473,326 Members | 2,010 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,326 software developers and data experts.

help me atleast now

i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................
#include<stdio.h>

#include<conio.h>

main()

{

clrscr();

for(;0;)

printf("Gud Morning");
getch();
return 0;
}
please explain the output............

i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............

Mar 21 '06 #1
25 2245
"muttaa" <as***********@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11**********************@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com:
i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................
#include<stdio.h>

#include<conio.h>
Nonstandard header.
main()
int main(void)

is better.

{

clrscr();

for(;0;)

printf("Gud Morning");
getch();
return 0;
}
please explain the output............
Well, you don't show any output, do you? How can one explain what one
does not see?
i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0)


I don't have that specific compiler, so after getting rid of platform
specific stuff, I get this:

D:\Home\asu1\UseNet\clc> cat t.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main(void) {
for ( ; 0 ; ) {
/* Note the newline below */
printf("Gud Morning\n");
}
return 0;
}

D:\Home\asu1\UseNet\clc> gcc -Wall t.c -o t.exe

D:\Home\asu1\UseNet\clc> t.exe

D:\Home\asu1\UseNet\clc>

Does the program above actually output something on your system?

Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1u**@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
Mar 21 '06 #2
muttaa wrote:
i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................

#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
main()
{
clrscr();
for(;0;)
printf("Gud Morning");
getch();
return 0;
}

please explain the output............

i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............


It compiles here on the Turbo C++ 1.0 compiler with a warning about
unreachable code at line 13, (the printf() line), and as you say, does
execute the printf() statement.

Strange.

Mar 21 '06 #3
muttaa wrote:

i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................

#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>

main()
{
clrscr();
for(;0;)
printf("Gud Morning");
getch();
return 0;
}

please explain the output............

i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............


Well, given that you don't say what the output is, it's tough to explain
it. :-)

(And the use of non-standard headers and functions won't help the matter.)

Assumptions:

<conio.h> defines prototypes for the non-standard functions used below.

clrscr() is something which clears the screen.

getch() waits for a keystroke. (Probably because you are running the
program in some environment where you would lose the output once the
program terminates.)

The output is "Gud Morning", as suggested in a previous post of yours.

If all these are true, I would say the explanation is that your compiler
is broken. The printf() within the for-loop should never execute.

Strip the program down to standard features only:

==========

#include <stdio.h>

main()
{
for(;0;)
printf("Gud Morning");
getchar();
return 0;
}

==========

This program should display nothing, and wait for you to press Enter.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>

Mar 21 '06 #4
muttaa wrote:
i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................
/* let's fix it so it's actually standard C (although no compiler should
* produce code from the original with the output you claim. */

#include<stdio.h>
#if 0
#include<conio.h> /* no such standard header */
#endif
int /* main returns an int in all versions
of C; saying so has always been a
good idea, and required since 1999. */
main(void)
{
#if 0
clrscr(); /* no such standard function */
#endif
for (; 0;)
printf("Gud Morning");
#if 0
getch(); /* no such standard function */
#endif
return 0;
}
i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............


If you got the output you claim from compiling this code, then your
compiler is broken. Make sure that you don't have any stray bits lying
around that your compiler might be compiling instead, and delete any
output from a previous compilation.
Mar 21 '06 #5
santosh wrote:
muttaa wrote:
i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................

[snip code]
It compiles here on the Turbo C++ 1.0 compiler with a warning about
unreachable code at line 13, (the printf() line), and as you say, does
execute the printf() statement.

Strange.

I ran it on regular old Turbo C, and it showed no output.

Brian
Mar 21 '06 #6
Default User wrote:
santosh wrote:
muttaa wrote:
i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................


[snip code]
It compiles here on the Turbo C++ 1.0 compiler with a warning about
unreachable code at line 13, (the printf() line), and as you say, does
execute the printf() statement.

Strange.

I ran it on regular old Turbo C, and it showed no output.


The same here. I compiled the OP's as well as the other's versions on
Turbo C 2.01 and Turbo C++ 1.0 and only the output of the latter's
shows this broken behaviour. The Turbo C's version runs as it should.

Strange.

Mar 21 '06 #7
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
muttaa wrote:
i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................

/* let's fix it so it's actually standard C (although no compiler should
* produce code from the original with the output you claim. */

#include<stdio.h>
#if 0
#include<conio.h> /* no such standard header */
#endif
int /* main returns an int in all versions
of C; saying so has always been a
good idea, and required since 1999. */
main(void)
{
#if 0
clrscr(); /* no such standard function */
#endif
for (; 0;)
printf("Gud Morning");
#if 0
getch(); /* no such standard function */
#endif
return 0;
}
i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............

If you got the output you claim from compiling this code, then your
compiler is broken. Make sure that you don't have any stray bits lying
around that your compiler might be compiling instead, and delete any
output from a previous compilation.

Q: Why do I suspect the OP had a semicolon after the `for' -- and the
`code' was retyped as opposed to being cut'n'pasted?

A: I've been spending too much time around Usenet.

--ag
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
http://goldsays.blogspot.com
"You can't KISS* unless you MISS**"
[*-Keep it simple, stupid. **-Make it simple, stupid.]
Mar 21 '06 #8
Artie Gold wrote:
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
muttaa wrote:
i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................

/* let's fix it so it's actually standard C (although no compiler should
* produce code from the original with the output you claim. */

#include<stdio.h>
#if 0
#include<conio.h> /* no such standard header */
#endif
int /* main returns an int in all versions
of C; saying so has always been a
good idea, and required since 1999. */
main(void)
{
#if 0
clrscr(); /* no such standard function */
#endif
for (; 0;)
printf("Gud Morning");
#if 0
getch(); /* no such standard function */
#endif
return 0;
}
i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............

If you got the output you claim from compiling this code, then your
compiler is broken. Make sure that you don't have any stray bits lying
around that your compiler might be compiling instead, and delete any
output from a previous compilation.

Q: Why do I suspect the OP had a semicolon after the `for' -- and the
`code' was retyped as opposed to being cut'n'pasted?

A: I've been spending too much time around Usenet.


Actually, the Turbo C++ compilers 3.0 and 1.0 *do* seem to be broken
with regard to this piece of code. I tried OP's example as well as one
of my own with the non-standard functions removed and still the same
behaviour. The plain C compiler, Turbo C 2.01, seem to compile to the
correct object code. You can download the Turbo C++ 1.0 compiler from
Borland website, (Museum section), and try out the code and verify for
yourself.

BTW, I wonder why no one spotted the compiler bug up until now?

Mar 21 '06 #9
[Sorry if this is posted twice -- Google is acting up]

muttaa wrote:
i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................

<rest snipped>

<The whole post is off-topic, but since the OP keeps posting the same
thing...>

muttaa,

The problem seems to be with the Turbo C++ compilers both your 3.0
version and my 1.0 version. The pure C version, i.e. Turbo C 2.01
produces the correct executable behaviour. This shows that the above
C++ compiler versions are broken, no doubt about that. Incidentally the
latest of Borland's compilers, Borland C++ compiler 5.5 is *not* broken
in this regard. In any case, the code you posted *should not* execute
the printf() statement.

The first thing you should do is ditch the outdated and now broken
compilers and install the GNU C Compiler, gcc. It's excellent, free and
available on several platforms. You can use the DJGPP port under DOS or
MinGW under Windows. Google for them.

Then acquire a good beginner text on C, or if you have even a little
programming experience get K&R's book (2nd Ed.). That will tell you the
semantics of C's constructs and good coding practices.

Mar 21 '06 #10

muttaa wrote:
#include<stdio.h>

#include<conio.h>
Non-standard header, and you don't really need it...
main()
int main(void)

is preferrable.
{

clrscr();
Non-standard function, also not needed...
for(;0;)

printf("Gud Morning");
getch();
Another non-standard function, again not really needed...
return 0;
}

please explain the output............
There's nothing to explain, as there's no output. It has already been
explained to you. Zero in the test of the `for` statement makes it
never execute the `printf` line. If you don't believe us, get a good
textbook, and see for yourself.
i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............


If you got anything else, your compiler surely *is* broken.

--
BR, Vladimir

Mar 21 '06 #11
Vladimir S. Oka wrote:

muttaa wrote:

i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............


If you got anything else, your compiler surely is broken.


Based on what Santosh has said, it seems likely that the compiler is
broken. How that particular bug could have made it out is, hmm,
surprising.

Brian
Mar 21 '06 #12
Default User opined:
Vladimir S. Oka wrote:

muttaa wrote:

> i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough
> that it's not broken.............


If you got anything else, your compiler surely is broken.


