class RF
{
public:
bitset<32> ReadData1, ReadData2;
RF()
{
Registers.resize(32);
Registers[0] = bitset<32> (0);
}
void ReadWrite(bitset<5> RdReg1, bitset<5> RdReg2, bitset<5> WrtReg, bitset<32> WrtData, bitset<1> WrtEnable)
{
// implement the funciton by you.
}
void OutputRF() // write RF results to file
{
ofstream rfout;
rfout.open("RFresult.txt",std::ios_base::app);
if (rfout.is_open())
{
rfout<<"A state of RF:"<<endl;
for (int j = 0; j<32; j++)
{
rfout << Registers[j]<<endl;
}
}
else cout<<"Unable to open file";
rfout.close();
}
private:
vector<bitset<32> >Registers;
};
RF() is the constructor, but since all it does is resize Registers to 32, you can remove it if you specify that initialization on the member directly, like this:
vector<bitset<32> > Registers = vector<bitset<32> >(32);
Then Registers will be constructed with size 32x32 bits by default, and all the bits will be zero as well, so you can remove the entire RF() function.
Note: At first I thought you could use vector<bitset<32> > Registers{32} but due to vagaries of C++ syntax that does the wrong thing. Thanks to Fureeish for that.
The short answer to your question is that, yes, for your current program, it is necessary.
The RF() function in this case is the function called when we initialize the RF object, eg.
RF new_RF;
Would run the RF() function and set things up. For this reason, it is called a 'constructor', because it helps you 'construct' your class.
In your case, the constructor is necessary for your program because it sets up your Registers variable, so that the code below from your OutputRF() function can run.
for (int j = 0; j<32; j++)
{
rfout << Registers[j]<<endl;
}
It's also useful because we can use it to set up many things, for example, if our RF() constructor looked like this:
RF(int a)
{
Registers.resize(a);
Registers[0] = bitset<a> (0);
}
It would instead resize the RF Registers to int a. You can look here for a more in-depth tutorial about constructors.
Hope that helps!
Related
This simple object return works fine.
Bubbles& Foo() {
static Bubbles foo(10);
foo.print();
return foo;
}
int main() {
Bubbles *bar;
bar = &Foo();
bar->print();
printf("Program Ends");
return 0;
}
Now I need to know how to return an Array of Objects!
I have 0 idea on how I should declare it All I know is:
Bubbles& createBubbles() {
static Bubbles *BubblesArray[arrayNumber];
for (int i = 0; i < arrayNumber; i++) {
BubblesArray[i] = new Bubbles(i);
BubblesArray[i]->print();
}
return BubblesArray;
}
seems to create an array of Objects the way I need. So how can I return this array so I can use it outside the function?
Your return type expects only 1 Bubbles object. If you want to return an array, you have to change the function return type. I would strongly recommend not playing with raw array and stick with the std library. Using C++11 (DISCLAIMER: CODE UNTESTED) will look something along the line of:
std::vector<Bubbles> createBubbles(const int& arrayNumber) {
std::vector<Bubbles> bubblesVector;
for (int i = 0; i < arrayNumber; i++) {
bubblesVector.push_back(Bubbles(i));
bubblesVector[i].print();
}
return bubblesVector;
}
Note that this assume your Bubbles object has appropriate default/copy/move constructor, destructor, assignment operator...
Simple return type std::vector<Bubbles> can take advantage of copy-elision which is extremely efficient.
You can get the same behavior as in your first example. You just have to specify the type correctly:
using BubblesArrayType = Bubbles*[arrayNumber];
BubblesArrayType& createBubbles() {
static BubblesArrayType BubblesArray;
//...
return BubblesArray;
}
or you can let type deduction figure the type out for you:
auto& createBubbles() {
static Bubbles *BubblesArray[arrayNumber];
//...
return BubblesArray;
}
But as mentioned in comments and other answers, this is unlikely to be a good design and style. Without further information it is not really clear though, why you are using static and return-by-reference in the first place.
I have a problem within the program that I write. I have functions returning pointers and within the main() I want to run them in threads.
I'm able to execute the functions in threads:
double* SplitFirstArray_1st(double *arr0){
const UI arrSize = baseElements/4;
std::cout << "\n1st split: \n";
double *arrSplited1=nullptr;
arrSplited1 = new double [arrSize];
for(UI i=0; i<arrSize; i++){
arrSplited1 = arr0;
}
for(UI j=0; j< arrSize; ++j){
std::cout << arrSplited1[j] << " ";
}
return arrSplited1;
delete [] arrSplited1, arr0;
}
in main()
std::thread _th1(SplitFirstArray_1st, rootArr);
_th1.join();
The above is not what I'm after. I have another pointer:
*arrTh1=nullptr;
I would like to use it in a thread so it would be assigned with the value returned by my function SplitFirstArray_1st
arrTh1 = SplitFirstArray_1st(xxx);
Is such action is possible to be executed in a tread ?
Don't return the variable, pass a pointer to the variable and set the value at what this points too.
i.e.:
void set_int(int* toset) {
*toset = 4;
}
This works fine with things that are already pointers:
void set_ptr(int** toset) {
*toset = new int[4];
// ...
*toset[0] = 2;
}
You can know the data is safe to use if the function has returned.
Completely unrelated note:
return foo;
// No point placing code here unless you used goto as it won't get executed.
// Also: don't use goto.
}
Something like this:
std::thread _th1([&]() { arrTh1 = SplitFirstArray_1st(rootArr); });
Functions which start the thread cannot return values in a normal way. Therefore they should be declared as void.
Common way is to assign a protected global variable. You should protect one with mutexes (or other methods) to avoid races.
mutex m;
double *arrTh1 = nullptr;
double* aSplitFirstArray_1st(double *arr0){
...
m.lock();
arrTh1 = arrSplited1;
m.unlock();
}
When you use the pointer in other threads (including the main one), you need to protect the usage as well with the same mutex (or choose other methods).
and please, do not delete arrSopited1 and arr0. it will make the arrTh1 pointer unusable.
Note, if you use async functions, you could use futures to return values.
Our teacher told us to create a vector of objects and perform operations on it, but I couldn't understand how to properly do that: I tried to make a simple project with minimum data so that I could know what I was doing.
I have this class
class Obj {
private:
int num;
public:
Obj();
void setNum(int nuovo_num);
int getNum();
};
And then this one, with a vector of Obj
class VettObj{
private:
vector<Obj> vett;
public:
VettObj();
void setVett();
void stampaVett();
};
My initial thought was to use an iterator but I was just making a total mess and, with almost useless research, I decided to use a common integer counter.
I found that I shouldn't write anything in the VettObj costructor, as it automatically initialize stuff, so I left it blank.
The method that adds elements is this
void VettObj::setVett(){
Obj temp;
int i;
i = 0;
while(i < 5){
temp.setNum(10);
vett.push_back(temp);
i++;
}
}
And the one that prints elements
void VettObj::stampaVett(){
int i;
i = 0;
while(i < 5){
vett[i].getNum();
i++;
}
}
When I compile, everything goes well, but when I run the program I get nothing on the screen. I don't want to use mostly vector functions(if not necessary) as I saw that a lot of people can do it like this. I would really like to know how to do it with iterators too. Help pls ????
You are not actually printing anything in the stampaVett() method.
You could try with:
void VettObj::stampaVett(){
int i = 0;
while (i < 5){
std::cout << vett[i].getNum();
i++;
}
}
I'd also suggest using English for method or variable instead of Italian, since SO is an international community.
It acts like this.
fun();//return 1;
for (int i=0;i++;i<100)
fun();//return 2;
fun();//return 3;
I don't want to do it manually, like:
static int i=0;
fun(){return i};
main()
{
i++;
fun();//return 1;
i++;
for (int i=0;i++;i<100)
fun();//return 2;
i++;
fun();//return 3;
}
New classes and static variables are allowed.
I am trying to design a cache replacement algorithm. Most of the time I use the LRU algorithm, but, if I use LRU algorithm inside a loop I would very likely get a cache thrashing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrashing_(computer_science)
I need to know if I am inside a loop. Then I can use the LFU algorithm to avoid thrashing.
An obvious way of doing this would be using the __LINE__ macro. It will return the source code line number, which will be different throughout your function.
It is not possible within c++ for a function to know whether or not it is inside a loop 100% of the time. However, if you are happy to do some manual coding to tell the function that it is inside a loop then making use of C++'s default parameters you could simply implement a solution. For more information on default parameters see http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial/77-default-parameters/. Also, because Global variables are generally frowned upon I have placed them in a separate namespace in order to prevent clashes.
namespace global_variables {
int i = 0;
}
int func(bool is_in_loop = false) {
if (is_in_loop)
{
//do_something;
return global_variables::i;
}
else
{
//do_something_else;
return global_variables::i++;
}
}
int main()
{
// Calling function outside of loop
std::cout << func();
// Calling function inside of loop
for (int j=0;j<100;j++)
{
// is_in_loop will be overided to be true.
std::cout << function(true);
}
return 0;
}
C++ compilers emit warnings when a local variable may be uninitialized on first usage. However, sometimes, I know that the variable will always be written before being used, so I do not need to initialize it. When I do this, the compiler emits a warning, of course. Since my team is building with -Werror, the code will not compile. How can I turn off this warning for specific local variables. I have the following restrictions:
I am not allowed to change compiler flags
The solution must work on all compilers (i.e., no gnu-extensions or other compiler specific attributes)
I want to use this only on specific local variables. Other uninitialized locals should still trigger a warning
The solution should not generate any instructions.
I cannot alter the class of the local variable. I.e., I cannot simply add a "do nothing" constructor.
Of course, the easiest solution would be to initialize the variable. However, the variable is of a type that is costly to initialize (even default initialization is costly) and the code is used in a very hot loop, so I do not want to waste the CPU cycles for an initialization that is guaranteed to be overwritten before it is read anyway.
So is there a platform-independent, compiler-independent way of telling the compiler that a local variable does not need to be initialized?
Here is some example code that might trigger such a warning:
void foo(){
T t;
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++){
if (i == 0) t = ...;
if (i == 1) doSomethingWith(t);
}
}
As you see, the first loop cycle initializes t and the second one uses it, so t will never be read uninitialized. However, the compiler is not able to deduce this, so it emits a warning. Note that this code is quite simplified for the sake of brevity.
My answer will recommend another approach: instead of disabling the warning code, just do some reformulation on the implementation. I see two approaches:
First Option
You can use pointers instead of a real object and guarantee that it will be initialized just when you need it, something like:
std::unique_ptr<T> t;
for(int i=0; i<100; i++)
{
if(i == 0) if(t.empty()) t = std::unique_ptr<T>(new T); *t = ...;
if(i == 1) if(t.empty()) t = std::unique_ptr<T>(new T); doSomethingWith(*t);
}
It's interesting to note that probably when i==0, you don't need to construct t using the default constructor. I can't guess how your operator= is implemented, but I supose that probably you are assigning an object that's already allocated in the code that you are omitting in the ... segment.
Second Option
As your code experiences such a huge performance loss, I can infer that T will never be an basic tipe (ints, floats, etc). So, instead of using pointers, you can reimplement your class T in a way that you use an init method and avoid initializing it on the constructor. You can use some boolean to indicate if the class needs initalization or not:
class FooClass()
{
public:
FooClass() : initialized(false){ ... }
//Class implementation
void init()
{
//Do your heavy initialization code here.
initialized = true;
}
bool initialized() const { return initialized; }
private:
bool initialized;
}
Than you will be able to write it like this:
T t;
for(int i=0; i<100; i++)
{
if(i == 0) if(!t.initialized()) t.init(); t = ...;
if(i == 1) if(!t.initialized()) t.init(); doSomethingWith(t);
}
If the code is not very complex, I usually unroll one of the iterations:
void foo(){
T t;
t = ...;
for(int i = 1; i < 100; i++){
doSomethingWith(t);
}
}