Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #44630 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-31 14:59 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-05 21:25 +0100 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 123 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
This will work or not? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-31 14:59 +0200
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 15:20 +0200
Re: This will work or not? mark <mark@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-31 16:05 +0200
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 16:19 +0200
Re: This will work or not? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-08-31 14:20 +0000
Re: This will work or not? Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2016-08-31 18:53 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-01 09:03 -0700
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-01 22:45 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-01 18:08 -0700
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-02 09:24 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-04 06:31 -0700
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-04 20:19 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2016-08-31 15:45 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-31 15:59 +0200
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 16:22 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2016-08-31 17:06 +0200
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 19:29 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 21:52 +0100
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-01 09:07 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 12:30 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-01 09:01 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 18:16 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-01 18:37 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 10:42 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-04 06:59 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 23:17 -0400
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-01 09:35 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 15:34 -0400
Re: This will work or not? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 13:50 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 21:01 -0400
Re: This will work or not? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 19:02 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 22:17 -0400
Re: This will work or not? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 08:19 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 12:39 -0400
Re: This will work or not? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 12:26 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 16:38 -0400
Re: This will work or not? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 13:51 -0700
Re: This will work or not? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 14:16 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 19:58 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-09-02 23:56 +0300
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-03 17:58 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2016-09-02 11:41 +0200
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-02 12:27 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-02 12:37 +0100
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-02 17:39 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-02 17:40 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-02 16:54 +0100
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-02 20:22 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-09-02 08:04 -0400
Re: This will work or not? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-02 13:51 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-09-02 21:48 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2016-09-02 15:17 +0200
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-02 17:46 +0200
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-01 23:14 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 21:02 -0400
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-02 09:35 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 08:50 -0400
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-02 17:59 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 12:49 -0400
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-02 20:36 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-02 16:32 -0400
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-03 18:08 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-03 18:25 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-03 23:51 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-03 21:48 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 03:48 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-03 23:05 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 05:02 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-04 10:57 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 09:40 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 16:39 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 12:46 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 17:51 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 13:07 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 18:37 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 17:16 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 22:23 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 18:54 -0400
Re: This will work or not? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 09:58 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 13:08 -0400
Re: This will work or not? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 10:21 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 17:18 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 22:24 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 18:56 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 00:27 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 22:53 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 18:18 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-05 15:27 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 20:32 +0100
Re: This will work or not? woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 14:07 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-05 18:15 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-05 20:12 +0000
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 22:05 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-05 18:16 -0400
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-06 08:47 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-06 09:12 -0400
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-06 16:31 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-06 11:20 -0400
Re: This will work or not? bighe.trole@gmail.com - 2016-09-04 18:55 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 22:55 -0400
Re: This will work or not? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 17:17 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 22:57 -0400
Re: This will work or not? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 11:20 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-09-04 18:54 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 17:59 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 13:08 -0400
Re: This will work or not? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-04 20:25 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 17:20 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-09-04 02:36 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-04 09:41 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-03 21:49 -0400
Re: This will work or not? Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 03:49 +0100
Re: This will work or not? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-03 23:06 -0400
Re: This will work or not? woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-09-03 21:16 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-31 21:08 +0100
Re: This will work or not? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 02:28 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-09-01 01:28 -0700
Re: This will work or not? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-02 12:06 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-09-05 02:21 -0700
Re: This will work or not? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-05 13:38 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-09-05 11:34 +0000
Re: This will work or not? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-05 13:36 +0200
Re: This will work or not? Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-05 21:25 +0100
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 11:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nqjl7b$11es$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #44630 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> struct Problem{
> uint32_t a;
> uint32_t b;
> uint64_t c;
> uint32_t d;
> bool check_it() {
> for (uint32_t* i = &a;i != &d; ++i)
> if (*i>0) return true;
> return false;
> }
>
> };
Rather than mess with implementation-defined and undefined behavior
trickery, just redesign your struct better, in a manner that allows
you to do what you want (ie. iterate through the member variables
in a loop) without compromising code quality and standard conforming.
For example:
struct Problem
{
std::uint32_t values[4];
std::uint32_t a() const { return values[0]; }
void a(std::uint32_t v) { values[0] = v; }
// and same for b(), c() and d().
};
Now you can safely iterate through the values in a loop.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 13:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160905133650.798aaabb@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #44859 |
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:34:05 +0000 (UTC)
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > struct Problem{
> > uint32_t a;
> > uint32_t b;
> > uint64_t c;
> > uint32_t d;
> > bool check_it() {
> > for (uint32_t* i = &a;i != &d; ++i)
> > if (*i>0) return true;
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > };
>
> Rather than mess with implementation-defined and undefined behavior
> trickery, just redesign your struct better, in a manner that allows
> you to do what you want (ie. iterate through the member variables
> in a loop) without compromising code quality and standard conforming.
>
> For example:
>
> struct Problem
> {
> std::uint32_t values[4];
>
> std::uint32_t a() const { return values[0]; }
> void a(std::uint32_t v) { values[0] = v; }
> // and same for b(), c() and d().
> };
>
> Now you can safely iterate through the values in a loop.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
What about uint64_t ? It's a big struct I just made it minimal to show
problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 21:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <FtmdnThNQf1NSVDKnZ2dnUU78X2dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #44860 |
On 05/09/2016 12:36, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:34:05 +0000 (UTC)
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> struct Problem{
>>> uint32_t a;
>>> uint32_t b;
>>> uint64_t c;
>>> uint32_t d;
>>> bool check_it() {
>>> for (uint32_t* i = &a;i != &d; ++i)
>>> if (*i>0) return true;
>>> return false;
>>> }
>>>
>>> };
>>
>> Rather than mess with implementation-defined and undefined behavior
>> trickery, just redesign your struct better, in a manner that allows
>> you to do what you want (ie. iterate through the member variables
>> in a loop) without compromising code quality and standard conforming.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> struct Problem
>> {
>> std::uint32_t values[4];
>>
>> std::uint32_t a() const { return values[0]; }
>> void a(std::uint32_t v) { values[0] = v; }
>> // and same for b(), c() and d().
>> };
>>
>> Now you can safely iterate through the values in a loop.
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
>
> What about uint64_t ? It's a big struct I just made it minimal to show
> problem.
>
I would have thought it clearly nonsense to iterate through a collection
of different sized items. (the effect will depend on byte order, at the
least).
So you ought to have
struct Problem
{
std::uint32_t values[3];
std::uint64_6 wide_value;
and the rest as Juha wrote.
Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web