a is set< int> ARRAY, I want to copy it to b. BUT...
int main(){
set<int> a[10];
a[1].insert(99);
a[3].insert(99);
if(a[1]==a[3])cout<<"echo"<<endl;
set<int> b[10];
memcpy(b,a,sizeof(a));
if(b[1]==b[3])cout<<"echo"<<endl;// latch up here, what happen?
return 0;}
Do you know What is computer doing?
I assume the 'set' class you are using is a std::set? What makes you think that simplying memcpying the raw bytes of a std::set (or array of them, in this case) will work properly? This is highly dependent on the internal structure and implementation of the set class, and trying to do such a thing with anything more complicated than a primitive or array of primitives is almost guaranteed to give unexpected results. Doing this sort of raw byte manipulation when classes are involved is rarely going to be correct.
To do this properly you should iterate over the sets and use their '=' operator to assign them, which knows how to copy the contents properly:
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
b[i] = a[i];
}
Even better you can use std::copy:
std::copy(std::begin(a), std::end(a), std::begin(b));
Related
I have made a program to take in float inputs from a user to create a dynamic array (Then use those inputs with functions to find basic stuff like max,min,sum,avg but that stuff works fine so I don't think Ill include that here for the purpose of not creating a wall of code).
It works about half the time and while I have some theories about the cause I cant put my finger on a solution.
int main() {
int Counter = 0;
float *UsrIn = nullptr;
float Array[Counter];
My first thought was that the part below was the issue. My class hasn't really gone over what notation (I assume it refers to bytes so maybe scientific notation would work) to use with new that I can recall. I just tried 20 for the sake of testing and it seemed to work(probably a silly assumption in hindsight).
UsrIn = new float[(int)20];
cout << "Enter float numbers:" << endl;
cout << "Enter '9999999' to quit:" << endl;
cin >> *UsrIn; // User Input for pointer Dynamic Array
Array[Counter] = *UsrIn;
while(*UsrIn!=9999999) // User Input for Dynamic Array
{
Counter++;
UsrIn++;
cin >> *UsrIn;
Array[Counter] = *UsrIn;
}
delete UsrIn;
delete[] UsrIn;
My other thought was that maybe a pointer address was already in use by something else or maybe it was invalid somehow. I don't know of a way to test for that because the crash I occasionally get only happens when exiting the while loop after entering "9999999"
As a side note I'm not getting any warnings or error messages just a crashed program from eclipse.
Variable-length arrays are not universally supported in C++ implementations, although your compiler clearly supports them. The problem, from what you've described, is with this code:
int main() {
int Counter = 0;
float *UsrIn = nullptr;
float Array[Counter];
You're defining a variable-length array of size 0. So, although you're allocating 20 entries for UsrIn, you're not allocating any memory for Array. The intention of variable-length arrays is to allocate an array of a given size where the size is not actually known until run time. Based on your other code, that's not really the situation here. The easiest thing to do is just change the Array size to match your UsrIn size, e.g.:
float Array[20];
If you really want more of a dynamic behavior, you could use std::vector<float>
std::vector<float> Array;
...
Array.push_back(*UsrIn);
Sorry for the post. I have researched this but..... still no joy in getting this to work. There are two parts to the question too. Please ignore the code TWI Reg code as its application specific I need help on nuts and bolts C problem.
So... to reduce memory usage for a project I have started to write my own TWI (wire.h lib) for ATMEL328p. Its not been put into a lib yet as '1' I have no idea how to do that yet... will get to that later and '2'its a work in progress which keeps getting added to.
The problem I'm having is with reading multiple bytes.
Problem 1
I have a function that I need to return an Array
byte *i2cBuff1[16];
void setup () {
i2cBuff1 = i2cReadBytes(mpuAdd, 0x6F, 16);
}
/////////////////////READ BYTES////////////////////
byte* i2cReadBytes(byte i2cAdd, byte i2cReg, byte i2cNumBytes) {
static byte result[i2cNumBytes];
for (byte i = 0; i < i2cNumBytes; i ++) {
result[i] += i2cAdd + i2cReg;
}
return result;
}
What I understand :o ) is I have declared a Static byte array in the function which I point to as the return argument of the function.
