I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to call a
lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whether Split
creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gut feeling
it does. Opinions?
Dim a() as String
a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
' code that uses a goes here
Erase a
-Tom.
20  2705 
As you doubtless already know, 'a' will be deallocated as soon as it goes
out of scope. So if it is a procedure level variable, it will be deallocated
on exit from the procedure. The only benefit to an explicit erase, IMO, is
if the array is >way large<, and you have finished with it, but it will not
go out of scope "for some time" (whatever that means). Then, the erase could
be used to reclaim the space immediately.
HTH,
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:f8******** *************** *********@4ax.c om... I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to call a
lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whether Split
creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gut feeling
it does. Opinions?
Dim a() as String
a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
' code that uses a goes here
Erase a
-Tom.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:03:48 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
hmmm, you may be right, but I think memory-wise there is a difference
between "a" and the memory "a" allocates. The variable will go out of
scope as the stack frame will be cleaned up, but if a is a dynamic
array, its dynamically allocated memory will not. My arrays will be
small, perhaps 4 or 5 elements, but I will call this function many
times.
-Tom. As you doubtless already know, 'a' will be deallocated as soon as it goes
out of scope. So if it is a procedure level variable, it will be deallocated
on exit from the procedure. The only benefit to an explicit erase, IMO, is
if the array is >way large<, and you have finished with it, but it will not
go out of scope "for some time" (whatever that means). Then, the erase could
be used to reclaim the space immediately.
HTH,
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:f8******* *************** **********@4ax. com... I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to call a
lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whether Split
creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gut feeling
it does. Opinions?
Dim a() as String
a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
' code that uses a goes here
Erase a
-Tom.
But what leads you to say that the variable can go out of scope >without<
the associated memory being deallocated?
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:l3******** *************** *********@4ax.c om... On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:03:48 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
hmmm, you may be right, but I think memory-wise there is a difference
between "a" and the memory "a" allocates. The variable will go out of
scope as the stack frame will be cleaned up, but if a is a dynamic
array, its dynamically allocated memory will not. My arrays will be
small, perhaps 4 or 5 elements, but I will call this function many
times.
-Tom.
As you doubtless already know, 'a' will be deallocated as soon as it goes
out of scope. So if it is a procedure level variable, it will be
deallocatedon exit from the procedure. The only benefit to an explicit erase, IMO,
isif the array is >way large<, and you have finished with it, but it will
notgo out of scope "for some time" (whatever that means). Then, the erase
couldbe used to reclaim the space immediately.
HTH,
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:f8******* *************** **********@4ax. com... I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to call a
lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whether Split
creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gut feeling
it does. Opinions?
Dim a() as String
a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
' code that uses a goes here
Erase a
-Tom.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:59:52 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
It's my background in C:
char * p;
p = malloc(5000);
In this case, p is a pointer variable. All such variables occupy 4
bytes (using 4 bytes, you can adress 4GB of memory, which is all you
need in a 32-bit operating system).
In the second line, we make p point to 5000 bytes of memory that we
allocate on the heap using the malloc function.
When p goes out of scope, its 4 bytes are reclaimed, but the 5000
bytes are not. The developer should explicitly call the free()
function to get rid of the 5000 bytes.
I see great parallels between this C program and VBA's ReDim and
Erase.
Since there *is* an Erase function, apparently VBA is not smart enough
to know that memory was dynamically allocated and now needs to be
reclaimed:
Dim b() as Integer
ReDim b(5000)
' use b
Erase b
FWIW, in .NET you no longer have to free() oe Erase: the garbage
collector will do it for you.
-Tom. But what leads you to say that the variable can go out of scope >without<
the associated memory being deallocated?
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:l3******* *************** **********@4ax. com... On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:03:48 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
hmmm, you may be right, but I think memory-wise there is a difference
between "a" and the memory "a" allocates. The variable will go out of
scope as the stack frame will be cleaned up, but if a is a dynamic
array, its dynamically allocated memory will not. My arrays will be
small, perhaps 4 or 5 elements, but I will call this function many
times.
