- Understanding virtual destructor - 1 Update
- open source SVG library for C++ or C - 12 Updates
- Stripping cast from macro - 4 Updates
| JiiPee <no@notvalid.com>: Oct 08 12:02AM +0100 Maybe a simple question, but just ensuring that understanding 100%. If I create a Circle like this: class Shape { public: ~Shape(); int a; }; class Circle: public Shape { public: ~Shape(); int b; }; Then: Shape* s = new Circle(); delete s; now Shape destructor should be virtual obviously. But what happens if I do not make it virtual: does int b; be deleted? Am I correct that when creating s (s = new Circle();) then it consists of two parts: Shape part and Circle part and they are separate "units". So when I destroy s only the Shape part of the object will be destroyed but all the Circle part will stay in memory (leaks)? is this how it is? So the memory is something like this: ##################### Shape # Circle # # # ##################### and after delete s; it is: ########## Circle # # ########## |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 06 05:13PM -0700 Öö Tiib wrote: > > our own way eventually, and we don't need god to do it." > And now you are still as sure being "right". What did change > is that now you "rightness" additionally involves God. You misunderstand. Because I /only/ knew the flesh-based reasoning, within that constraint/limitation, my view was correct for this world. What I didn't know then and had to be shown was the component of my existence that was missing, the one that, because it was missing, enabled me to believe the lie. When I set my sights on discovering a true understanding of the Bible, I was known to God as seeking the truth honestly and truly. As such, He reached into invisible parts of my being and flipped the switch so I could know the truth. And in so doing, I came to know Jesus, repent, ask forgiveness, and was saved. It took me /completely/ off guard. I was unprepared for the change, and it was pervasive into every part of my life. He then began teaching me truth, and I was then, and only then, able to see the falseness for what it was: Satan's false teachings. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 07 12:11AM -0700 On Friday, 7 October 2016 03:13:24 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > And now you are still as sure being "right". What did change > > is that now you "rightness" additionally involves God. > You misunderstand. I described exactly how things are; you always think and talk about yourself and everything else including God is just your attribute. In following paragraph you demonstrate it. Let me show to everybody: > Because I /only/ knew the flesh-based reasoning, within that > constraint/limitation, my view was correct for this world. "I", "me" -> You 2 : Jesus 0 > What I didn't know then and had to be shown was the component > of my existence that was missing, the one that, because it was > missing, enabled me to believe the lie. "I", "my", "me" -> You 5 : Jesus 0 > When I set my sights on discovering a true understanding of the Bible, > I was known to God as seeking the truth honestly and truly. 2 x "I", "God" -> You 7 : Jesus 1 > As such, > He reached into invisible parts of my being and flipped the switch so > I could know the truth. "He", "my", "I" -> You 9 : Jesus 2 > And in so doing, I came to know Jesus, repent, ask forgiveness, and > was saved. "I", "Jesus" -> You 10 : Jesus 3 > It took me /completely/ off guard. "me" -> You 11 : Jesus 3 > I was unprepared for the change, and it was pervasive into every > part of my life. "my", "I" -> You 13 : Jesus 3 > He then began teaching me truth, and I was then, and only then, > able to see the falseness for what it was: Satan's false teachings. "He", "I" -> You 14 : Jesus 4 So you have 350% of importance of Jesus in your story. That is why I said it was pointless to tell you about humankind or even God, you are too self-centered and everything-knowing so you just snip what does not talk about you. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 07 03:18AM -0700 Öö Tiib wrote: > is why I said it was pointless to tell you about humankind or > even God, you are too self-centered and everything-knowing > so you just snip what does not talk about you. It was my testimony, my explanation of what happened to me through the conversion experience. God saved me, and He saves all who come to Him repenting and asking forgiveness for their sin. It's His free gift given out of love. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 07 03:43AM -0700 On Friday, 7 October 2016 13:18:15 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > so you just snip what does not talk about you. > It was my testimony, my explanation of what happened to me > through the conversion experience. That was my point. Everything is always about how you describe how you imagined how God was giving to you your superpowers that you have out of love towards you and He is now sitting on your right shoulder so you have now every right to annoy others. Why don't you use your superpowers to fix your budget and home? I imagine that bad talking serpent that sits on your left shoulder does not let you? |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 07 04:48AM -0700 Öö Tiib wrote: > [snip] Let me be very clear for you: (1) I can't teach a person anything about Jesus Christ unless they are seeling the truth. (2) When they are, it is not me teaching them, but it is God teaching them from within, even though I use words. (3) The words I use are His words, adapted to the individual or group to meet them where they are, as by need. (4) Without God drawing them from within, no learning is possible. It is all God. I merely speak His words, as He commanded. You see Him as "imagined," Öö Tiib, because you are not seeking the truth. You've already concluded the message is false, that He doesn't exist, and therefore the message is wrong. It's what separates you from Jesus Christ. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 07 06:27AM -0700 On Friday, 7 October 2016 14:48:55 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Öö Tiib wrote: > > [snip] I already wrote that Jesus likely was real rabbi and may be even is God, I do not know that. I trust that it is safer to assume that God does not exist until God has not revealed His will to me. God seems content with that position of mine. God seems content with my atheism. > (1) I can't teach a person anything about Jesus Christ unless > they are seeling the truth. As rabbi Jesus taught altruism, humility and calmness as virtues. You however always talk about yourself ad nauseum, therefore what about Jesus Christ can be learned from you? Nothing ... there are no "unless" part. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 07 06:39AM -0700 On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 9:27:19 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > [snip] ... I trust that it is safer to assume that God does not exist > until God has not revealed His will to me ... [snip] I have been trying to teach you to seek the truth, and do not assume things. Just simply do this one thing: Seek the truth. Honestly. Truly. The real truth. You do not yet know what that truth is. That doesn't matter. Just set your internal focus on finding the truth. WHEN YOU DO THIS, God knows that you are seeking the truth, and then HE FLIPS THE INTERNAL SWITCH within the invisible parts of your existence WHICH THEN make it possible to know the truth. Until you set your sights on the truth, no matter which way it takes you, no matter whether it crushes all your previous thoughts about everything, or affirms them, until you are ready to take THAT journey, you will NEVER find the truth. It's what I'm trying to teach you, Öö Tiib. It's the sole purpose of all of these messages, to teach people how to come to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It doesn't start with a mission to purposefully seek Jesus by name, though it can start that way, but more generally it starts by seeking after the truth (because Jesus is truth John 14:6). Not everyone can do this, by the way. Some will never seek the truth and are already self-damned. But for those who have an ear to hear the truth, listen to what it says. Seek it out actively. In so doing, all who do this find salvation, and eternal life, through Jesus Christ. I can't make it more plain than that. If you cannot understand this, then it's not something that's for you. ----- I think I have asked you this before, but I have forgotten. How do you pronounce your name? "Öö Tiib" is a completely unknown form to me. In my mind I am pronouncing it as "Ow Tib" ("ow" as in "ouch"), and I'm reasonably certain that's incorrect. :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>: Oct 07 04:05PM +0100 On 07/10/2016 14:27, Öö Tiib wrote: >>> [snip] > I already wrote that Jesus likely was real rabbi and may be even is > God, I do not know that. I trust that it is safer to assume that God We know for a fact that Jesus as described in the Bible never existed because we know evolution is a fact and evolution falsifies the Old Testament and, because it is predicated on the Old Testament being true, the New Testament. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:01AM -0700 On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 11:05:21 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > because we know evolution is a fact and evolution falsifies the Old > Testament and, because it is predicated on the Old Testament being true, > the New Testament. Evolution is not supported by observational science. It is an interpretation of historical science (examining dead things which reportedly happened when we were not there). Evolution is not supported by genetics, outside of a very small niche which is indicative of an explicit design allowing those variations within the original design. The complexities involved in the fundamental processes of life, what we know of them as we are learning more and more each day, are beyond probability to such an outrageous extent that they are totally impossible. Here are some movies and a movie clip which outline this: DNA's programming of life: 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkBEYsG6EQ God's Not Dead courtroom scene involving evidence that Jesus was real, did die by crucifixion, and is held to be irrefutable even by atheist scholars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpZ1sDmIJP8 ----- What is supported directly and fully supported in both the historical evidence, and observational evidence, is the Biblical account described in Genesis 1 - 11. God created master kinds of animals, and these then diverged through successive generations into the variations scene within their kinds today. Reading Genesis 1 - 11 you find the explanation of everything that we find in historical science, observational science, and the science of genetics research. There is direct evidence which supports the Biblical account. There is no evidence whatsoever that supports molecules-to-man evolution. It is a fabrication designed by the enemy to remove God from people's thinking, and all who do not seek the truth will be fooled by that teaching. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 07 09:31AM -0700 On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 12:02:05 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > no evidence whatsoever that supports molecules-to-man evolution. It is > a fabrication designed by the enemy to remove God from people's thinking, > and all who do not seek the truth will be fooled by that teaching. Evidence videos showing how DNA actually points to a creator, and to the literal Biblical account. It explains how the various types of animals came from the common kinds, and also how the various people groups were introduced into the world's population: Wonder of DNA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ACCIu3jPrc Confirming Evidence of a Literal Adam and Eve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deV99oPnKlI One Race, One Blood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m02s Even people who hold to the evolutionary model are saying now that "it looks like creation, but it's not," always trying to push God away. The truth is, in Jesus Christ are all things reconciled. All races are one. Creation is His, and we are all part of His creation, loved by Him. Sin is the enemy. We are the object of His efforts in saving us from sin. We are eternal, and there is a day of accounting for our lives here upon the Earth, and whether or not we will go forward into eternity alive with Him or not is what we did with Him. As the Creator, and as a Creator that is benevolent and full of love for His Creation, to reject Him is to reject the entirety of everything that's right and true, which is why He's putting sin away, which is what all those who reject Him are pursuing (instead of Him). The evidence is all there. Set your sights on the truth, and God Himself will teach it all to you. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Oct 07 12:25PM -0500 On 10/7/2016 2:07 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> Ideally, I would like to have SVG, PNG, BMP, JPEG, etc. > You're welcome to raid the Baby X resource compiler. > It handles all those formats. Thanks ! Lynn |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 07 12:29PM -0700 On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 12:32:34 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deV99oPnKlI > One Race, One Blood: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m02s It is absolutely clear to anyone examining the evidence that all of life was not only engineered explicitly, but engineered by a master beyond all imagination. The complexities involved, the systems involved, the layers of dependencies involved ... it is beyond imagination complex. It screams of a designer, and a designer that is absolutely astounding beyond words. Seek the truth honestly and pursue this subject. You will find that you have been lied to regarding evolution theories, and you will find that the lie has been introduced for one reason: to remove God from creation. There is an active enemy in your life working against you. That enemy is there personally against you, plus generally against you as by these types of false teachings introduced into mainstream societies. Seek the truth in everything honestly and truly, and God Himself will make sure you find the real answer, so that you will know the truth and that truth will make you free. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 07 09:03AM +0200 (Please don't top-post) On 07/10/16 01:06, Barry Schwarz wrote: > If it is a C header file, why are you compiling it as C++? Not all C > code is valid C++ code. C header files are usually perfectly valid C++ code, once you have wrapped any function declarations in extern "C". In this particular case, my guess is that the headers in question are for a microcontroller, and contain a list of definitions of hardware registers. Such headers are almost always referred to as "C", but will be compatible with C++. |
| mark <mark@invalid.invalid>: Oct 07 02:01PM +0200 On 2016-10-06 22:21, David Brown wrote: >> by the standard and GCC is moving towards more enforcement. > Can you give an example of where this does not work? Exact code, and > gcc version and target? -------------------------------------------------------------- #include <stdint.h> #define PORT (*(volatile uint32_t*)(0x42424242)) constexpr volatile uint32_t* test(volatile uint32_t& x) { return &x; } constexpr volatile uint32_t* addr = test(PORT); -------------------------------------------------------------- Works with 4.7 and 4.8, doesn't compile with GCC >= 4.9 on x64 and ARM. While your example: -------------------------------------------------------------- #define REGISTER (*(volatile uint32_t *)0x42424242) constexpr uintptr_t register_addr = (uintptr_t) ®ISTER; -------------------------------------------------------------- still compiles with GCC, it doesn't compile with Clang: error: constexpr variable 'register_addr' must be initialized by a constant expression note: cast that performs the conversions of a reinterpret_cast is not allowed in a constant expression > As far as I can tell, this sort of code is perfectly legal - gcc does > not get to "break" it, and it certainly should not be doing so > "randomly". C++14: 5.20 Constant expressions [expr.const] <<< A conditional-expression e is a core constant expression unless the evaluation of e, following the rules of the abstract machine (1.9), would evaluate one of the following expressions: ... — (2.13) a reinterpret_cast |
| mark <mark@invalid.invalid>: Oct 07 02:16PM +0200 On 2016-10-07 09:03, David Brown wrote: > On 07/10/16 01:06, Barry Schwarz wrote: >> > If it is a C header file, why are you compiling it as C++? How do I get compile time constants from a C translation unit into my C++ headers? We are talking constexpr here, so the definition must be available. > microcontroller, and contain a list of definitions of hardware > registers. Such headers are almost always referred to as "C", but will > be compatible with C++. Yes. These are 3rd party headers (used for C and C++) and there are literally thousands of these definitions. |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Oct 07 05:05PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] mark <mark@invalid.invalid> spake the secret code >How do I get compile time constants from a C translation unit into my >C++ headers? C doesn't have the concept of a compile-time constant as a named entity. That's why they are macros in a header. Macros are not named entities understood by the compiler, they are expanded into tokens by the preprocessor. As far as the compiler is concerned, they are all just integral literals. C++ has the concept of constant values (e.g. const int) and this was generalized to constexpr expressions. In C++, all you need is something like this in your header: extern volatile uint32_t *const port_address; ...and in some translation unit you have: volatile uint32_t *const port_address = reinterpret_cast<volatile uint32_t*>(0x42424242); You can't really get away from the reinterpret_cast here as there is no way of directly expressing an address as a literal. Therefore because reinterpret_cast<> foils constexpr, you can't have this as constexpr either. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com> |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment