way, that reuses the existing ref-count and does not bother the heap?

    Read the article

  • Quickest way to compute the number of shared elements between two vectors

    - by shn
    Suppose I have two vectors of the same size vector< pair<float, NodeDataID> > v1, v2; I want to compute how many elements from both v1 and v2 have the same NodeDataID. For example if v1 = {<3.7, 22>, <2.22, 64>, <1.9, 29>, <0.8, 7>}, and v2 = {<1.66, 7>, <0.03, 9>, <5.65, 64>, <4.9, 11>}, then I want to return 2 because there are two elements from v1 and v2 that share the same NodeDataIDs: 7 and 64. What is the quickest way to do that in C++ ? Just for information, note that the type NodeDataIDs is defined as I use boost as: typedef adjacency_list<setS, setS, undirectedS, NodeData, EdgeData> myGraph; typedef myGraph::vertex_descriptor NodeDataID; But it is not important since we can compare two NodeDataID using the operator == (that is, possible to do v1[i].second == v2[j].second)

    Read the article

  • Shared data in an ASP.NET application

    - by Barguast
    I have a basic ASP.NET application which is used to request data which is stored on disk. This is loaded from files and sent as the response. I want to be able to store the data loaded from these files in memory to reduce the number of reads from disk. All of the requests will be asking for the same data, so it makes sense to have a single cache of in-memory data which is accessible to all requests. What is the best way to create a single accessible object instance which I can use to store and access this cached data? I've looked into HttpApplication, but apparently a new instance of this is created for parallel requests and so it doesn't fit my needs.

    Read the article

  • Detecting inconsistent revisions of shared sources in SVN

    - by maxim1000
    I have an SVN repository containing several components: LibraryA LibraryB - depends on LibraryA Application - depends on LibraryB and LibraryA More detailed structure (branches and tags are not related to the problem): LibraryA LibraryA_code LibraryB LibraryB_code svn:externals to a fixed revision R1 of LibraryA_code Application Application_code svn:externals to a fixed revision R2 of LibraryA_code svn:externals to a fixed revision R3 of LibraryB_code The problem I'm trying to solve is automatic detection of situation when R2 differs from R1 (breaking expectations of LibraryB_code) and notification about this (e.g. build failure). I'll describe in an answer the only solution which I see for now, but I hope for something more elegant :) Environment: Windows, Visual Studio, SVN.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >