473,288 Members | 1,718 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,288 software developers and data experts.

Writing Data to Bit Field

Hi everybody!

Is it possible to write a value into a bit field which initializes all
bits?

example:

struct Field
{
unsigned int Bit1 : 1;
unsigned int Bit2 : 2;
} MyFied;

Now, I would like to write the value 3 to the variable MyField,
so that Bit1 and Bit2 become TRUE ( == 1).

Any suggestion?

Thanks!

Feb 27 '06 #1
31 2996

Zero wrote:
Hi everybody!

Is it possible to write a value into a bit field which initializes all
bits?

example:

struct Field
{
unsigned int Bit1 : 1;
unsigned int Bit2 : 2;
I guess you mean `: 1` here as well (judging by the rest of the post).
As it is, Bit2 has width 2, not 1.
} MyFied;

Now, I would like to write the value 3 to the variable MyField,
so that Bit1 and Bit2 become TRUE ( == 1).

Any suggestion?


AFAIK, not in a portable way.

The closest you can portably get is to have a constant struct with Bit1
and Bit2 set to 1, and then assign that to variables of the same type.
E.g.:

struct Field all_bits_one = { 1, 1};

MyFied = all_bits_one;

If you don't want to be portable, you can find out how your
implementation represents integers (or similar handy objects) and try
constructing them appropriatelly and casting to your struct.

--
BR, Vladimir

Feb 27 '06 #2

Vladimir S. Oka wrote:
Zero wrote:
Hi everybody!

Is it possible to write a value into a bit field which initializes all
bits?

example:

struct Field
{
unsigned int Bit1 : 1;
unsigned int Bit2 : 2;
I guess you mean `: 1` here as well (judging by the rest of the post).
As it is, Bit2 has width 2, not 1.
} MyFied;

Now, I would like to write the value 3 to the variable MyField,
so that Bit1 and Bit2 become TRUE ( == 1).

Any suggestion?


AFAIK, not in a portable way.

The closest you can portably get is to have a constant struct with Bit1
and Bit2 set to 1, and then assign that to variables of the same type.
E.g.:

struct Field all_bits_one = { 1, 1};


Obviously:

const struct Field all_bits_one = { 1, 1};

if you wanted it constant as I suggested.

MyFied = all_bits_one;

If you don't want to be portable, you can find out how your
implementation represents integers (or similar handy objects) and try
constructing them appropriatelly and casting to your struct.

--
BR, Vladimir


Feb 27 '06 #3
You were right, it must have been unsigned int Bit2 : 1;

Feb 27 '06 #4
Can you give me an example for the cast-operation?

Feb 27 '06 #5

Zero wrote:
Can you give me an example for the cast-operation?


Please quote what, and who you're replying to. If you're using Google,
you need to click on Show Options, and then Reply that appears beneath
the header (and while you're at it, don't top-post either in case you
feel tempted).

I's also move to retract my suggestion that you can cast to a struct.
Casts only work on scalar types, and structs are not scalar types. I
blame insuficient coffee intake. Sorry.

Why would you want to do such a thing anyway?

--
BR, Vladimir

Feb 27 '06 #6

Vladimir S. Oka schrieb:
Zero wrote:
Can you give me an example for the cast-operation?
Please quote what, and who you're replying to. If you're using Google,
you need to click on Show Options, and then Reply that appears beneath
the header (and while you're at it, don't top-post either in case you
feel tempted).


Ok, I never have quoted before...
I's also move to retract my suggestion that you can cast to a struct.
Casts only work on scalar types, and structs are not scalar types. I
blame insuficient coffee intake. Sorry.
Yes, that is also what my compiler says...
Why would you want to do such a thing anyway?


It would be the fastest way to initialize the bits, wouldn't it?

Zero

Feb 27 '06 #7
Zero wrote:
Vladimir S. Oka schrieb:
Zero wrote:
Can you give me an example for the cast-operation?


Please quote what, and who you're replying to. If you're using Google,
you need to click on Show Options, and then Reply that appears beneath
the header (and while you're at it, don't top-post either in case you
feel tempted).


Ok, I never have quoted before...
I's also move to retract my suggestion that you can cast to a struct.
Casts only work on scalar types, and structs are not scalar types. I
blame insuficient coffee intake. Sorry.


Yes, that is also what my compiler says...
Why would you want to do such a thing anyway?


It would be the fastest way to initialize the bits, wouldn't it?


It shouldn't be less efficient than what I suggested earlier (a good
compiler will probably behind the scenes effectively do what you were
trying to). It's also much more readable.

You should also know the first rule of optimisation:

1. Don't do it.

Compilers are generally better at it. Second rule is useful as well:

2. Don't do it yet.

--
BR, Vladimir

Feb 27 '06 #8
On 2006-02-27, Zero <ch********@web.de> wrote:
snip Yet another tedious reminder about how to reply.
Doesn't worry me too much since if I'm interested in a thread then it
can easily be tagged or reconstructed at will despite being an online
newsreader. Personally I hate people constantly including the entire
previous post : the title and thread ID is usually enough for me to
know where I am. Still, horses for courses : and *some* context is
often nice especially in a "to and fro" type thread.

I's also move to retract my suggestion that you can cast to a struct.
Casts only work on scalar types, and structs are not scalar types. I
blame insuficient coffee intake. Sorry.


Yes, that is also what my compiler says...
Why would you want to do such a thing anyway?


It would be the fastest way to initialize the bits, wouldn't it?

Zero


Maybe. What About using a Union? BTW its horrible : address the fields
seperately and let the compiler take care of optimizations unless
there really is a need to write data to a word at exactly the same time.
--
Remove evomer to reply
Feb 27 '06 #9

Richard G. Riley schrieb:
Maybe. What About using a Union?


What do you mean with your hint?

Feb 27 '06 #10
Zero wrote:
Hi everybody!

Is it possible to write a value into a bit field which initializes all
bits?

example:

struct Field
{
unsigned int Bit1 : 1;
unsigned int Bit2 : 2;
} MyFied;

Now, I would like to write the value 3 to the variable MyField,
so that Bit1 and Bit2 become TRUE ( == 1).

Any suggestion?

Thanks!

What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you looking
to use '='?

memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));
--
==============
Not a pedant
==============
Feb 27 '06 #11

Zero wrote:
Richard G. Riley schrieb:
Maybe. What About using a Union?


What do you mean with your hint?


Create a `union` with one member of the type that you deem convenient
for quick initialisation, and the other being your actual bit-field
structure. Unions are constructs that store all their members in the
same memory block which you can then access in different ways (look it
up in a C book). So if you had an `int` in your union, you could force
a certain, implementation defined, bit-pattern into your bit-field as
well.

As I said earlier, this wouldn't be portable, and it's also horribly
difficult to figure out what's happening when you review the code
later. Just don't do it.

--
BR, Vladimir

Feb 27 '06 #12
pemo schrieb: What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you looking
to use '='?
Yeah, I want to write MyField = 3;

memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));


but it seems as the function memset seems to be ideal!

Thank a lot!

Feb 27 '06 #13

pemo wrote:
Zero wrote:

Is it possible to write a value into a bit field which initializes all
bits?


What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you looking
to use '='?

memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));


Ah, a beautiful example of how it can be done in yet another, this time
even more incomprehensible way. ;-)

Zero, please don't do any of these things. Just spell out exactly what
you're doing.

--
BR, Vladimir

Feb 27 '06 #14

Zero wrote:
pemo schrieb:
What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you looking
to use '='?


Yeah, I want to write MyField = 3;

memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));


This will not write 3 into MyField. It will just guarantee that you'll
find 1s in your bit-fields.
but it seems as the function memset seems to be ideal!


You cannot be serious!