Based on what Santosh has said, it seems likely that the compiler is
broken. How that particular bug could have made it out is, hmm,
surprising.


Yeah, I saw it just a moment ago. It is weird. is it possible to get
TC++ 3.0 from the Museum? I may be interested in giving it a spin on a
dull and rainy day... ;-)

--
BR, Vladimir

Well, it's hard for a mere man to believe that woman doesn't have equal
rights.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Mar 21 '06 #13
Default User wrote:
Vladimir S. Oka wrote:

muttaa wrote:

i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
it's not broken.............


If you got anything else, your compiler surely is broken.


Based on what Santosh has said, it seems likely that the compiler is
broken. How that particular bug could have made it out is, hmm,
surprising.


Well, just for cross-checking my word, the relevant compilers are
available at the following URL:
http://bdn.borland.com/museum

Though Turbo C++ 3.0, which the OP uses, is not given, it's 1.0 version
is provided and it exhibits the same bug. The C compiler however is
correct. I wonder for how many more rarely used constructs like these,
they trip up on? Maybe, they didn't do all the rigorous software
testing that's done these days.

Mar 21 '06 #14
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.com> writes:
Default User wrote:
Vladimir S. Oka wrote:
>
> muttaa wrote:

> > i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
> > it's not broken.............
>
> If you got anything else, your compiler surely is broken.


Based on what Santosh has said, it seems likely that the compiler is
broken. How that particular bug could have made it out is, hmm,
surprising.


Well, just for cross-checking my word, the relevant compilers are
available at the following URL:
http://bdn.borland.com/museum

Though Turbo C++ 3.0, which the OP uses, is not given, it's 1.0 version
is provided and it exhibits the same bug. The C compiler however is
correct. I wonder for how many more rarely used constructs like these,
they trip up on? Maybe, they didn't do all the rigorous software
testing that's done these days.


Which explains why we now live in bug-free bliss. Sometimes I almost
miss computer viruses, but of course they can no longer propagate.

--
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.
Mar 21 '06 #15
santosh wrote:

Default User wrote:
Vladimir S. Oka wrote:

muttaa wrote:

> i compiled it in Turbo C++ (3.0) compiler which i'm sure enough that
> it's not broken.............

If you got anything else, your compiler surely is broken.


Based on what Santosh has said, it seems likely that the compiler is
broken. How that particular bug could have made it out is, hmm,
surprising.


Well, just for cross-checking my word, the relevant compilers are
available at the following URL:
http://bdn.borland.com/museum

Though Turbo C++ 3.0, which the OP uses, is not given, it's 1.0 version
is provided and it exhibits the same bug. The C compiler however is
correct. I wonder for how many more rarely used constructs like these,
they trip up on? Maybe, they didn't do all the rigorous software
testing that's done these days.


Does the bug only occur with "for(;0;)"? What about:

#include <stdio.h>

/* Outside of main() to avoid possible compiler optimization */
int a=1;
int b=2;

int main()
{
for ( ; a>b ; )
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");
return(0);
}

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>
Mar 21 '06 #16
Kenneth Brody wrote:
santosh wrote:
Though Turbo C++ 3.0, which the OP uses, is not given, it's 1.0
version is provided and it exhibits the same bug. The C compiler
however is correct. I wonder for how many more rarely used
constructs like these, they trip up on? Maybe, they didn't do all
the rigorous software testing that's done these days.


Does the bug only occur with "for(;0;)"? What about:


for ( ; a>b ; )
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");
return(0);
}


That's a good question. What about something like:
char s[] = "";

for(;*s;)
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");
That seems common enough that it should have turned up in common usage.

Brian
Mar 21 '06 #17
muttaa wrote:

i'm sorry for posting an incomplete code.

here's the full listing.................

#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>

main()
{
clrscr();
for(;0;)
printf("Gud Morning");
getch();
return 0;
}

please explain the output............


silly blank lines snipped.

Why are you starting a new thread? conio.h is non-standard, delete
it. then delete clrscr and getch calls, which also don't exist in
standard c. Then declare main as "int main(void)". Then ensure
you copy and paste your code into your message - do not type it
in. IIRC turbo C also has the evil habit of concealing control
chars in source code, so it might pay to retype some source lines.
It might help to replace printf with puts in this thing, just in
case you change the for loop conditional to non-zero.

The output is obviously nothing. Whats to explain?

