473,883 Members | 1,663 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

size of a sizeof(pointer)

what is the size of a pointer?

suppose i am writing,
datatype *ptr;
sizeof(ptr);
now what does this sizeof(ptr) will give? will it give the size of the
data the pointer is pointing to?

if no, can you give an counter example?

basically , i want to know what is the meaning of size of a ponter.

as you know

sizeof(int)=4;

sizeof(char)= 2;

but what does sizeof(ptr) means??

can anybody explain?
Nov 14 '05
79 125286
Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.u th.gr> writes:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:28:21 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Papadopoulos Giannis
<ip******@inf.u th.gr> wrote:
That aside, I'd be unsurprised to see future implementations using
16 bits
for chars.


If we use 16-bit values as char, then the new C0x spec must define
something like "byte" (java's char is unicode and it haves an 8-bit
type)..

There is of course wchar_t so there is definately no need for 16bit
chars.. Or so I think... Comments?


I think C will always define a char as being one byte (sizeof(char)== 1).
There's too much code that would break if that were changed. The
process that led to the 1989 ANSI standard was probably the last real
opportunity to change this.

I'd greatly prefer the concepts of "character" and "uniquely
addressable storage unit" to be separate, but it's too late to fix it.

It just might be possible to deprecate the use of the word "byte"
(which is part of the desciption of the language, not part of the
language itself) while continuing to guarantee that sizeof(char)==1 ,
but I doubt that even that will be done.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
Nov 14 '05 #21
Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:40:21 GMT, in comp.lang.c , pete
<pf*****@mindsp ring.com> wrote:
Grumble wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Josh Sebastian wrote:
>
>> syntax wrote:
>>
>>> sizeof(int)=4;
>>
>> Maybe. It must be >= 2.
>
> Wrong. It must, however, be an exact multiple of 1.


It must be greater than 1, on hosted implementations .


Not if a char were 16 bits wide.


You can't implement the whole standard library,
if sizeof(int) is one.

putchar(EOF) has to be able to return EOF
converted to an unsigned char value,
converted back to a nonnegative int.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...andrew.cmu.edu

--
pete
Nov 14 '05 #22
"Malcolm" <ma*****@55bank .freeserve.co.u k> wrote in message
news:c0******** **@newsg1.svr.p ol.co.uk...

"CBFalconer " <cb********@yah oo.com> wrote in message
For instance, most computers have an address space of 4GB. 32
bits allows you 4GB, so the size of a pointer will be 32 bits,
or 4 (char is usually 8 bits). On some microcomputers the
address space is only 64K, so 16-bit pointers are used.
Nope. A pointer points. What information it needs to hold to do
that is up to the implementation. It could consist of a URL and
other information, just as a not too wild example. Another might
be "Malcolms house, under the bed beside the dirty socks, last
Tuesday". The amount of information needed is usually constrained
by limiting the things that the pointer is allowed to point to.
Clear now?

Don't patronise.
You and I both know that perverse implementations are allowed.


For suitable defintions of 'perverse'.
Since
pointers have to be a fixed size
C & V please.
then using a URL would be grossly
inefficient.
Since the OP needs to understand how pointers are represented in memory
That's platform/implemenatation dependent.
on a
typical system
Whose definition of 'typical'?
such as the one he will certainly be using,
Doesn't matter which one. The answers will be platform-specific,
not applicable to standard C.
telling him that
32 bit pointers are needed to address 4GB gets across the message clearly.
That's one of many possible ways to represent such an address space.
Talk about URL pointers is liable to confuse.
It's intended to clarify (and imo it did) that a pointer is
an *abstraction*, and as such, one need not (should not) be
concerned about its physical implementation.

You should neither know nor care, unless you are implementing the
system.

Well you very often need to break the bounds of ANSI C and go to a lower
level.


