|
Hi,
i'm working now to complete DSA algoritm but i can't...
help me to complete thes algorithm
i'm work in c++ and i came copy to header files like sha1.h /
cdefs.h /null.h /wchar.h
featuretest.h / cdefs_aout.h /cdefs_elf.h/ common.h/ ast_common.h/
int_type.h/ ansi.h
i put all this in INCLUDE file and SYS
but featuretest.h can't open
please tell me what i can do ???????
|
|
|
|
|
I am using vector to store the incoming data. Now my data is stored in Struct. I want to store only "bydata[]" from my structure into vector.... as the data keeps coming in.... I will just keep adding at the end of the vector "bydata[]" .....
How do I store this data using vector... or theres any other method tht I can use it.....
#define MAX_DATA_BYTES 60
typedef struct
{
unsigned char CheckFlags;
unsigned char Checksum;
unsigned short SequenceCounter;
} sHeader; //
typedef struct
{
sHeader Header;
unsigned char byData[MAX_DATA_BYTES];
} sData; //
Below code shown previously stores the entire structure... but I just want the "sData.byData[]" to be stored....
Please can someone help me.....
modified on Friday, July 24, 2009 3:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
typedef vector<Whatever> WhateverV;
int Store(Whatever const& w, WhateverV vw)
{
vw.push_back(w);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Create a vector of unsigned chars - std::vector<unsigned char> vBytes;
To copy the received byte to the end of the vector do this - vBytes.insert(vBytes.end(), size);
If you want to implement some sort of queue where you also consume the data you should use the deque class instead of vector .
«_Superman_»
I love work. It gives me something to do between weekends.
|
|
|
|
|
Which is more appropriate to use in MFC document / view architecture to display (view) the document - CTabCtrl or CCtrlView?
I am looking at the CTabCtrl as a control “overlay” of views. Is that correct? For lack of other words – the document communicates with tab class first and the tab class than communicates with tabs / plain views.
Or would using CCtrlView be simpler?
Any constructive comments as always are appreciated.
Cheers Vaclav
PS I forgot to mention "minor" detail - currently I am using CCtrlView with CTabCtrl variable with some isssues.I need to investigate if CTabCtrl can be used directly as a view anyway.
modified on Friday, July 24, 2009 12:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
Am i right in thinking that foo() is a very SAFE and SLOW way of passing stuff around, whereas bar() which is LESS SAFE but FASTER.
MyClass foo()
{
MyClass x;
// do something with x
return MyClass(x);
}
MyClass* bar()
{
MyClass * x = new MyClass();
// do something with *x
return x;
}
If i call foo() with something like MyClass c = foo(), there will be:-
1 instantiation, 2 copies, and 1 destruction + overhead of "do something with x"
If i call bar() with something like MyClass *b = bar(); delete b, there will be:-
1 construction, 1 destruction + overhead of "do something with x"
So, for internal codey type functions which are protected from the user, it would be quite acceptable to use a bar() type mechanism in order to gain more speed.
However, for functions designed to be used by an external user in a safe way, we should stick to foo().
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that both will have the same amount of time. You have no reason to, at the end of foo(), 'return MyClass(x);', because this will cast a MyClass object to MyClass (redundant), which in effect calls the copy constructor for MyClass. Basically, whether you use the stack or the heap, this function would have done the same exact thing if you did not call that copy constructor. And, as long as you delete the object in bar(), it is totally safe, in my opinion. If my thoughts seem incorrect, I'd love to hear about it... I could be wrong of course.
|
|
|
|
|
No, you are correct !
After playing around with the code and debugging I found what you said to be true. I am learning on the job, so sorry for the confusion in my original code.
Thanks for your help,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have an array of variants, but I'm unsure how to access the individual elements withing this array:
_RecordsetPtr ptrRS;
ptrRS = wr->GetData();
_variant_t vtRows = ptrRS->GetRows(adGetRowsRest);
int vt = vtRows.vt;
str3.Format("vt %d", vt);
MessageBox(str3);
_variant_t vRow;
vRow = vtRows[0];
Could someone please assist me with a code snippet on how to do this.
Thanks
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, hope you could maybe give me some advice on the following...
Is the following code legal?
MyClass foo()
{
MyClass * p = new MyClass();
// do something to *p here
return *p;
}
void test()
{
foo();
}
void main()
{
test();
}
The above code compiles and works fine. The intention is to create a MyClass instance in foo, and return it without onvoking the constructor on exit. I then want this instance to be available in test. On exit of test i want this instance to be automatically deleted.
It seems to work fine, but when I use the same mechanism in large programs, including classes etc., I am running into some difficulties when the "return *p" executes.
Thanks,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
In your
void test()
{
foo();
}
You did not handle "p". This is a memory leak. You should delete p;
void test()
{
Myclass* p = foo();
do something with "p" then
delete p;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply.
I've debugged the presented code step by step and witnessed that the compiler deletes p itself on exit from test() !
However, the presented code is not OOP. When the same mechanism is used in an OOP set-up SOMETIMES I get errors. Perhaps I'm missing something.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, is there a way to achieve what I want without having to delete p by hand?... I basically want to instantiate an object in foo and then return it to the calling function. I would then like the calling function to auto-delete that instance on exit.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
paolosh wrote: I've debugged the presented code step by step and witnessed that the compiler deletes p itself on exit from test() !
It does not.
What happens is this:
new MyClass creates a new MyClass instance on the heap
return *p returns a COPY of that object
That copy is a temporary variable, and will be destroyed. However, the instance allocated on the heap will not be destroyed.