--
"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/>
Mar 21 '06 #18
Kenneth Brody wrote:
santosh wrote:
Though Turbo C++ 3.0, which the OP uses, is not given, it's 1.0 version
is provided and it exhibits the same bug. The C compiler however is
correct. I wonder for how many more rarely used constructs like these,
they trip up on? Maybe, they didn't do all the rigorous software
testing that's done these days.


Does the bug only occur with "for(;0;)"? What about:

#include <stdio.h>

/* Outside of main() to avoid possible compiler optimization */
int a=1;
int b=2;

int main()
{
for ( ; a>b ; )
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");
return(0);
}


No it doesn't. This compiles correctly...(atleast on TC++ 1.01).

Mar 22 '06 #19
Default User wrote:
Kenneth Brody wrote:
santosh wrote:
Though Turbo C++ 3.0, which the OP uses, is not given, it's 1.0
version is provided and it exhibits the same bug. The C compiler
however is correct. I wonder for how many more rarely used
constructs like these, they trip up on? Maybe, they didn't do all
the rigorous software testing that's done these days.


Does the bug only occur with "for(;0;)"? What about:


for ( ; a>b ; )
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");
return(0);
}


That's a good question. What about something like:
char s[] = "";

for(;*s;)
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");


The "bug" doesn't appear, both for global and local s.
That seems common enough that it should have turned up in common usage.


The bug seems to be produced only with a numeric literal. There may be
other possibilities too, but whose's going to bother testing
exhaustively such an outdated compiler/s.

Mar 22 '06 #20
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.com> writes:
Default User wrote:
Kenneth Brody wrote:
> santosh wrote:
> > Though Turbo C++ 3.0, which the OP uses, is not given, it's 1.0
> > version is provided and it exhibits the same bug. The C compiler
> > however is correct. I wonder for how many more rarely used
> > constructs like these, they trip up on? Maybe, they didn't do all
> > the rigorous software testing that's done these days.
>
> Does the bug only occur with "for(;0;)"? What about:


> for ( ; a>b ; )
> printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");
> return(0);
> }


That's a good question. What about something like:

char s[] = "";

for(;*s;)
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");


The "bug" doesn't appear, both for global and local s.
That seems common enough that it should have turned up in common usage.


The bug seems to be produced only with a numeric literal. There may be
other possibilities too, but whose's going to bother testing
exhaustively such an outdated compiler/s.


I'll bet it's an optimization gone awry. The author(s) probably tried
to optimize the case of a constant condition and got the logic
backwards.

I wonder whether "for (;1;)" also misbehaves.

--
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.
Mar 22 '06 #21
Keith Thompson wrote:
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.com> writes:
Default User wrote:
Kenneth Brody wrote:
> santosh wrote:
> > Though Turbo C++ 3.0, which the OP uses, is not given, it's 1.0
> > version is provided and it exhibits the same bug. The C compiler
> > however is correct. I wonder for how many more rarely used
> > constructs like these, they trip up on? Maybe, they didn't do all
> > the rigorous software testing that's done these days.
>
> Does the bug only occur with "for(;0;)"? What about:
> for ( ; a>b ; )
> printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");
> return(0);
> }

That's a good question. What about something like:

char s[] = "";

for(;*s;)
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");


The "bug" doesn't appear, both for global and local s.
That seems common enough that it should have turned up in common usage.


The bug seems to be produced only with a numeric literal. There may be
other possibilities too, but whose's going to bother testing
exhaustively such an outdated compiler/s.


I'll bet it's an optimization gone awry. The author(s) probably tried
to optimize the case of a constant condition and got the logic
backwards.

I wonder whether "for (;1;)" also misbehaves.


Nope. It results in an infinite loop as it should. Thus far it only
seems to occur for literal constant 0. I'm rather surprised though that
nobody seems to have spotted it in about 15 years.

Mar 22 '06 #22
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.com> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.com> writes: [...]
> The bug seems to be produced only with a numeric literal. There may be
> other possibilities too, but whose's going to bother testing
> exhaustively such an outdated compiler/s.


I'll bet it's an optimization gone awry. The author(s) probably tried
to optimize the case of a constant condition and got the logic
backwards.

I wonder whether "for (;1;)" also misbehaves.


Nope. It results in an infinite loop as it should. Thus far it only
seems to occur for literal constant 0. I'm rather surprised though that
nobody seems to have spotted it in about 15 years.


