Auto not working when struct definition missing [closed] - c++

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am a little confused that auto does not work in gcc when there is a struct definition missing. E.g.:
0 struct foo;
1 typedef struct foo foo;
2 int test(foo* pFoo);
3 foo* pEvent = nullptr;
4 const auto var = test(pEvent);
Where on line 4 the compiler complains that it cannot determine what var is. Since test is declared I thought, that it should be a piece of cake. Am I missing something or is this a bug in the gcc implementation?
EDIT:
Sorry, my bad. The toolchain was using the ancient/buggy gcc 4.4. Forcing it to use 4.6 it works like a charm.

It compiles.

Related

not declared in this scope error msg [closed]

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
I gettin not declared in this scope error msg also declared .h file & EngineFactory class in .h
EngineFactory *engineFactory = NULL;
engineFactory = new EngineFactory();
EngineFactory->Create();
EngineFactory->destroy();
There is two problems in the code:
Your code is not inside a function. Place it in main() function, and it'll work better.
EngineFactory->Create(); has uppercase EngineFactory, while your variable is lowercase.

C++ class member seen as "not defined" [closed]

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
I have the following class:
class clsTree;
{
private:
vector<clsNode*>m_content;
m_RootNode *clsNode;
m_LastNode *clsNode;
public:
vector<clsNode*>Content;
wstring interpret(wstring uWord);
};
The compiler does not like my member declaration of clsNode at all.
The first error I get is "Member clsTree::clsNode is not a type name.".
I don't see where I went wrong.
Can somebody help, please?
You're not showing the definition of clsNode, neither whether you have a forward declaration for it, but I'm pretty sure this:
m_RootNode *clsNode;
m_LastNode *clsNode;
Should be rewritten this way:
clsNode* m_RootNode;
clsNode* m_LastNode;

Are == and != operators compiler-generated? [closed]

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Do I need to provide == and/or != operators? I've read here: Why don't C++ compilers define operator== and operator!=? that I do but when I actually tried it (didn't provide them and tried to use them) the program compiled fine. So what's going on?
Using VS2010 if it matters.
These operators are defined for fundamental, language-defined types, not for your custom ones. So it will work for ints, for example. But won't for class foo; unless you provide them explicitly - compiler doesn't know how to compare your own defined types if you haven't told it how to do it.

ISO C++ forbids comparison between pointer and integer [closed]

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
if((kulax>=schodki[i][0][0] && kulax<=schodki[i][1]][0]) && (kulay==schodki[i][2][0]+10))
spoczywa=true;
Hi guys, I have an array of integers which name is schodki and it is declared as int schodki[5][3][1] and the global variables : int kulax and int kulay.
What's wrong in the line of code which is above ?
EDIT : Of course. "i" is the value from current state of loop.
You have an extra ] in
kulax<=schodki[i][1]][0]
which probably screws up parsing and results in a confusing error message. The compiler probably sees it as
kulax<=schodki[i][1]
which is indeed an attempt to compare an integer to a pointer. Try to pay attention to your own code and make sure it is free from primitive syntax errors before asking questions here.
Other than that, there's nothing wrong with your code (assuming that the variables are really declared the way you say they are)].

Aggregate with Default Value in Parameter [closed]

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
Why is it not possible to supply a default value that is defined in the parameter list for a struct? That is, why does this work
struct C {int i;};
C cc = {0};
foo(C c=cc) {}
but not
foo(C c={0}) {}
Note, I've noticed that the same holds true for arrays.
Ok, it seems this is a compiler problem with the older GCC.