In which case the dicussion needs to depart from clc.
An example would be if you have a custom memory scheme. How do you
know if a pointer comes from your arena or from elsewhere?
Then one would need to ask/read about it where such things are discussed.
Not here.
Another example would be using a debugger. Invalid pointers are often set to some defined bit pattern. You need to know something about addressing to
detect these bad pointers.
Then one would need to ask/read about it where debuggers are discussed. Not
here.
Programming is practical.
The subject of clc is not programming.
It doesn't make sense to hand someone a copy of
the standard and expect them to be able to write fully-conforming ANSI C.
That's why we have books, schools, intructors, etc.
You need to play with a real implementation on a real machine to have any
hope of understanding what is going on.


Not at the abstract level of ISO C. 'Way' back when, I got a decent
understanding
of how COBOL worked, before I ever laid eyes on any hardware. This was
proven
when I actually coded, compiled, and successfully ran programs when we did
get access to a computer.

-Mike
Nov 14 '05 #23
[snips]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:23:04 +0000, Mike Wahler wrote:
Since
pointers have to be a fixed size


C & V please.
then using a URL would be grossly
inefficient.
Since the OP needs to understand how pointers are represented in memory


That's platform/implemenatation dependent.


I've always favord SQL queries. Store all the values in a database and
the pointers are all just queries to retrieve them.
telling him that
32 bit pointers are needed to address 4GB gets across the message
clearly.


That's one of many possible ways to represent such an address space.


Anyone who ever used older DOS compilers will appreciate the clarity of
not assuming pointers make any sort of inherent sense. :)
Nov 14 '05 #24
"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwah ler.net> wrote:
"Malcolm" <ma*****@55bank .freeserve.co.u k> wrote in message
news:c0******** **@newsg1.svr.p ol.co.uk...
Programming is practical.


The subject of clc is not programming.


Well, yes, it is. Where Malcolm goes wrong is in believing that locking
yourself into the Wintel platform is part of that practicality.

Richard
Nov 14 '05 #25

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwah ler.net> wrote in message
Since
pointers have to be a fixed size
C & V please.

Uggle *ptr = 0;

Uggle **uptr = malloc(sizeof(U ggle *));

*uptr = ptr;

*uptr now must be set to NULL. How is this achieved if an Uggle * is of
variable width?
Whose definition of 'typical'?
Natural language definition of "typical".
such as the one he will certainly be using,
Doesn't matter which one. The answers will be platform-specific,
not applicable to standard C.

But standard C is deeply dependent on the types of architectures that exist
in the real world. That's why it has pointers, rather than the "advance"
commands that would be expected of Turing machines.
That's one of many possible ways to represent such an address
space. Use of 32 bit pointers to address a 4GB memory space is not just one of many
possible ways to represent such a space. It's the most obvious, natural way
to do so.
Talk about URL pointers is liable to confuse.
It's intended to clarify (and imo it did) that a pointer is
an *abstraction*, and as such, one need not (should not) be
concerned about its physical implementation.

You need to understand the physical representation to understand how the
ANSI committee made their decisions. Or else why not say that a pointer is
held in a variable size memory entity?
Well you very often need to break the bounds of ANSI C and go
to a lower level.
In which case the dicussion needs to depart from clc.

NO, because clc is not cl.ansic. The newsgriup precedes the ANSI standard,
which is proving itself to be an ephemeral chapter in the history of the
language. The C99 standard seems to have failed.
An example would be if you have a custom memory scheme. How > > do you know if a pointer comes from your arena or from elsewhere?


Then one would need to ask/read about it where such things are
discussed. Not here.

It's a perfectly on-topic question. I have implemeted a mymalloc() using a
static arena, when a pointer is passed to myfree(), how can I verify that it
is from the arena. The ANSI answer is that you can't, but that's not good
enough. [ debuggers ] Then one would need to ask/read about it where debuggers are
discussed. Not here.
You need to understand the sorts of ways pointers are represented in memory
before you can understand debuggers, or indeed the (ANSI) %p format
specifier to the printf() family of functions. Perfectly on topic, but
nothing to do with ANSI.
Programming is practical.
The subject of clc is not programming.

It's C programming. Not ANSI C programming, portable C programming i.e.
compiler-specfic questions are off-topic, but not, for example, "how does a
typical implemetation provide malloc()".
It doesn't make sense to hand someone a copy of
the standard and expect them to be able to write fully-conforming
ANSI C.
That's why we have books, schools, intructors, etc.

And also comp.lang,c. Otherwise one could simply post the standard in answer
to every query.
Not at the abstract level of ISO C. 'Way' back when, I got a decent
understanding of how COBOL worked, before I ever laid eyes on
any hardware. This was proven when I actually coded, compiled,
and successfully ran programs when we did get access to a computer.

Well done but that's unusual, and an inefficient way of learning. Basically
you are using the tutor to dry run code, and he will do so several million
times slower than a processor.
Programming is a practical skill, which means that you need to understnad
your implementation. Otherwise we could simply hand a copy of the standard
to every newbie and expect them to become proficient C programmers. It
doesn't work like that.

Basically engage brain before trying to obfuscate my explanations with
references to URL pointers and other such rubbish.
Nov 14 '05 #26

"Richard Bos" <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
Well, yes, it is. Where Malcolm goes wrong is in believing that
locking yourself into the Wintel platform is part of that practicality.

So you think that Wintel is the only platform that uses 32-bit pointers to
address a 4GB memory space?
Nov 14 '05 #27
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:08:17 -0000, in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm"
<ma*****@55bank .freeserve.co.u k> wrote:

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwah ler.net> wrote in message
> Since
> pointers have to be a fixed size


C & V please.

Uggle *ptr = 0;

Uggle **uptr = malloc(sizeof(U ggle *));

*uptr = ptr;

*uptr now must be set to NULL. How is this achieved if an Uggle * is of
variable width?


Mike meant that different types' pointers might be different widths. Thus
an Uggle** might be wider (or narrower) than an Uggle*, which might in turn
be wider (or narrower) than an int*.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nov 14 '05 #28

"Malcolm" <ma*****@55bank .freeserve.co.u k> wrote in message
news:c0******** **@newsg1.svr.p ol.co.uk...

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwah ler.net> wrote in message
Since
pointers have to be a fixed size
C & V please.
In case you didn't know, that acronym means "Chapter & Verse"
I'm asking you to support your claim with a citation from
the standard.

Uggle *ptr = 0;

Uggle **uptr = malloc(sizeof(U ggle *));

*uptr = ptr;

*uptr now must be set to NULL. How is this achieved if an Uggle * is of
variable width?


Doesn't matter "how". It must simply 'work correctly'. That's
all the standard requires.

Whose definition of 'typical'?
Please don't omit context. Restored:

Malcolm: on a typical system

Mike: Whose definition of 'typical'?

Natural language definition of "typical".


OK I suppose I have to spell it out. Whose definition of
'typical *system*'. In some contexts a 'typical system'
is a PC. In others, it's a cell phone. In the widest
(computer system) context, if 'typical' is the most
widely used, it's certainly not a PC, but more likely
some embedded system I've probably never heard of.
such as the one he will certainly be using,


Doesn't matter which one. The answers will be platform-specific,
not applicable to standard C.

But standard C is deeply dependent on the types of architectures that

exist in the real world.
Not at all. The standard makes requirements that an implementation
must meet. If a platform cannot provide support sufficient for
such an implementation (either directly or via e.g. software emulation,
etc.)
(perhaps it only has 6 bit bytes) then it's simply not possible to create a
conforming C implemenation for it. Period. So you have the 'dependency'
issue exactly backwards.

That's why it has pointers,
I'd have to ask Mr. Ritchie for the 'real' answer, but imo
it has pointers because they allow one to do the useful things
they can do. They implement an abstraction: indirection.

rather than the "advance"
commands that would be expected of Turing machines.

That's one of many possible ways to represent such an address
space. Use of 32 bit pointers to address a 4GB memory space is not just one of

many possible ways to represent such a space. It's the most obvious, natural way to do so.
Talk about URL pointers is liable to confuse.
It's intended to clarify (and imo it did) that a pointer is
an *abstraction*, and as such, one need not (should not) be
concerned about its physical implementation.

You need to understand the physical representation to understand how the
ANSI committee made their decisions.


I need to understand neither physical representation, nor know (or care)
why the committee decided what they did, in order to successfully write
standard C. All I need is a conforming implementation, and access to
the rules (the standard). Of course textbooks written in a more 'prose'
like form are a huge help.
Or else why not say that a pointer is
held in a variable size memory entity?
Because either one would be acceptable with regard to the standard.
It's called flexibility, which I suspect the committe allowed for
when possible. For example why do you suppose there's no hard
definition for the exact representation of '\n'?

Well you very often need to break the bounds of ANSI C and go
to a lower level.


In which case the dicussion needs to depart from clc.

NO, because clc is not cl.ansic.


For the zillionth time that I've stated this here, the name of a newsgroup
does *not* define its exact nature. It's only a general guideline.

The nature and guidelines of clc are stated in the 'welcome message',
which has by consensus of the regulars become the defining document.
The newsgriup precedes the ANSI standard,
Irrelevant.
which is proving itself to be an ephemeral chapter in the history of the
language. The C99 standard seems to have failed.
Your opinion. And you seem to have imposed some arbitrary
time limit for C99 to 'succeed'.
An example would be if you have a custom memory scheme. How > > do you know if a pointer comes from your arena or from elsewhere?


Then one would need to ask/read about it where such things are
discussed. Not here.

It's a perfectly on-topic question. I have implemeted a mymalloc() using a
static arena, when a pointer is passed to myfree(), how can I verify that

it is from the arena. The ANSI answer is that you can't, but that's not good
enough.
Tough.

[ debuggers ]
Then one would need to ask/read about it where debuggers are
discussed. Not here.

You need to understand the sorts of ways pointers are represented in

memory before you can understand debuggers,
Debuggers are not topical here.
or indeed the (ANSI) %p format
All one need know is that it will print the value of a type 'void*'
object. The exact display format used is left up to the implemenation.
specifier to the printf() family of functions. Perfectly on topic, but
nothing to do with ANSI.
%p (the ISO specification of it) is indeed topical. Its implementation
is not.
Programming is practical.


The subject of clc is not programming.

It's C programming.


It's the C programming *language* and how to *use* it.
Not ANSI C programming, portable C programming i.e.
compiler-specfic questions are off-topic, but not, for example, "how does a typical implemetation provide malloc()".
That's an implementation specific issue. The language only
specifies 'malloc()'s *behavior*.
It doesn't make sense to hand someone a copy of
the standard and expect them to be able to write fully-conforming
ANSI C.


That's why we have books, schools, intructors, etc.

And also comp.lang,c. Otherwise one could simply post the standard in

answer to every query.
So here you are at comp.lang.c where so many experts graciously share
their knowledge and skill, gratis. So instead of desperately trying
to prove yourself "right", why not *listen* and learn? I did.
When I first came to clc, I considered myself, if not 'expert',
at least very knowledgable about C. A couple days here proved
me wrong. I did not allow my ego to obscure or deny this fact.
Not at the abstract level of ISO C. 'Way' back when, I got a decent
understanding of how COBOL worked, before I ever laid eyes on
any hardware. This was proven when I actually coded, compiled,
and successfully ran programs when we did get access to a computer.

Well done but that's unusual,


I suppose one might call it "unusual". I found my instructor's
methods to be brilliant.
and an inefficient way of learning.
I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "efficient" . Fast?
Fast just means fast, not necessarily "good".

I found it a very *effective* way to learn.
Basically
you are using the tutor to dry run code,
Actually the students all used one another to represent
system components, one of which was the CPU, who was
given a sequence of predefined instructions. Others
represented data objects, peripheral devices, etc.
We 'executed' a 'program' according to a strict
formal set of rules (analagous to a standard
language specification). But these rules did *not*
mandate implementation methods. E.g. a the person
representing an 'accumulator' was only required
to 'reset', 'accumulate', and report a value.
It was not mandated *how* to do so. He was free
to rely on his memory, or he could write things
down, or use a handheld calculator, etc.
and he will do so several million
times slower than a processor.
Speed was not the objective. Learning was.
And after the students all having participated
in the 'execution' of a 'program' we all had a
much better appreciation for the true power
of a computer, and the discipline required to
effectively program one.
Programming is a practical skill,
Yes, and a programming language is only a small part of it.
This newsgroup provides only a small part of the knowledge
necessary. Other learning resources exist for the other
issues.

which means that you need to understnad
your implementation.
Not to use C you don't.
Otherwise we could simply hand a copy of the standard
to every newbie and expect them to become proficient C programmers. It
doesn't work like that.
As I already said, that's why we have schools, books, instructors, etc.

Basically engage brain before trying to obfuscate my explanations
I have in no way tried to obfuscate anything you've 'explained'.
I've only debated your opinions.
with
references to URL pointers and other such rubbish.


I made no reference to a URL pointer.

-Mike
Nov 14 '05 #29

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwah ler.net> wrote in message
Whose definition of 'typical'?
Please don't omit context. Restored:

Malcolm: on a typical system

Mike: Whose definition of 'typical'?
Well every system I know uses fixed-size pointers. There is one main
exception to the rule that the size of the pointer represents the size of
the address space, and that's quite an important one, old x86 compilers with
their segmented architecture.
I think we can call the x86 "non-typical" because the natural thing to do is
to have one pointer value equalling one address, and because virtually every
other system works that way. But standard C is deeply dependent on the types of architectures > > >
that exist in the real world.

Not at all. The standard makes requirements that an implementation
must meet. If a platform cannot provide support sufficient for
such an implementation (either directly or via e.g. software emulation,
etc.)
(perhaps it only has 6 bit bytes) then it's simply not possible to create
a conforming C implemenation for it. Period. So you have the
'dependency' issue exactly backwards.
C is not an abstract language for specifying the behviour of Turing
machines, but one that is deeply-dependent on the types of architectures
that exist. You can incidentally provide a conforming C implemetation for
any Turing-comptible machine, even if it uses 6-bit bytes internally, as
long as you are prepared to accept gross inefficiency.
It is precisely because 6-bit byte general-purpose processors are rare that
C doesn't easily support them.
I need to understand neither physical representation, nor know (or
care) why the committee decided what they did, in order to
successfully write standard C. All I need is a conforming
implementation, and access to the rules (the standard). Of course
textbooks written in a more 'prose' like form are a huge help.
This is nonsense. People are not machines. You can't learn French from a
dictionary and grammar, nor is it possible to learn C from the standard. And
over-literal explantions, such as "pointers can be URLs" obfusucate rather
than illuminate.
The newsgriup precedes the ANSI standard,
Irrelevant.

No highly relevant. And ANSI has shot itself in the foot by proposing a
standard that has not been widely adopted, which means that now C will
probably spread into several dialects. The newsgroup precedes ANSI, and will
survive when ANSI is just a memory.
Your opinion. And you seem to have imposed some arbitrary
time limit for C99 to 'succeed'.
It's only five years, and obviously |I cannot fortell the future, but it
seems likely that C99 will never be widely implemeted. I think that what
will happen is that people will increasingly run C code through a C++
compiler to use useful C99 features such as single line comments and inline
functions.
The ANSI answer is that you can't, but that's not good
enough.
Tough.

Tough for you but you're being unnecessarily restrictive. How about
explaining how this can be done in C on some platforms, but not portably? Debuggers are not topical here.

The details of a specific debugger are not topical, debuggers generally (for
instance we had a thread recently about whether or not they were time
wasters) are topical.
%p (the ISO specification of it) is indeed topical. Its implementation
is not.
Implemetation of standard library functions is topical.
So here you are at comp.lang.c where so many experts graciously
share their knowledge and skill, gratis. So instead of desperately
trying to prove yourself "right", why not *listen* and learn? I did.
When I first came to clc, I considered myself, if not 'expert',
at least very knowledgable about C. A couple days here proved
me wrong. I did not allow my ego to obscure or deny this fact.
It doesn't take more than a couple of days to learn all the C you need to
know, unless you want to write a compiler, if you already know another
language. That is one of the great strengths of C.
To know the answer to exotica takes a bit longer, but you don't actually
need to know this to write successful C. How about learning from someone who
knows a great deal about programming, without claiming to be at the leading
edge?
Actually the students all used one another to represent
system components, one of which was the CPU, who was
given a sequence of predefined instructions. Others
represented data objects, peripheral devices, etc.
We 'executed' a 'program' according to a strict
formal set of rules (analagous to a standard
language specification). But these rules did *not*
mandate implementation methods. E.g. a the person
representing an 'accumulator' was only required
to 'reset', 'accumulate', and report a value.
It was not mandated *how* to do so. He was free
to rely on his memory, or he could write things
down, or use a handheld calculator, etc.
If you don't have a computer then you can use these sorts of devices to
teach programming. It sounds highly creative and I wouldn't want to knock
your tutor. However if you just hnad someone a computer and let them play
with it, they can very quickly pick up programming if they have a natural
aptitude for it.
Programming is a practical skill,
Yes, and a programming language is only a small part of it.
This newsgroup provides only a small part of the knowledge
necessary. Other learning resources exist for the other
issues.

Yes sure, knowing C is only a small part of knowing "how to program", which
is a bit like "knowing how to cook", there are a few basics everyone has to
learn, but you can be perfectly competent at meat and 2 veg without being a
cordon bleu chef.
which means that you need to understnad
your implementation.
Not to use C you don't.

Yes you do, because to make mistakes and funny things happen. Formally we
could just post a copy of the standard in response to every query, in
practise humans aren't built like that.
I made no reference to a URL pointer.

No, you've defended someone who corrected my statement that typically a
pointer has enough bits to address the meory space of the computer by
pointing out that the implemetation could use a URL pointer. Formally he's
right of course, in the same way that it could use decimal ten-state memory
instead of binary.

In fact a non-perverse use of pointers would be to store the bounds of the
data item pointed to in every pointer. Then an attempt to address memeory
illegally could be caught. To my knowledge not a single implemetation
actually uses safe pointers. The reason of course is that C programmers
expect pointer dereferences to compile to single machine instructions -
something again not mentioned in the standard but highly relevant to anyone
who programs in C.
Nov 14 '05 #30

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

12
4737
by: Ellarco | last post by:
``Opaque-pointer representing the ID of an object. struct _objID; typedef struct _objID * objectID;'' Hi again. Im using an api that defines an objectID type. The above represents the extent of the documentation on it. The above means that objectID is defined as a pointer to an as yet undefined class/struct _objID, and, if I understand the term correctly, is opaque in
9
10697
by: dati_remo | last post by:
Hi, is it possible to find the dimension of an array using a pointer? main() { int a; f(a); return; }
19
8059
by: junky_fellow | last post by:
Can the size of pointer variables of different type may be different on a particular architecture. For eg. Can the sizeof (char *) be different from sizeof(int *) or sizeof (void *) ? What is the purpose of using a void pointer ? Instead of declaring a pointer variable "void *", can I declare it as "char *" and then later on typcast it to whatever type
33
17551
by: siliconwafer | last post by:
What is size of pointer in C on DOS? is it sizeof(int ) or size of (long int)? If this ans is present in FAQ pls direct me to tht ouestion
16
15677
by: Alex Vinokur | last post by:
Does it have to be? : sizeof (size_t) >= sizeof (pointer) Alex Vinokur email: alex DOT vinokur AT gmail DOT com http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html http://sourceforge.net/users/alexvn
0
9935
marktang
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 usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
9791
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
10742
jinu1996
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 captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
1
10844
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 most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
0
10410
tracyyun
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 choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
9571
agi2029
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 launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
0
7122
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 into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5797
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
1
4609
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

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.