The function call requests the return of a pointer value for a byte array which is supplied.
Well .... it doesn't work .... I have checked multiple sites and I think this should work. The error message I get is:
MPU6050_I2C_rev1:232: error: incompatible types in assignment of 'byte* {aka unsigned char*}' to 'byte* [16] {aka unsigned char* [16]}'
i2cBuff1 = i2cReadBytes(mpuAdd, 0x6F, 16);
Problem 2
Ok say IF the code sample above worked. I am trying to reduce the amount of memory that I use in my sketch. By using any memory in the function even though the memory (need) is released after the function call, the function must need to reserve an amount of 'space' in some way, for when the function is called. Ideally I would like to avoid the use of static variables within the function that are duplicated within the main program.
Does anyone know the trade off with repeated function call.... i.e looping a function call with a bit shift operator, as apposed to calling a function once to complete a process and return ... an Array? Or was this this the whole point that C does not really support Array return in the first place.
Hope this made sense, just want to get the best from the little I got.
BR
Danny
This line:
byte *i2cBuff1[16];
declares i2cBuff1 as an array of 16 byte* pointers. But i2cReadBytes doesn't return an array of pointers, it returns an array of bytes. The declaration should be:
byte *i2cBuff1;
Another problem is that a static array can't have a dynamic size. A variable-length array has to be an automatic array, so that its size can change each time the function is called. You should use dynamic allocation with malloc() (I used calloc() instead because it automatically zeroes the memory).
byte* i2cReadBytes(byte i2cAdd, byte i2cReg, byte i2cNumBytes) {
byte *result = calloc(i2cNumBytes, sizeof(byte));
for (byte i = 0; i < i2cNumBytes; i ++) {
result[i] += i2cAdd + i2cReg;
}
return result;
}
I am a C++ noob and I have written a method to get text file names including full-paths from a given directory. It gives a garbage value on the vector<wchar_t*> names. I used VS2010 debugger and analysed values. It looks like pointers are going out of scope. On the official C++ reference it says that push_back() copies values and seems like as I am pushing a pointer and it just copies pointers value.
static std::vector<wchar_t*> getFileNames(wchar_t* folder) // ex: c:\\textfiles\\My
{
using namespace std;
vector<wchar_t*> names;
wchar_t search_path[200];
swprintf(search_path, L"%s\\*.txt", folder); // ex: c:\\textfiles\\My\\*.txt
WIN32_FIND_DATA fd;
HANDLE hFind = FindFirstFile((wchar_t*)search_path, &fd);
if(hFind != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
{
do
{
if(! (fd.dwFileAttributes == FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY) )
{
std::wstring fullPath(folder);
fullPath += L"\\";
fullPath += std::wstring(fd.cFileName); // cFilename has something like Info.txt
names.push_back((wchar_t*)fullPath.c_str());
}
}while(FindNextFile(hFind, &fd)); //goes out of scope and values become garbage
FindClose(hFind);
}
return names; //vector with garbage values
}
Is it possible to get wchar_t* pushed in to the vector someway, a better work around rather than dynamically allocating memory or using heap variables?
Can I get compiler warning for mistakes like this on VS2010 or any VS version(Now I only get casting warning and errors)?
swprintf might overflow the buffer.
(wchar_t*)search_path is a superfluous cast.
Never break out the big guns if you don't need them.
if(! (fd.dwFileAttributes == FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY) ) means you only ignore directories without interesting attributes.
fullPath += std::wstring(fd.cFileName); another superfluous cast.
names.push_back((wchar_t*)fullPath.c_str()); pushes a pointer to the internal buffer of fullpath into names, even though it will be destroyed at the end of the block.
What you should do is change the signature to
static std::vector<std::wstring> getFileNames(std::wstring folder)
Or at least
static std::vector<std::unique_ptr<wchar_t>> getFileNames(wchar_t* folder)
to take advantage of RAII and reduce the chance for errors.
