Hi all,
Could you help me how to use the fwrite( ) in C ++ 19 4727
pal <ja********@gmail.comwrites:
Could you help me how to use the fwrite( ) in C ++
It's exactly the same as in C.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On Aug 14, 10:28*am, pal <jayapal...@gmail.comwrote:
Could you help me how to use the fwrite( ) in C ++
Either be more specific or try Googling for it. I found this code
sample on the first page of search results: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...cs(VS.71).aspx
Cheers! --M
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
pal <ja********@gmail.comwrites:
>Could you help me how to use the fwrite( ) in C ++
It's exactly the same as in C.
Not *exactly*, at least not if your compiler strictly adheres to the
C++ standard: You need to either use std::fwrite(), or pull it out of
the namespace with a "using std::fwrite;".
But otherwise yes, it works like in C.
On 2008-08-14 13:43:27 -0400, Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidsaid:
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>pal <ja********@gmail.comwrites:
>>Could you help me how to use the fwrite( ) in C ++
It's exactly the same as in C.
Not *exactly*, at least not if your compiler strictly adheres to the
C++ standard: You need to either use std::fwrite(), or pull it out of
the namespace with a "using std::fwrite;".
No, you need std:: only if you use <cstdio>. If you use it *exactly*
the same as in C, with <stdio.h>, you use it *exactly* the same as in
C, with no namespace.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. ( www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
( www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
But is there a special reason for using fwrite instead of C++ streams
(std::(i|o)fstream) ?
On Aug 14, 11:16 pm, Alp Mestan <alpmes...@gmail.comwrote:
But is there a special reason for using fwrite instead of C++
streams (std::(i|o)fstream) ?
Masochism? Obfuscation?
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
James Kanze wrote:
>But is there a special reason for using fwrite instead of C++ streams (std::(i|o)fstream) ?
Masochism? Obfuscation?
When using std::(i|o)fstream, that is.
Alp Mestan wrote:
But is there a special reason for using fwrite instead of C++ streams
(std::(i|o)fstream) ?
Speed. Some implementations of std::ofstream::write() may parallel the
speeds of std::fwrite(), but many don't.
(And this is *only* for std::ofstream::write(). Any of the other
functions of std::ofstream will be hopelessly slower than std::fwrite().)
Pete Becker wrote:
On 2008-08-14 13:43:27 -0400, Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidsaid:
>Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>>pal <ja********@gmail.comwrites: Could you help me how to use the fwrite( ) in C ++
It's exactly the same as in C.
Not *exactly*, at least not if your compiler strictly adheres to the C++ standard: You need to either use std::fwrite(), or pull it out of the namespace with a "using std::fwrite;".
No, you need std:: only if you use <cstdio>. If you use it *exactly* the
same as in C, with <stdio.h>, you use it *exactly* the same as in C,
with no namespace.
IIRC, the C++ standard doesn't define the header "stdio.h", only "cstdio".
Juha Nieminen wrote:
Pete Becker wrote:
No, you need std:: only if you use <cstdio>. If you use it exactly
the same as in C, with <stdio.h>, you use it exactly the same as in
C, with no namespace.
IIRC, the C++ standard doesn't define the header "stdio.h", only
"cstdio".
You don't recall correctly. It is standard, although deprecated.
Brian
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
In C++0x <cstdiois allowed to bring the symbols into the global
namespace, as is the practice with current compilers, but which
undermines the whole scheme.
I really can't understand why.
If the idea is to make a compromise with old code (why should a
compromise be made in the first place?), why not simply formalize the
<stdio.hbringing all to the global namespace rather than break the
current convention of <cstdionot doing so?
All this sounds crazy to me. It's like the standardization committee
is thinking like: "Hmm, it would be nice to deprecate <stdio.hand
libraries inherited from C putting all into the global namespace, but
tons and tons of code out there is ignoring all this, using <stdio.h>
anyways, and assuming that everything is global. What should we do? I
know, let's keep <stdio.hdeprecated, but instead let's allow <cstdio>
to make everything global. That will work."