Are you sure nobody has ever spotted it? It appears to have been
fixed in later releases, so either somebody noticed it or it vanished
in a code rewrite.

--
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.
Mar 22 '06 #23
santosh wrote:
[...]
> > Does the bug only occur with "for(;0;)"? What about: [...] The bug seems to be produced only with a numeric literal. There may be
other possibilities too, but whose's going to bother testing
exhaustively such an outdated compiler/s.


I'll bet it's an optimization gone awry. The author(s) probably tried
to optimize the case of a constant condition and got the logic
backwards.

I wonder whether "for (;1;)" also misbehaves.


Nope. It results in an infinite loop as it should. Thus far it only
seems to occur for literal constant 0. I'm rather surprised though that
nobody seems to have spotted it in about 15 years.


Well, the bug was fixed in a later release, either intentionally (because
someone found it) or unintentionally (in which case it was no longer there
to be "spotted").

In either case, how often does one write "for(;0;)"? (BTW, does "while(0)"
fail the same way?)

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>
Mar 22 '06 #24
santosh wrote:
Default User wrote:

That's a good question. What about something like:
char s[] = "";

for(;*s;)
printf("Yup, the bug is still here.\n");


The "bug" doesn't appear, both for global and local s.
That seems common enough that it should have turned up in common
usage.


The bug seems to be produced only with a numeric literal. There may be
other possibilities too, but whose's going to bother testing
exhaustively such an outdated compiler/s.


Ok, that makes more sense. That's a fairly unlikely construct in "real"
code, so I'm not too surprised they didn't catch it. Keith's suggestion
of an optimization bug is possible.

Brian
Mar 22 '06 #25
Kenneth Brody wrote:
santosh wrote:
[...]
>> > Does the bug only occur with "for(;0;)"? What about: [...] > The bug seems to be produced only with a numeric literal. There may be
> other possibilities too, but whose's going to bother testing
> exhaustively such an outdated compiler/s.

I'll bet it's an optimization gone awry. The author(s) probably tried
to optimize the case of a constant condition and got the logic
backwards.

I wonder whether "for (;1;)" also misbehaves.


Nope. It results in an infinite loop as it should. Thus far it only
seems to occur for literal constant 0. I'm rather surprised though that
nobody seems to have spotted it in about 15 years.


Well, the bug was fixed in a later release, either intentionally (because
someone found it) or unintentionally (in which case it was no longer there
to be "spotted").

In either case, how often does one write "for(;0;)"? (BTW, does "while(0)"
fail the same way?)


No. Works correctly.

Mar 22 '06 #26

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

Similar topics

0
by: kosaraju.puneeth | last post by:
I am using Xml schema based validation for XML files. * I have attributes of Required,optional and anyAttribute type. Now can i validate my XML file in such a way that under a particular...
5
by: John | last post by:
I am new in Regular Expression. Could someone please help me in following expression? 1. the string cannot be empty 2. the string can only contains AlphaNumeric characters. No space or any...
8
by: Siva | last post by:
Hi, I'm working a long code, part of which is as follows. I get 2 numbers from 2 different field. Now I want to compare the 2 mumbers and see if atleast one of the digits are matching. for...
6
by: technocrat | last post by:
i have a process thats in roll back state..i ts going on forever..i need to kill it and would like to restart it with some changes.... if not atleast i need to know the status of the rollback to...
9
by: jmchadha | last post by:
I have got the following html: "something in html ... etc.. city1... etc... <a class="font1" href="city1.html" onclick="etc."click for <b>info</bon city1 </a> ... some html. city1.. can repeat...
10
by: preethamkumark | last post by:
- The program first creates a shared memory buffer containing an array of 20 integers. - Each slot of the buffer can have either 0 or 1, where 0 represents an empty slot, and 1 represents an...
3
by: ANoobee | last post by:
What is the best approach to force atleast one of a few optional elements required in an XSD? This is what I'm tring to do: <email> <to> <cc> <bcc> </email>
5
by: sajin | last post by:
Hi All.. We are using VB .Net 2005 for implementing an API. API needs to generate events. For this client wants us to use Windows Callback (delegate implementation). The intention of using...
1
by: apondu | last post by:
Hi Friends... I have a simple query on building the Web Setup project. When i build my setup, i see that the code behind the .aspx pages (.cs code pages) are also included. And when i deploy the...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
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...
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...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

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.