-Tom.
>As you doubtless already know, 'a' will be deallocated as soon as it goes
>out of scope. So if it is a procedure level variable, it will bedeallocated >on exit from the procedure. The only benefit to an explicit erase, IMO,is >if the array is >way large<, and you have finished with it, but it willnot >go out of scope "for some time" (whatever that means). Then, the erasecould >be used to reclaim the space immediately.
>
>HTH,
>TC
>
>"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>news:f8******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to call a
>> lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
>> I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whether Split
>> creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gut feeling
>> it does. Opinions?
>>
>> Dim a() as String
>> a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
>> ' code that uses a goes here
>> Erase a
>>
>> -Tom.
>>
>
But that's what VBA would do. To use your C example: when p went out of
scope, VBA would automatically free() the corresponding allocation. If that
was not true, VBA would cause huge memory leaks all over the place!
So IMO, there is no benefit to the Erase, except the one I noted.
Cheers,
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:jn******** *************** *********@4ax.c om... On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:59:52 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
It's my background in C:
char * p;
p = malloc(5000);
In this case, p is a pointer variable. All such variables occupy 4
bytes (using 4 bytes, you can adress 4GB of memory, which is all you
need in a 32-bit operating system).
In the second line, we make p point to 5000 bytes of memory that we
allocate on the heap using the malloc function.
When p goes out of scope, its 4 bytes are reclaimed, but the 5000
bytes are not. The developer should explicitly call the free()
function to get rid of the 5000 bytes.
I see great parallels between this C program and VBA's ReDim and
Erase.
Since there *is* an Erase function, apparently VBA is not smart enough
to know that memory was dynamically allocated and now needs to be
reclaimed:
Dim b() as Integer
ReDim b(5000)
' use b
Erase b
FWIW, in .NET you no longer have to free() oe Erase: the garbage
collector will do it for you.
-Tom.
But what leads you to say that the variable can go out of scope >without<
the associated memory being deallocated?
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:l3******* *************** **********@4ax. com... On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:03:48 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
hmmm, you may be right, but I think memory-wise there is a difference
between "a" and the memory "a" allocates. The variable will go out of
scope as the stack frame will be cleaned up, but if a is a dynamic
array, its dynamically allocated memory will not. My arrays will be
small, perhaps 4 or 5 elements, but I will call this function many
times.
-Tom.
>As you doubtless already know, 'a' will be deallocated as soon as it
goes >out of scope. So if it is a procedure level variable, it will be
deallocated >on exit from the procedure. The only benefit to an explicit erase,
IMO,is >if the array is >way large<, and you have finished with it, but it
willnot >go out of scope "for some time" (whatever that means). Then, the erase
could >be used to reclaim the space immediately.
>
>HTH,
>TC
>
>"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>news:f8******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to call a
>> lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
>> I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whether Split
>> creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gut
feeling >> it does. Opinions?
>>
>> Dim a() as String
>> a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
>> ' code that uses a goes here
>> Erase a
>>
>> -Tom.
>>
>
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:15:01 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
You may be right, but then what is the purpose of the Erase function?
Seems to me that if VBA does this automatically, there would not be a
need for it.
Unfortunately with modern oeprating systems, virtual memory, and tons
of RAM, it's not so easy anymore to write a small program to prove
this conclusively.
A Pacifico with Lime for me, please.
-Tom. But that's what VBA would do. To use your C example: when p went out of
scope, VBA would automatically free() the corresponding allocation. If that
was not true, VBA would cause huge memory leaks all over the place!
So IMO, there is no benefit to the Erase, except the one I noted.
Cheers,
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:jn******* *************** **********@4ax. com... On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:59:52 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
It's my background in C:
char * p;
p = malloc(5000);
In this case, p is a pointer variable. All such variables occupy 4
bytes (using 4 bytes, you can adress 4GB of memory, which is all you
need in a 32-bit operating system).