That sounds like the stupidest idea ever. It not only doesn't fix the
problem (ie. people using <stdio.h>), but completely nullifies the whole
idea of the std namespace and keeping the global namespace cleaner (at
least with respect to C library functions). It's like a "let's *not*
compromise with the *actual* problem, but instead let's break the
current modularity conventions."
Juha Nieminen wrote:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
In C++0x <cstdiois allowed to bring the symbols into the global
namespace, as is the practice with current compilers, but which
undermines the whole scheme.
I really can't understand why.
If the idea is to make a compromise with old code (why should a
compromise be made in the first place?), why not simply formalize the
<stdio.hbringing all to the global namespace rather than break the
current convention of <cstdionot doing so?
It is formalized. See the standard, Appendix D.
Brian
On 2008-08-14 17:51:41 -0400, Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidsaid:
Pete Becker wrote:
>On 2008-08-14 13:43:27 -0400, Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidsaid:
>>Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: pal <ja********@gmail.comwrites: Could you help me how to use the fwrite( ) in C ++
It's exactly the same as in C.
Not *exactly*, at least not if your compiler strictly adheres to the C++ standard: You need to either use std::fwrite(), or pull it out of the namespace with a "using std::fwrite;".
No, you need std:: only if you use <cstdio>. If you use it *exactly* the same as in C, with <stdio.h>, you use it *exactly* the same as in C, with no namespace.
IIRC, the C++ standard doesn't define the header "stdio.h", only "cstdio".
That's right: it defers to the C standard for the contents of
<stdio.h>. But incorporation by reference is no less legitimate than
explicit definition.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. ( www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
( www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
On 2008-08-14 19:30:03 -0400, Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidsaid:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>In C++0x <cstdiois allowed to bring the symbols into the global namespace, as is the practice with current compilers, but which undermines the whole scheme.
I really can't understand why.
The reason is simply that it can't be implemented if the C++
implementor doesn't control the C headers, which is not uncommon. The
change recognizes reality.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. ( www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
( www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
On Aug 14, 11:50 pm, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalidwrote:
Alp Mestan wrote:
But is there a special reason for using fwrite instead of
C++ streams (std::(i|o)fstream) ?
Speed. Some implementations of std::ofstream::write() may
parallel the speeds of std::fwrite(), but many don't.
(And this is *only* for std::ofstream::write(). Any of the
other functions of std::ofstream will be hopelessly slower
than std::fwrite().)
If speed's an issue, the best results can usually be had by
going down to the level of the system. The added "abstraction"
of fwrite (or fstream, in this case) doesn't really buy you
anything. (This is, of course, only true when you're not doing
any formatting.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
On Aug 15, 1:30 am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalidwrote:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
In C++0x <cstdiois allowed to bring the symbols into the global
namespace, as is the practice with current compilers, but which
undermines the whole scheme.
I really can't understand why.
If the idea is to make a compromise with old code (why should a
compromise be made in the first place?), why not simply formalize the
<stdio.hbringing all to the global namespace rather than break the
current convention of <cstdionot doing so?
I sort of agree. As Pete points out, the compromize is there
for the case (quite frequent, in my experience) where the C++
library authors don't control the C headers. Requiring the
implementation to "do the right thing" would basically mean
requiring them to reimplement all of the C library again. For
very, very little benefit. Given this, however, it seems to me
that a more reasonable solution would have been to simply
require the presence of <stdio.h>, defined exactly as in C, and
be done with it. (On the other hand, the current situation does
allow an implementation to do the right thing, if it does have
the possibility.)
All this sounds crazy to me. It's like the standardization committee
is thinking like: "Hmm, it would be nice to deprecate <stdio.hand
libraries inherited from C putting all into the global namespace, but
tons and tons of code out there is ignoring all this, using <stdio.h>
anyways, and assuming that everything is global. What should we do? I
know, let's keep <stdio.hdeprecated, but instead let's allow <cstdio>
to make everything global. That will work."