In any case, you should rewrite the function, and should take advantage of the standard-library internally.
As an example, with the proper prototype:
static std::vector<std::wstring> getFileNames(std::wstring folder) {
std::vector<std::wstring> names;
WIN32_FIND_DATA fd;
HANDLE hFind = FindFirstFile((folder+L"\\*.txt").c_str(), &fd);
if(hFind == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
return names;
auto lam = [](HANDLE* p){FindClose(*p);}
std::unique_ptr<HANDLE, decltype(lam)> guard(&hFind, lam);
folder += L"\\";
do {
if(! (fd.dwFileAttributes & FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY) )
names.push_back(folder+fd.cFileName);
} while(FindNextFile(hFind, &fd));
return names;
}
Ideally, you should store class objects in your vector, instead of character pointers (or wchar_t pointers). You can do it, but it requires some extra work. That's the part that you're missing.
The issue you're seeing is exactly what you describe: the character arrays that are owned by the wstring objects are being destroyed when the wstring goes out of scope. By using wstring::c_str(), you are not creating an independent copy of the character array, you're just looking at the one that it already has created for its own use.
So you need a way to keep a character array around longer. Either you could use the wstring, or you need to copy the character array into one of your own.
The minimal change would be something like this:
std::wstring fullPath(folder);
fullPath += L"\\";
fullPath += std::wstring(fd.cFileName); // cFilename has something like Info.txt
wchar_t *wsz = new wchar_t[fullPath.size() + 1];
wcsncpy(wsz, fullPath.c_str(), fullPath.size());
names.push_back(wsz);
That's enough to get your strings into the vector, but because you're using character pointers, it's also your responsibility to clean them up. So when you are done using the vector, you will need to iterate through and delete each one of them before you let the vector be destroyed.
As I mention in a comment below, it's much simpler to use a std::vector. There are libraries that can help you with the memory management parts, if you must use wchar_t*. You caould take a look at the Boost Smart Pointer library, for example.
The variable fullPath is a local variable.
It goes out of scope.
That is the reason the pointers are becoming junk.
Allocate a dynamic memory as
vector<wstring*> names;// instead of vector<wchar_t*> names;
std::wstring *fullPath = new wstring(folder);
Never store references of objects into a list if you are not aware of their scope.
I am doing one project in which I define a data types like below
typedef QVector<double> QFilterDataMap1D;
typedef QMap<double, QFilterDataMap1D> QFilterDataMap2D;
Then there is one class with the name of mono_data in which i have define this variable
QFilterMap2D valid_filters;
mono_data Scan_data // Class
Now i am reading one variable from a .mat file and trying to save it in to above "valid_filters" QMap.
Qt Code: Switch view
for(int i=0;i<1;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<1;j++)
{
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]=valid_filters[i][j];
printf("\nValid_filters=%f",Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]);
}
}
The transferring is done successfully but then it gives run-time error
Windows has triggered a breakpoint in SpectralDataCollector.exe.
This may be due to a corruption of the heap, and indicates a bug in
SpectralDataCollector.exe or any of the DLLs it has loaded.
The output window may have more diagnostic information
Can anyone help in solving this problem. It will be of great help to me.
Thanks
Different issues here:
1. Using double as key type for a QMap
Using a QMap<double, Foo> is a very bad idea. the reason is that this is a container that let you access a Foo given a double. For instance:
map[0.45] = foo1;
map[15.74] = foo2;
This is problematic, because then, to retrieve the data contained in map[key], you have to test if key is either equal, smaller or greater than other keys in the maps. In your case, the key is a double, and testing if two doubles are equals is not a "safe" operation.
2. Using an int as key while you defined it was double
Here:
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]=valid_filters[i][j];
i is an integer, and you said it should be a double.
3. Your loop only test for (i,j) = (0,0)
Are you aware that
for(int i=0;i<1;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<1;j++)
{
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]=valid_filters[i][j];
printf("\nValid_filters=%f",Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]);
}
}
is equivalent to:
Scan_Data.valid_filters[0][0]=valid_filters[0][0];
printf("\nValid_filters=%f",Scan_Data.valid_filters[0][0]);
?