--
BR, Vladimir

Feb 27 '06 #15
Zero wrote:
Vladimir S. Oka schrieb:
Zero wrote:
Can you give me an example for the cast-operation?

Please quote what, and who you're replying to. If you're using Google,
you need to click on Show Options, and then Reply that appears beneath
the header (and while you're at it, don't top-post either in case you
feel tempted).


Ok, I never have quoted before...
I's also move to retract my suggestion that you can cast to a struct.
Casts only work on scalar types, and structs are not scalar types. I
blame insuficient coffee intake. Sorry.


Yes, that is also what my compiler says...
Why would you want to do such a thing anyway?


It would be the fastest way to initialize the bits, wouldn't it?


Hopefully your compiler is smart enough to assemble
an initialization such as struct Foo bar = { 0x1,0x4,0x7}; in the
nest/fastest way.
Feb 27 '06 #16
On 2006-02-27, pemo <us***********@gmail.com> wrote:
Zero wrote:
Hi everybody!

Is it possible to write a value into a bit field which initializes all
bits?

example:

struct Field
{
unsigned int Bit1 : 1;
unsigned int Bit2 : 2;
} MyFied;

Now, I would like to write the value 3 to the variable MyField,
so that Bit1 and Bit2 become TRUE ( == 1).

Any suggestion?

Thanks!

What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you looking
to use '='?

memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));


That is hardly optimal for setting two bit fields with 3 bits :)
--
Remove evomer to reply
Feb 27 '06 #17
On 2006-02-27, Zero <ch********@web.de> wrote:

Richard G. Riley schrieb:
Maybe. What About using a Union?


What do you mean with your hint?


Use google. Google up "C union". I have no idea if it will work with a
bitfield. Find out.

The bottom line is that it might legally allow you to write 0xFFFF to
the memory address of the bitfield. And a big might but nice
experiment to find out.

--
Remove evomer to reply
Feb 27 '06 #18

Zero wrote:
pemo schrieb:

What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you looking
to use '='?


Yeah, I want to write MyField = 3;

memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));


but it seems as the function memset seems to be ideal!

Thank a lot!


memset will be not inlined. That means, by example, that a simple
becames a call to procedure + stack allocation + loop + stack
deallocation + return.

Feb 27 '06 #19

"Zero" <ch********@web.de> wrote in message
news:11*********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
pemo schrieb:

What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you looking to use '='?


Yeah, I want to write MyField = 3;

memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));


but it seems as the function memset seems to be ideal!

Do you need bitfields? The struct is padded to a 4-byte object on my
platform. There must be any number of ways to do the job more efficiently
(if that matters) in no more space using a char or 2 chars

--
RSH

Feb 27 '06 #20
On 2006-02-27, Robin Haigh <ec*****@leeds.ac.uk> wrote:

"Zero" <ch********@web.de> wrote in message
news:11*********************@j33g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>pemo schrieb:

> What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you looking > to use '='?


Yeah, I want to write MyField = 3;

> memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));


but it seems as the function memset seems to be ideal!

Do you need bitfields? The struct is padded to a 4-byte object on my
platform. There must be any number of ways to do the job more efficiently
(if that matters) in no more space using a char or 2 chars


Bitfields would frequently be used to map an OS specific return or a
HW interface. Could someone state if the standard guarentees optimal
bit "compression" e.g no padding between fields?
--
Remove evomer to reply
Feb 27 '06 #21
"Zero" <ch********@web.de> writes:
You were right, it must have been unsigned int Bit2 : 1;


Please read <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Feb 27 '06 #22
"Vladimir S. Oka" <no****@btopenworld.com> writes:
[...]
You should also know the first rule of optimisation:

1. Don't do it.

Compilers are generally better at it. Second rule is useful as well:

2. Don't do it yet.


I think Rule 2 is usually quoted as:

2. Don't do it yet (experts only).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Feb 27 '06 #23
"tmp123" <tm****@menta.net> writes:
Zero wrote:
>pemo schrieb:

> What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are
> you looking to use '='?


Yeah, I want to write MyField = 3;

> memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));


but it seems as the function memset seems to be ideal!

Thank a lot!


memset will be not inlined. That means, by example, that a simple
becames a call to procedure + stack allocation + loop + stack
deallocation + return.


You don't know that. Since memset() is in the standard library, the
compiler is entitled to assume that it behaves as the standard
specifies, and do whatever it can do to achieve the same results.

For example, given:
int n;
memset(&n, 0, sizeof n);
the compiler could legally generate code equivalent to
int n = 0;

But memset() is very unlikely to be the best solution for the OP's
problem. If you want two bit fields to have the value 1, assign the
value 1 to both of them:
MyField.bit1 = 1;
MyField.bit2 = 1;
or:
MyField.bit1 = MyField.bit2 = 1;

If this turns out to be a significant bottleneck in the performance of
your program (because you *measured* it), you can consider other
approaches. A union might be one possible solution, but the layout of
bit fields is implementation-defined (or is it unspecified?).

There's no virtue in getting wrong answers very quickly.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Feb 27 '06 #24
Zero wrote:
Vladimir S. Oka schrieb:
Zero wrote:

Can you give me an example for the cast-operation?


Please quote what, and who you're replying to. If you're using
Google, you need to click on Show Options, and then Reply that
appears beneath the header (and while you're at it, don't
top-post either in case you feel tempted).


Ok, I never have quoted before...
I's also move to retract my suggestion that you can cast to a
struct. Casts only work on scalar types, and structs are not
scalar types. I blame insuficient coffee intake. Sorry.


Yes, that is also what my compiler says...
Why would you want to do such a thing anyway?


It would be the fastest way to initialize the bits, wouldn't it?


Congratulations on rapidly learning how to use google. Now the
next thing to learn is on the subject of optimization. The mantra
is: don't. Write for clarity first. Before even considering
optimization measure the performance, and also measure the
performance of the sections you are thinking of optimizing. You
will rarely find that optimization is worthwhile or even useful.
In general the compiler is better at optimization than you are, so
you should limit your trials to using whatever optimization
switches the compiler provides. Gcc provides a variety of
optimization switches, and also means of profiling and measuring
performance. What those are is off-topic here.

Algorithmic improvement is another matter, and will often pay off
heavily.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
Feb 27 '06 #25

Vladimir S. Oka schrieb:
Zero, please don't do any of these things. Just spell out exactly what
you're doing.


I have realized that memset cannot be used for bitfield as it is only
limited to say chars.
I use the bitfield for a statemachine and at the beginning I have to
initialize some bits. I have wondered if there is a way to initialize
the whole struct, so when assigning 3 to the structure which does not
work obviously, I know that Bit1 and Bit2 are TRUE == HIGH == 1.

Feb 28 '06 #26
Zero wrote:

Vladimir S. Oka schrieb:
Zero, please don't do any of these things. Just spell out exactly
what you're doing.


I have realized that memset cannot be used for bitfield as it is only
limited to say chars.
I use the bitfield for a statemachine and at the beginning I have to
initialize some bits. I have wondered if there is a way to initialize
the whole struct, so when assigning 3 to the structure which does not
work obviously, I know that Bit1 and Bit2 are TRUE == HIGH == 1.


Well, you can initialise a structure with another structure. See one of
my previous posts.

I'd also like to add to the commendations you already received for
picking up the c.l.c house rules in no time at all. Thank you! It's a
pleasant change.

--
BR, Vladimir

San Francisco isn't what it used to be, and it never was.
-- Herb Caen

Feb 28 '06 #27
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:58:00 +0000, Keith Thompson wrote:
"tmp123" <tm****@menta.net> writes:
Zero wrote:
>pemo schrieb:

> What do you mean by 'write a value', e.g., would this do, or are you
> looking to use '='?