In the second line, we make p point to 5000 bytes of memory that we
allocate on the heap using the malloc function.
When p goes out of scope, its 4 bytes are reclaimed, but the 5000
bytes are not. The developer should explicitly call the free()
function to get rid of the 5000 bytes.
I see great parallels between this C program and VBA's ReDim and
Erase.
Since there *is* an Erase function, apparently VBA is not smart enough
to know that memory was dynamically allocated and now needs to be
reclaimed:
Dim b() as Integer
ReDim b(5000)
' use b
Erase b
FWIW, in .NET you no longer have to free() oe Erase: the garbage
collector will do it for you.
-Tom.
>But what leads you to say that the variable can go out of scope >without<
>the associated memory being deallocated?
>
>TC
>
>
>"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>news:l3******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:03:48 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
>>
>> hmmm, you may be right, but I think memory-wise there is a difference
>> between "a" and the memory "a" allocates. The variable will go out of
>> scope as the stack frame will be cleaned up, but if a is a dynamic
>> array, its dynamically allocated memory will not. My arrays will be
>> small, perhaps 4 or 5 elements, but I will call this function many
>> times.
>>
>> -Tom.
>>
>>
>>
>> >As you doubtless already know, 'a' will be deallocated as soon as itgoes >> >out of scope. So if it is a procedure level variable, it will be
>deallocated
>> >on exit from the procedure. The only benefit to an explicit erase,IMO, >is
>> >if the array is >way large<, and you have finished with it, but itwill >not
>> >go out of scope "for some time" (whatever that means). Then, the erase
>could
>> >be used to reclaim the space immediately.
>> >
>> >HTH,
>> >TC
>> >
>> >"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:f8******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> >> I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to call a
>> >> lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
>> >> I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whether Split
>> >> creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gutfeeling >> >> it does. Opinions?
>> >>
>> >> Dim a() as String
>> >> a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
>> >> ' code that uses a goes here
>> >> Erase a
>> >>
>> >> -Tom.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
One purpose is the one I stated :-)
But if you are still skeptical, just write some code to call a procedure 50
gazillion times. Have the procedure allocate a humungous string array, then
exit >without< erasing it. Let it all run overnight. There's no way you
would >not< notice, the next day, if the allocated memory had not been
freed.
Cheers,
TC
(off for the day)
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:qv******** *************** *********@4ax.c om... On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:15:01 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
You may be right, but then what is the purpose of the Erase function?
Seems to me that if VBA does this automatically, there would not be a
need for it.
Unfortunately with modern oeprating systems, virtual memory, and tons
of RAM, it's not so easy anymore to write a small program to prove
this conclusively.
A Pacifico with Lime for me, please.
-Tom.
But that's what VBA would do. To use your C example: when p went out of
scope, VBA would automatically free() the corresponding allocation. If
thatwas not true, VBA would cause huge memory leaks all over the place!
So IMO, there is no benefit to the Erase, except the one I noted.
Cheers,
TC
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:jn******* *************** **********@4ax. com... On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:59:52 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
It's my background in C:
char * p;
p = malloc(5000);
In this case, p is a pointer variable. All such variables occupy 4
bytes (using 4 bytes, you can adress 4GB of memory, which is all you
need in a 32-bit operating system).
In the second line, we make p point to 5000 bytes of memory that we
allocate on the heap using the malloc function.
When p goes out of scope, its 4 bytes are reclaimed, but the 5000
bytes are not. The developer should explicitly call the free()
function to get rid of the 5000 bytes.
I see great parallels between this C program and VBA's ReDim and
Erase.
Since there *is* an Erase function, apparently VBA is not smart enough
to know that memory was dynamically allocated and now needs to be
reclaimed:
Dim b() as Integer
ReDim b(5000)
' use b
Erase b
FWIW, in .NET you no longer have to free() oe Erase: the garbage
collector will do it for you.
-Tom.
>But what leads you to say that the variable can go out of scopewithout< >the associated memory being deallocated?