4. Accessing a vector with operator[] is not safe
When you do:
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]
You in fact do:
QFilterDataMap1D & v = Scan_Data.valid_filters[i]; // call QMap::operator[](double)
double d = v[j]; // call QVector::operator[](int)
The first one is safe, and create the entry if it doesn't exist. The second one is not safe, the jth element in you vector must already exist otherwise it would crash.
Solution
It seems you in fact want a 2D array of double (i.e., a matrix). To do this, use:
typedef QVector<double> QFilterDataMap1D;
typedef QVector<QFilterDataMap1D> QFilterDataMap2D;
Then, when you want to transfer one in another, simply use:
Scan_Data.valid_filters = valid_filters;
Or if you want to do it yourself:
Scan_Data.valid_filters.clear();
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
Scan_Data.valid_filters << QFilterDataMap1D();
for(int j=0;j<m;j++)
{
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i] << valid_filters[i][j];
printf("\nValid_filters=%f",Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]);
}
}
If you want a 3D matrix, you would use:
typedef QVector<QFilterDataMap2D> QFilterDataMap3D;
I am having a compiler issue in Visual Studio 2005 using the standard C compiler when trying to do a structure copy from one location to another.
The types are defined in a file as follows:
definition.h
#define MAX 7
typedef struct{
char recordtext[18];
boolean recordvalid;
}recordtype;
typdef recordtype tabletype[MAX];
typedef struct{
tabletype table;
}global_s;
Let us pretend that a global_s "object" is instantiated and initialized somewhere and a pointer to this structure is created.
#include "definition.h"
global_s global;
global_s* pglobal = &global;
init(&pglobal);
Meanwhile, in another file (and this is where my problem is) i am trying to create a local tabletype object, and fill it with the global table member, using a get method to protect the global (lets pretend it is "static")
#include "definition.h"
extern global_s* pglobal;
tabletype t;
gettable(&t);
void gettabl (tabletype* pt)
{
*pt = pglobal->table;
}
When I go to compile, the line in the gettable function throws a compiler error "error C2106: '=': left operand must be l-value. It looks as though this should behave as a normal copy operation, and in fact if I perform a similar operation on a more basic structure I do not get the error. For example If I copy a structure only containing two integers.
Does anyone have a solid explanation as to why this operation seems to be incorrect?
(Disclaimer: I have developed this code as a scrubbed version of my actual code for example purposes so it may not be 100% correct syntactically, I will edit the question if anyone points out an issue or something needs to be clarified.)
It's the arrays in the struct; they cannot be assigned. You should define an operator=() for each of the structs, and use memcpy on the arrays, or copy them in a loop element by element.
(IF you want to get a reference to your global variable):
I am not sure, if this is correct (and the problem), but I think besides function prototypes, arrays and pointers (to arrays 1. element) are NOT exactly the same thing. And there is a difference between pointer to array and pointer to the 1. element of an array)
Maybe taking the adress of the array:
*pt = &(pglobal->table);
Anyway it might be better not to fetch the address of the whole array but the address of the first element, so that the resulting pointer can be used directly as record array (without dereferencing it)
recordtype* gettable (size_t* puLength)
{
*puLength = MAX;
return &(pglobal->table[0]);
}
(IF you want a copy of the table):
Arrays can't be copied inplace in C90, and of course you have to provide target memory. You would then define a function get table like this:
void gettable (recordtype * const targetArr)
{
size_t i = 0;
for (; i < MAX; i++) targetArr[i] = pglobal->table[i];
return;
}
an fully equivalent function prototype for gettable is:
void gettable(recordtype[] targetArr);
Arrays are provided by refernce as pointer to the first element, when it comes to function parameters. You could again ask for an pointer to the whole array, and dereference it inside gettable. But you always have to copy elementwise.
You can use memcopy to do the job as 1-liner. Modern compilers should generate equally efficent code AFAIK.