Yeah, I want to write MyField = 3;
> memset(&MyFied, ~(unsigned int)0, sizeof(MyFied));

but it seems as the function memset seems to be ideal!

Thank a lot!


memset will be not inlined. That means, by example, that a simple
becames a call to procedure + stack allocation + loop + stack
deallocation + return.


You don't know that. Since memset() is in the standard library, the
compiler is entitled to assume that it behaves as the standard specifies,
and do whatever it can do to achieve the same results.

For example, given:
int n;
memset(&n, 0, sizeof n);
the compiler could legally generate code equivalent to
int n = 0;


That's interesting. Does this mean that one cannot re-define standard
functions like memset? If one can, then presumably a conforming compiler
that does this is allowed to play tricks with translation units that I
thought were not possible.

--
Ben.
Feb 28 '06 #28
Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:58:00 +0000, Keith Thompson wrote:
You don't know that. Since memset() is in the standard library, the
compiler is entitled to assume that it behaves as the standard specifies,
and do whatever it can do to achieve the same results.

For example, given:
int n;
memset(&n, 0, sizeof n);
the compiler could legally generate code equivalent to
int n = 0;
That's interesting. Does this mean that one cannot re-define standard
functions like memset?


Not portably, no. Nor any other Standard function.
If one can, then presumably a conforming compiler that does this is allowed
to play tricks with translation units that I thought were not possible.


Declaring any of the identifiers used by the Standard, or any of those
reserved for it (e.g., strfoo), invokes undefined behaviour, IIAMN. Of
course, a common way to handle this UB is to allow it, but a portable
program cannot rely on this.

(One trick that you _can_ use, because it does not change anything in
the way the implementation works, is to re-#define memset to my_memset -
provided you do so _after_ you've #included any implementation header
which might use it.)

Richard
Feb 28 '06 #29
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:38:42 +0000, Richard Bos wrote:
Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:58:00 +0000, Keith Thompson wrote:
> You don't know that. Since memset() is in the standard library, the
> compiler is entitled to assume that it behaves as the standard
> specifies, and do whatever it can do to achieve the same results.
>
> For example, given:
> int n;
> memset(&n, 0, sizeof n);
> the compiler could legally generate code equivalent to
> int n = 0;
That's interesting. Does this mean that one cannot re-define standard
functions like memset?

<snip>
Declaring any of the identifiers used by the Standard, or any of those
reserved for it (e.g., strfoo), invokes undefined behaviour, IIAMN. Of
course, a common way to handle this UB is to allow it, but a portable
program cannot rely on this.
Ah, thank you. I did look in the standard before asking but I did not
find the answer (I hope it is not in the FAQ!).
(One trick that you _can_ use, because it does not change anything in
the way the implementation works, is to re-#define memset to my_memset -
provided you do so _after_ you've #included any implementation header
which might use it.)


I've used this method myself when I needed this behaviour (debugging a
library) because it is more self-documenting and far less error-prone than
just linking with a different version of the function, but I did not know
that one had to use it!

--
Ben.
Feb 28 '06 #30
Richard G. Riley wrote:
On 2006-02-27, Zero <ch********@web.de> wrote:
snip Yet another tedious reminder about how to reply.
Doesn't worry me too much since if I'm interested in a thread then it
can easily be tagged or reconstructed at will despite being an online
newsreader.
So tell me, how do you reconstruct it if the message it is a reply to
has reached neither Google nor your news server? This *does* happen in
the real world as I know through experience.

Personally I hate people constantly including the entire previous post
That is why people should also snip what they are not responding to.

<snip>
I's also move to retract my suggestion that you can cast to a struct.
Casts only work on scalar types, and structs are not scalar types. I
blame insuficient coffee intake. Sorry.

Yes, that is also what my compiler says...
Why would you want to do such a thing anyway?

It would be the fastest way to initialize the bits, wouldn't it?

