|
It may help if you post your code using "code block" style with proper indention -- something like this
int main()
{
int buffer[NUM];
int start;
int end;
int PTemp;
int CTemp;
int full,empty;
int dataNum;
int np,nc,finished;
double time_start;
PTemp=CTemp=start=end=full=dataNum=np=nc=finished=0;
empty=1;
....
}
People will be more willing to read your code like this than what you posted.
|
|
|
|
|
hello i am new to this so sorry for that but if you can correct it then it will be a great help i have even made the win32 threads code of this producer consumer problem in c++ which is working but open mp one is not working so help me in this if you want then i can even post the win32 threads code
|
|
|
|
|
aruneshjoshi wrote: #pragma omp section nowait //producer's code
Should this be:
#pragma omp sections nowait // producer's code
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your help but still code is not working
|
|
|
|
|
You might get the help you need if you join the OpenMP forums and post your question there. All the best OpenMP experts are there to help you, including the folks who created the OpenMP API.
http://openmp.org/forum/[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I am wondering if the type passed to delete[] needs to be the same as the type allocated by new? I am attempting to do the following:
void** memPoolPtrs = new void* [4 * (1 + 12)];
double* memPoolData = new double[4 * 12 * 30];
double*** myData = reinterpret_cast<double***>(memPoolPtrs);
memPoolPtrs += 4;
for (size_t idx0 = 0; idx0 < 4; ++idx0) {
myData[idx0] = reinterpret_cast<double**>(memPoolPtrs);
memPoolPtrs += 12;
for (size_t idx1 = 0; idx1 < 12; ++idx1) {
myData[idx0][idx1] = memPoolData;
memPoolData += 30;
}
}
delete[] **myData;
delete[] myData; Is there any risk in the above approach (other than allocating things of improper size)? I can't think of a reason why such a thing wouldn't work, but I am curious if the two delete statements will work as I anticipate. Thanks,
Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
modified on Friday, April 16, 2010 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Since the delete operator takes a void* type, it doesn't matter what type is passed for deletion as long as it is the starting address of the allocation.
|
|
|
|
|
For yor case it works.
As a general rule it won't.
delete[] against an object, whose type has a destructor will call the 'vector deleting destructor', which will call the destructor for each element.
The problem is the number of elements.
When new[] is called on a type with a destructor:
1. malloc a block large enough to hold the reqested # of elements, the actual block size will be rounded up to some grain size.
2. store the actual block size (bytes) with the block for free().
3. store the requested # of elements with the block so delete[] can iterate over them and call ~().
When you call delete on a different (sized) type the # of elements stored with the block will be wrong and you will either call ~() on too few or too many elements.
If too few then you could have a memory leak if the destructor frees resources.
If too many then you corrupt the heap.
...cmk
The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.
- John Carmack
|
|
|
|
|
Yes if the destructor is not virtual, no if it is. Delete will take any type, but it will only call the appropriate destructor if it is virtual or if you pass it as the correct type.
|
|
|
|
|
dear all,
i have created one SDI application and i need to include one table (just like how we insert table into ms word document).
is it possible? if yes please let me know..
thanks in advance.
AK
|
|
|
|
|
Khathar wrote: is it possible? if yes please let me know..
Yes it's possible.
have a look at MFC Grid control 2.26[^].
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
i try to write large text in to CComboBox field, but the max text length is limited by the CComboBox width !!! 
But i need to imput larger text as the width of the combo box, when i write my text, the cursor moves to the right!!??
If i read large string from a file, this can be showed in the combo box, only if i try to write them by my self its limited!?
Can any one help me how to solve this??
Thanx for any help!