That sounds like the stupidest idea ever. It not only doesn't fix the
problem (ie. people using <stdio.h>), but completely nullifies the whole
idea of the std namespace and keeping the global namespace cleaner (at
least with respect to C library functions). It's like a "let's *not*
compromise with the *actual* problem, but instead let's break the
current modularity conventions."
I wouldn't go that far. It allows you to write things like
std::remove( filename ), on one hand, making it clear to the
reader that you are using a standard function, and on the other,
disambiguating if you happen to be in a class which has a member
function named remove as well.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
James Kanze wrote:
If speed's an issue, the best results can usually be had by
going down to the level of the system.
Which is what fwrite() does. And it's much easier to use than system
calls.
In article <Ul*************@read4.inet.fi>, no****@thanks.invalid
says...
James Kanze wrote:
If speed's an issue, the best results can usually be had by
going down to the level of the system.
Which is what fwrite() does. And it's much easier to use than system
calls.
At least IME, fwrite always imposes some buffering on top of what the
system does. Offhand, I don't see a whole lot of difference between
fwrite and POSIX write in terms of ease of use.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
On Aug 15, 10:44 am, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalidwrote:
James Kanze wrote:
If speed's an issue, the best results can usually be had by
going down to the level of the system.
Which is what fwrite() does. And it's much easier to use than
system calls.
fwrite() buffers. (So do the system calls, at least under Unix,
but fwrite() buffers a second time.) fwrite() also takes two
arguments for the size, which it multiplies. I can't see any
case where that makes sense.
IMHO, fwrite() is a hangover from a time where the problems with
directly copying a struct to and from disk weren't
understood---and also mattered a lot less. So it can be called
with the address of a struct, sizeof the same struct, and the
number of instances we want to write. Today, of course, we know
that that doesn't work in practice, over time, and that it is a
source of problems later. (Thus, the iostream read and write
functions take char* and a single size---they are designed for
reading and writing preformatted data, which can be done
correctly.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Antoine Bloncourt |
last post by:
Hello everybody
Sorry to bother you but I have a problem writing datas into a file ...
I want to make a backup of my MySQL database and put the result into a
..sql file.
To do this, I use...
|
by: FrancisC |
last post by:
how to use fwrite( ) instead of fprintf( ) in this case? I want to generate
binary file.
FILE *fnew;
int i, intName;
double array;
fprintf(fnew, "%d\n", intName);...
|
by: SW1 |
last post by:
I wrote a small program which does something like tftp - transfering
files and some chat, anyway i got a problem with fwrite, here is a
snippet of my code:
while(length > 0) {
putchar('.');...
|
by: Suraj Kurapati |
last post by:
Hello,
I'm having a rather strange bug with this code: for certain values of 'buf',
a segmentation fault occurs when 'free(buf)' is followed by an 'fwrite()'.
In the program output, there is no...
|
by: ibrahimover |
last post by:
typedef struct{
char name;
int no;
}TAM;
typedef struct{
char name;
char ch;
}HARF;
|
by: sumit1680 |
last post by:
Hi everyone,
I am using the below listed code
The code is
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<string.h>
|
by: Richard Hsu |
last post by:
// code
#include "stdio.h"
int status(FILE * f) {
printf("ftell:%d, feof:%s\n", ftell(f), feof(f) != 0 ? "true" :
"false");
}
int case1() {
FILE * f = fopen("c:\\blah", "wb+");
int i = 5;
|
by: Sheldon |
last post by:
Hi,
I am trying to learn C from scratch and, though I do know how to
program in Python, many things in C are hard to understand - even
after reading the examples. I guess because so many...
|
by: hemant.gaur |
last post by:
I have an application which writes huge number of bytes into the
binary files which is just some marshalled data.
int len = Data.size(); //arrary size
for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i)...
|
by: Abubakar |
last post by:
Hi,
recently some C programmer told me that using fwrite/fopen functions
are not efficient because the output that they do to the file is
actually buffered and gets late in writing. Is that...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
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,...
|
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,...
|
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...
|
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,...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 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 a new...
| |