More Coverage

Edward Palonek's programming rss feed: comp.lang.c++ Google Group

• Re: UB while dealing with invalid raw pointers, the std::uninitialized_fill case * Francesco S. Carta, on 03.09.2010 15:06:
  Yah, mostly that was my reasoning in my old "pointers tutorial" (referenced from
  my blog, right hand column somewhere).
  I introduced the concept of "RealGood" pointers there.
  But unfortunately that term did not catch on.
  [snip]
  The pointers are not invalid. They can be dereferenced. What you can't do is to Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:17:48 UT
• Re: UB while dealing with invalid raw pointers, the std::uninitialized_fill case Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet <alf.p.steinbach+use...@gmail. com>, on
  OK, I've read your self-follow-up, just for the records. Correctly
  defining an invalid pointer seems to be impossible, but we have some
  agreed cases of valid and invalid pointer values:
  - the null-pointer value is a valid and non-dereferenceable value; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:06:50 UT
• Re: simple boost::test, undefined reference to main [snip]
  IMO CppUnit is very heavy to work with (it shows its age). There are
  far lighter unit test framework. From mind, I would mention CUTE and
  Aeryn. I have also heard about Google Test, but I have no experience
  with it.
  I liked working with Boost.Test but this talk gave me other
  perspectives:
  Rethinking Unit Testing in C++ Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:31:24 UT
• Re: simple boost::test, undefined reference to main I've not had problems reading/posting to any of the boost mailing lists
  yesterday or today.
  The following works for me on MSVC and XCode, sorry I don't often use
  the command line.
  int add( int i, int j ) { return i+j; }
  BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( my_test )
  {
  BOOST_CHECK( add( 2,2 ) == 4 );
  Jeff Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:08:29 UT
• Re: C++0x memory model and atomics, some questions Try
  [link]
  regards,
  alexander. Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:50:48 UT
• Re: UB while dealing with invalid raw pointers, the std::uninitialized_fill case * Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet, on 03.09.2010 13:28:
  Hm, let me be more clear on that, before someone protests: a zero pointer can be
  dereferenced without UB, namely in a typeid expression.
  I'm concerned, however, that "can be dereferenced" possibly does not hold for
  1+p, so that my "even more precisely" then becomes less precise :-(. Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:44:01 UT
• Are additional constructors for standard containers allowed? With MSVC 10.0
  std::bitset<32>( 666u )
  does not compile. Apparently due to an extra constructor taking 'int' argument.
  Is that allowed by the standard?
  Cheers,
  - Alf Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:37:48 UT
• Re: UB while dealing with invalid raw pointers, the std::uninitialized_fill case * Francesco S. Carta, on 03.09.2010 12:52:
  Hm, well you need to define "invalid" more precisely, e.g. as "is not valid".
  ;-) Or even more precisely, "can not be dereferenced without UB". For example, 0
  is a valid pointer value, as is 1+p where p points to the last element in an array.
  Neither C++98 nor C++0x does, as far as I know, define "invalid pointer", but Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:28:40 UT
• Re: C/C++ calling convention I don't think I really missed it -- I counted all the different
  releases of the different Linux distributions as "versions of the same
  OS".
  I should not have brought in the BSDs, perhaps.
  /Jorgen Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:11:43 UT
• Re: can I use stl vector iterator to delete a vector of pointers? * Kai-Uwe Bux, on 02.09.2010 20:59:
  Here the term "singular value" is used to mean "invalid pointer", as it also is
  some places in the standard.
  However AFAICS it's not defined in the standard.
  Is it defined? And what the heck does it /mean/ (that leads to its use for
  invalid pointer or iterator values)? Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:59:24 UT
• UB while dealing with invalid raw pointers, the std::uninitialized_fill case Hi there,
  as far as I've been able to understand, if a raw pointer contains an
  invalid value (that is, it does not point to any valid object of the
  type it is a pointer to) then some of the actions performed on these
  pointers will lead to UB.
  As it seems, two actions in particular should be safe and well defined: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:52:12 UT
• Re: can I use stl vector iterator to delete a vector of pointers? Ah, I understand now. Yes, raw pointers are dangerous, but are sometimes
  a necessary evil, paraphrasing the C++ FAQ.
  I think I've found something interesting about all of this stuff, I'll
  post it as a separate topic because I think it needs the appropriate
  attention. Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:12:14 UT
• Re: can I use stl vector iterator to delete a vector of pointers? [Snipped too much - restoring now]
  > has been deallocated (although that is a questionable practice);
  Advise to use raw pointers is bad. Specially to do the suggestion c, as
  that is UB (nicely explained by Kai-Uwe Bux). It would most likely work
  as expected, but using raw pointers complicates code. Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:01:45 UT

Archive: Press Archive