Zero


Maybe. What About using a Union? BTW its horrible


I agree that it is horrible. Especially as the bit fields could be in
either ascending or descending order so you don't know which part of the
other field in the union they will correspond to.
: address the fields
seperately and let the compiler take care of optimizations unless
there really is a need to write data to a word at exactly the same time.


Agreed. Even when there is need to write all the bits at the same time
(e.g. accessing a HW register) there are better ways to do it, mainly by
building the word you want to write in advance then writing it.
--
Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc
Mar 4 '06 #31
Richard G. Riley wrote:

<snip>
Bitfields would frequently be used to map an OS specific return or a
HW interface. Could someone state if the standard guarentees optimal
bit "compression" e.g no padding between fields?


No. You should therefore only use the method when your system specific
documentation says that it is the right thing to do. In such cases a
system specific header will generally provide you with the required
definitions so you can ignore the fact that bit fields are being used
and treat it as a normal struct.

Note also that the ordering of bit fields might (I haven't checked) be
different in gcc under Linux for the PPC and x86.
--
Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc
Mar 4 '06 #32

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

Similar topics

6
by: DanielEKFA | last post by:
Hey there :) I was once told that the STL classes had member functions to write their data to disk and to restore that data. Searching google (and why are there no "stl" or "map" manpages?), it...
6
by: Paul | last post by:
I was wondering if anyone has had an issue where using vba code to read an excel file and import the data into an access table some records are not imported from the excel file. It seems looking at...
9
by: curious_one | last post by:
All, I have a struct struct { char a; char b; }some_struct; I have a shared memory that can contain 16bit wide data, I find that when writing an 8bit value in to char "a" the same value is...
0
by: Richard Marsden | last post by:
I'm having a lot of trouble writing large chunks of binary data (tests are in the range of 16-512K, but we need support for large longblobs) to MySQL using ODBC. Database is local on a W2K system,...
8
by: SP | last post by:
The following code crashes after I add the two nested FOR loops at the end, I am starting to learn about pointers and would like to understand what I'm doing wrong. I think the problem is the way...
0
by: georges the man | last post by:
The purpose: • Sorting and Searching • Numerical Analysis Design Specification You are to write a program called “StockAnalyser”. Your program will read a text file that contains historical...
3
by: Bidhan | last post by:
Hi, I have a table (Stock) important field are partsNo., des, qty, pPrice, sPrice, qtyBuy. I make a query based on the table and has one more field SAB(qty+qtyBuy). I made a form based on the query....
1
by: ChrisFrohlich | last post by:
ASP.NET 2.0 with Text DataTypes: I've got a similar question going in the SQL group, but I was wondering if anyone has successfully implemented reading/writing character data from a Text datatype...
3
by: Thorben Grosser | last post by:
Hello Newsgroup, I am doing some archive database and therefore got one table indexing every folder and one table storing which rack belongs to which department, eg: table folders :...
30
by: Cramer | last post by:
I've finally gotton board with TDD (test driven development) and wow is it effective! I went from sceptic to True Believer with my first effort. My question: According to the various books and...
2
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 7 Feb 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:30 (7.30PM). In this month's session, the creator of the excellent VBE...
0
by: MeoLessi9 | last post by:
I have VirtualBox installed on Windows 11 and now I would like to install Kali on a virtual machine. However, on the official website, I see two options: "Installer images" and "Virtual machines"....
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
The formulas of 101 quantitative trading alphas used by WorldQuant were presented in the paper 101 Formulaic Alphas. However, some formulas are complex, leading to challenges in calculation. Take...
0
by: Aftab Ahmad | last post by:
Hello Experts! I have written a code in MS Access for a cmd called "WhatsApp Message" to open WhatsApp using that very code but the problem is that it gives a popup message everytime I clicked on...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
by: marcoviolo | last post by:
Dear all, I would like to implement on my worksheet an vlookup dynamic , that consider a change of pivot excel via win32com, from an external excel (without open it) and save the new file into a...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...

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.