Arrin
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry
i solve this, its simple setting on the properties CBS_AUTOHSCROLL
Arrin
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All
I am useing worker thread in Dialog base Application.In Dialog I have a Static Control and Button.I try to set some values in Static Control.I have got some GUI Error application and CtlColor color change auto.As well as Control move from fixed position.I am doing like this
CWinThread *Testing;
UINT InsertThread ( LPVOID p );
UINT InsertThread ( LPVOID p )
{
CTestDlg *Get=( CTestDlg *)p;
Get->Example();
return 0;
}
void CTestDlg::OnBnClickedButton4()
{
Test = AfxBeginThread(InsertThread, (LPVOID) this,THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL,0,0);
}
void CTestDlg:: Example()
{
int count=0;
For(int i=0;i<10000;i++)
{
Count++;
CString show="";
show.Format("%d",count);
m_showvalues.SetWindowText(show);
}
}
I also use
OnCtlColor(CDC* pDC, CWnd* pWnd, UINT nCtlColor) and OnEraseBkgnd(CDC* pDC) for change background color(Dialog and CtlColor).
How can i solve GUI Problem?
Please help me.
|
|
|
|
|
MsmVc wrote: How can i solve GUI Problem?
Never never access GUI elements in another thread than the GUI thread. This is a recipe for disaster. One way to solve your problem is instead to access the static control directly in your thread, you simply send a user defined message to your dialog. In the handler of this message, you update your control. This way, this is the UI thread that still accesses the control. More info and examples here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
MsmVc wrote: How can i solve GUI Problem?
You could pass the HDC and the client rectangle of the static control at your thread
to draw (only) there from the thread directly... 
virtual void BeHappy() = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
can you give me some example?
|
|
|
|
|
If you would have taken the time to look at the article I linked to, you could see that there's an example in the section "Worker threads and the GUI II: Don't touch the GUI".
It's been a while that you are posting questions about threads and you still miss some basic concepts. Don't you think it could be interesting for you to read some good article (like the one I linked to you) about the subject ? Otherwise, you'll come asking questions here again and again and never really learn how to do it the proper way.
|
|
|
|
|
Try it  :
class CCtrlDrawContext
{
CClientDC* m_pcCtrlDC;
CRect m_cCtrlRect;
public:
CCtrlDrawContext(CClientDC* pcDC, const CRect& cRect);
~CCtrlDrawContext();
const CRect& GetRect() { return m_cCtrlRect; };
CDC* GetDC() { return m_pcCtrlDC; };
};
CCtrlDrawContext::CCtrlDrawContext(CClientDC* pcDC, const CRect& cRect)
: m_pcCtrlDC(pcDC), m_cCtrlRect(cRect)
{
}
CCtrlDrawContext::~CCtrlDrawContext()
{
delete m_pcCtrlDC;
m_pcCtrlDC = NULL;
}
...
void CYourDialog::OnButtonClick()
{
CRect cStaticRect;
m_cwndStatic.GetClientRect(cStaticRect);
AfxBeginThread((AFX_THREADPROC) ThreadLoop,
new CCtrlDrawContext(new CClientDC(&m_cwndStatic),
cStaticRect));
}
UINT CYourDialog::ThreadLoop(LPVOID lpParam)
{
if (lpParam) {
CCtrlDrawContext* pcContext = (CCtrlDrawContext*) lpParam;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++) {
pcContext->GetDC()->FillSolidRect(pcContext->GetRect(),
i % 2 ?
RGB(0, 200, 128) :
RGB(0, 255, 0));
::GdiFlush();
::Sleep(500);
}
delete pcContext;
pcContext = NULL;
}
}
virtual void BeHappy() = 0;
modified on Friday, April 16, 2010 6:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
An improvement: place ::GdiFlush();
after the drawing step in your loop
virtual void BeHappy() = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
As I said in my previous reply, never touch a UI control in outside of its own thread. This will result in a disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure
that I understand your word "touch" -
see the code above - it is working 
virtual void BeHappy() = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
By touch I mean manipulating any UI related element.
Eugen Podsypalnikov wrote: it is working
Did you test it ? If it works, you are lucky. But it is any way an extremly bad practice. I suggest you read the section "Worker threads and the GUI II: Don't touch the GUI" in the article I mentioned earlier to have a bit more information.
|
|
|
|
|
Cedric Moonen wrote: Did you test it ?
Not only me... 
(The technique of the backgound updating is really wide-used today,
for example, when a main thread has other things to do...  )
virtual void BeHappy() = 0;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