You may want to lear a bit more about C++ pointers, copy constructors and temporary values (it is not an easy topic).
When you understand these things, I would suggest my article about smart pointers[^] as an introduction to a common solution to your original question - "returning large objects from a function".
|
|
|
|
|
So what of the overloaded functions?
in standard C++ you can do something like this...
double x, y, z;
z = x + y;
does x.operator +(y) return a temporary double? which is then destroyed after it's contents is assigned to z??
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, exactly.
With a "double", there is no constructor or destructor, so there is not much to see.
But you can try these things with a class like this you can play around and see the effects:
class MyTest
{
public:
MyTest() { cout << "Creating MyTest " << this << endl; }
MyTest(MyTest const & rhs) { cout << "Copy-Construct MyTest " << this << " from " << &rhs << endl; }
MyTest& operator=(MyTest const & rhs) { cout << "Assign MyTest " << this << " from " << &rhs << endl; }
~MyTest() { cout << "Destroying " << this; }
}
Be aware that the effects are not exactly the same on every compiler, since the standard allows some optimizations.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question for you.
I checked following:
p1 = new myclass();
p2 = foo()
p1 is exactly same as p2.
If foo() return a COPY of a POINTER, why the address of the COPY will be same as the original one?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
paolosh's original code is more akin to this:
MyClass * p1 = new MyClass;
MyClass temp = *p1;
|
|
|
|
|
When returning a "POINTER", it return POINTER itself or just a copy of the POINTER?
I debug the code. I found out the address of the "return" one is exactly same as the original one (new Myclass()).
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
Returning pointer:
MyClass * Get()
{
MyClass * p = new MyClass;
return p;
}
Returning copy, and leaking heap object:
MyClass Get()
{
MyClass * p = new MyClass;
return *p;
}
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're question is that you want the foo function to create the class and the test function to use the class.
Here is a snippet if this is what you need.
void foo(MyClass*& p)
{
p = new MyClass();
}
void test()
{
MyClass* p
foo(p);
delete p;
}
void main()
{
test();
}
«_Superman_»
I love work. It gives me something to do between weekends.
|
|
|
|
|
Right, I think it's because my copy-constructors have not been defined correctly !
Thanks for the help.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
No, you're not o the right path.
You code leaks memory. Let me expaly why:
void test()
{ foo(); }
literally means this:
- a space wide enough to store a MyClass is leaved on the stack (That's what
Myclass foo() means to the compiler) - the actual code address is pushed on stack, than
- a jump to the beginning of
foo is executed. at thet point
- a space wide enough to store a pointer is leaved on stack. (That's what
MyClass* p requires)
- new MyClass() is executed, that means:
- a bunch of bytes enouh to store MyClass are taken from the heap
- The MyClass::Myclass() constructor is called
- The address of the allocated memory is copied to p
- now, we are at
return *p that means: - a copy of the value pointed by p (that's what
*p means) is copied into the space previously left on the stack by calling MyClass(const MyClass&). That's what return If you did not declare it that's not important, the compiler generates it implicitly.
Now there are two distinct copy of MyClass: one taken from the heap whose address is stored in p and one that is stored temporarily on the stack containing a copy of it.
After the return,
- the p pointer is destroyed by unrolling the stack. The value it store (the address of the heap containing the first Myclass) is lost forever, but the object is still there (hence the leak)
- a jump is executed to the address stored in the stack, thus causing the execution to return after the call.
Now we are back to test() .
- No actions are required on the return value, hence it is destroyed and the stack unrolled
Now you have destroyed the temporary copy. The original object is still there.
In general every time you call new, you've to guess where and when there is a corresponding delete that will be called.
if you want to prperly debug all this, yu have to explicitly declare all what the compiler will elsewhere do implicitly: that is
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() {}
Now set a breakpoint at all of those functions, and try to debug, and you'll see funny things.
2 bugs found.
> recompile ...
65534 bugs found.
|
|
|
|
|
paolosh wrote: The intention is to create a MyClass instance in foo, and return it without onvoking the constructor on exit.
instead of
return *p;
call
return p;
(of course, you need to declare foo to return a pointer)
and than in the caller do something like:
std::auto_ptr<MyClass> p(foo());
This way the object will be automatically destroyed on exit of your test, and you won't have a memory leak.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I'm trying to animate something using GDI+. At the moment, to prevent smearing when my picture moves on the screen, I clear the screen before redrawing each picture with drawimage(hdc).
Of course, that causes the screen to flicker.
Is there a way to stop that using GDI+? With GDI, I was able to stop the flickering by BITBLTing the pictures in a buffer HDC before BITBLTing in the window HDC. However, it doesnt look like BITBLT works with GDI+ (unless I'm doing something wrong).
I tried using drawimage to draw to a buffer HDC and then using BITBLT to copy the buffer HDC to the window HDC, but that doesn't work.
Does anyone know an alternative way? Or a way to draw in a buffer hdc and then copying that buffer to the window hdc using GDI+, not GDI.
|
|
|
|
|
The only way I know how (and the way I use) is to use GDI+ to draw on a memory HDC (in xp at least, GDI+ is not accelerated, so you're not losing much), then Blt that using classic GDI to the main screen.
So...
void CMyView::OnDraw (CDC *dc)
{
CMemDC MemDC (dc);
Graphics gfx (MemDC);
....
}
See Flicker Free Drawing In MFC[^] for the article I refer to. I use it in 83% of my drawing code.
Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww).
If you're in Scandinavia and want an MVP on the payroll (or happy with a remote worker), or need cotract work done, give me a job! http://cv.imcsoft.co.uk/[ ^]
|
|
|
|