>
>TC
>
>
>"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>news:l3******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:03:48 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
>>
>> hmmm, you may be right, but I think memory-wise there is a
difference >> between "a" and the memory "a" allocates. The variable will go out
of >> scope as the stack frame will be cleaned up, but if a is a dynamic
>> array, its dynamically allocated memory will not. My arrays will be
>> small, perhaps 4 or 5 elements, but I will call this function many
>> times.
>>
>> -Tom.
>>
>>
>>
>> >As you doubtless already know, 'a' will be deallocated as soon as
itgoes >> >out of scope. So if it is a procedure level variable, it will be
>deallocated
>> >on exit from the procedure. The only benefit to an explicit erase,
IMO, >is
>> >if the array is >way large<, and you have finished with it, but it
will >not
>> >go out of scope "for some time" (whatever that means). Then, the
erase >could
>> >be used to reclaim the space immediately.
>> >
>> >HTH,
>> >TC
>> >
>> >"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:f8******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> >> I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to call
a >> >> lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
>> >> I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whether
Split >> >> creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gut
feeling >> >> it does. Opinions?
>> >>
>> >> Dim a() as String
>> >> a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
>> >> ' code that uses a goes here
>> >> Erase a
>> >>
>> >> -Tom.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:00:12 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
I just did. Results: no noticeable effects. Indeed VBA must be freeing
memory behind the scenes. You were right all along.
-Tom. One purpose is the one I stated :-)
But if you are still skeptical, just write some code to call a procedure 50
gazillion times. Have the procedure allocate a humungous string array, then
exit >without< erasing it. Let it all run overnight. There's no way you
would >not< notice, the next day, if the allocated memory had not been
freed.
Cheers,
TC
(off for the day)
"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
news:qv******* *************** **********@4ax. com... On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:15:01 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
You may be right, but then what is the purpose of the Erase function?
Seems to me that if VBA does this automatically, there would not be a
need for it.
Unfortunately with modern oeprating systems, virtual memory, and tons
of RAM, it's not so easy anymore to write a small program to prove
this conclusively.
A Pacifico with Lime for me, please.
-Tom.
>But that's what VBA would do. To use your C example: when p went out of
>scope, VBA would automatically free() the corresponding allocation. Ifthat >was not true, VBA would cause huge memory leaks all over the place!
>
>So IMO, there is no benefit to the Erase, except the one I noted.
>
>Cheers,
>TC
>
>
>"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>news:jn******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:59:52 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
>>
>> It's my background in C:
>> char * p;
>> p = malloc(5000);
>> In this case, p is a pointer variable. All such variables occupy 4
>> bytes (using 4 bytes, you can adress 4GB of memory, which is all you
>> need in a 32-bit operating system).
>> In the second line, we make p point to 5000 bytes of memory that we
>> allocate on the heap using the malloc function.
>> When p goes out of scope, its 4 bytes are reclaimed, but the 5000
>> bytes are not. The developer should explicitly call the free()
>> function to get rid of the 5000 bytes.
>>
>> I see great parallels between this C program and VBA's ReDim and
>> Erase.
>> Since there *is* an Erase function, apparently VBA is not smart enough
>> to know that memory was dynamically allocated and now needs to be
>> reclaimed:
>> Dim b() as Integer
>> ReDim b(5000)
>> ' use b
>> Erase b
>>
>> FWIW, in .NET you no longer have to free() oe Erase: the garbage
>> collector will do it for you.
>>
>> -Tom.
>>
>>
>> >But what leads you to say that the variable can go out of scope
without< >> >the associated memory being deallocated?
>> >
>> >TC
>> >
>> >
>> >"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:l3******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:03:48 +1200, "TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hmmm, you may be right, but I think memory-wise there is adifference >> >> between "a" and the memory "a" allocates. The variable will go outof >> >> scope as the stack frame will be cleaned up, but if a is a dynamic
>> >> array, its dynamically allocated memory will not. My arrays will be
>> >> small, perhaps 4 or 5 elements, but I will call this function many
>> >> times.
>> >>
>> >> -Tom.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >As you doubtless already know, 'a' will be deallocated as soon asit >goes
>> >> >out of scope. So if it is a procedure level variable, it will be
>> >deallocated
>> >> >on exit from the procedure. The only benefit to an explicit erase,
>IMO,
>> >is
>> >> >if the array is >way large<, and you have finished with it, but it
>will
>> >not
>> >> >go out of scope "for some time" (whatever that means). Then, theerase >> >could
>> >> >be used to reclaim the space immediately.
>> >> >
>> >> >HTH,
>> >> >TC
>> >> >
>> >> >"Tom van Stiphout" <to*****@no.spa m.cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:f8******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
>> >> >> I'm about to write a function like below, which I'm going to calla >> >> >> lot of times. So I care about possible memory leaks.
>> >> >> I think whether I should use Erase or not depends on whetherSplit >> >> >> creates a dynamic array (similar to ReDim a(2)). I have a gut
>feeling
>> >> >> it does. Opinions?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dim a() as String
>> >> >> a = Split("part1|pa rt2|part3", "|")
>> >> >> ' code that uses a goes here
>> >> >> Erase a
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Tom.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
> to*****@no.spam .cox.net (Tom van Stiphout) wrote in
<qv************ *************** *****@4ax.com>: You may be right, but then what is the purpose of the Erase
function? Seems to me that if VBA does this automatically, there
would not be a need for it.
Unfortunatel y with modern oeprating systems, virtual memory, and
tons of RAM, it's not so easy anymore to write a small program to
prove this conclusively.
Well, I thought Erase and Dim was faster than ReDim?
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Angus Leeming |
last post by:
Dinkumware's online STL reference http://tinyurl.com/3es52 declares
std::map's overloaded erase member functions to have the interface:
map::erase
iterator erase(iterator where);
iterator erase(iterator first, iterator last);
size_type erase(const Key& keyval);
Ie, the first two functions above have the same interface as
|
by: jose luis fernandez diaz |
last post by:
Hi,
Is this right any stl container (vector, deque, list, . . .)?
typedef vector container;
int main()
{
container<int> c1;
|
by: jose luis fernandez diaz |
last post by:
Hi,
Erase elements while iterating on a map don't invalidate the iterator
except the erased one, so the program below:
(1)
#include <map>
int main()
|
by: olanglois |
last post by:
Hi,
I was asking myself to following question. What is better to erase an
element from a STL map:
calling (option #1)
size_type erase(const key_type& k)
or calling (option #2)
|
by: moleskyca1 |
last post by:
Hi,
I know if you call erase when you iterate through map you will crash.
Ex:
map<int,doublem;
// insert something
for ( map<int, double>::iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end(); i++ )
if ( i->second < 0 ) m.erase(i);
| | |
by: Rémi |
last post by:
Can someone tell me whether or not my assumptions are good? Just want
to know if I'm going to run into trouble in how I'm deleting map
entries. Although I like to think I know my way around C++, I'm not an
STL expert by any stretch.
Here's a bit of code; notes on my assumptions follow:
_lookupMap is defined as:
|
by: MQ |
last post by:
Hi all
I am just wondering how most people implement cleanup in C functions.
In particular, if the function opens a number of resources, these need
to be released properly should an error occur at any point in the
function (as well as at the end if successful). C++ has exceptions,
the only way I can see to do this neatly in C is to use...
|
by: catphive.lists |
last post by:
Is there a way to call erase(iter) on a list without invalidating the
iterator? Can I make a copy of an iterator and then move forward the
original without moving the copy? I'm aware of the existence of
remove_if, but in the case I'm dealing with it would be much more
natural to use an iterator.
|
by: subramanian100in |
last post by:
Consider
vector<stringv;
If we call,
v.erase(v.end())
this invokes undefined behaviour.
But, if we call
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it. ...
| | |
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
| | |
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
| |
