C++ :: Making Function To Read Unsigned Integer Into Variable Of Type Unsigned Short Int
Apr 3, 2014
How can i write a function that will read an "unsigned integer" into a variable of type "unsigned short int"? i can not use cin >> inside the function.. so i am looking for atleast a hint!
Looking for extended unsigned integer class, that has custom lenght?
The reason i am asking is because i need an extremely large integer number, in fact one that has no theoretical limit(or at least an extremely large one).
I need to create a stack with the container being an unsigned int. I tried to put in numbers up to four bits each and have the program read the numbers individually. This is the code I am using:
void push(int n)//item n is pushed onto the stack, throw exception on full stack { string str="Error"; if (isFull()) throw str;
[Code] ....
When I have tested it, the program is reading the numbers as one whole number. For example, I put in the number 2, and it displays the number 2. Then I put in 2 again, but this time it displays the number 10, instead of 2 2.
I have a double variable and depending on certain conditions I need to set certain bits of an unsigned short Variable. For example, if double var is odd I need to set the 15th bit of the unsigned short variable.
I am trying to assign the integer value to unsigned char array. But it is not storing the integer values. It prints the ascii values. Here the code snippet
The values which are stored in uc[] is ascii values.I need the integer values to be stored in uc[]. I tried to do it with sprintf. but the output is not as expected. if I print the uc[i] it should diplay the value as 0,1,2....99.
Is it really needed to specify 0 as an unsigned integer? I mean 0 is always 0 regardless it's signed or not, no? In the below example is the 0U really needed?
#include <stdio.h> unsigned invert(unsigned x, int p, int n) { return x ^ (~(~0U << n) << p); } int main(void) {
Consider this piece of code from the following website: [URL] .....
Code: unsigned intx = 50; x += (x << 2) + 1;
The website above says the following about the code:
Although this is a valid manipulation, the result of the shift depends on the underlying representation of the integer type and is consequently implementation-defined.
How exactly would a legal left shift operation on an unsigned integer result in implementation-defined behaviour?
I came across some code and it's not clear why it is casting an unsigned char * to another pointer type only to free it right after. Here are the relevant structures:
As you can see, _Edge_Message has a *msg field, but in the function below, they cast it to the other two structure types inside the case blocks of the switch statement only to free it. What is the point or advantage of doing this?
Code: void _edje_message_free(Edje_Message *em) { if (em->msg) { int i; switch (em->type) {
I have an embedded microcontroller system communicating with a similar system by radio. The api for the radio requires data to be transmitted as an unsigned char array. It will always transmit a positive integer in the range 0 to 255.When I receive the data I am having difficult in extracting this positive integer.
Code: unsigned char rxData[4]={'1','2','3',''}; int inVal=0;
//want to assign inVal whatever number was transmitted
E.g. 123
I've been at this for a week and have tried at least 10 different approaches including the use of the atoi(), copying the absolute value of each element of rxData into another char array, reinterpret_cast, and others.
I know that you're allowed to use a char pointer to access any object but are you allowed to inspect a char array with a different type, say an unsigned integer without breaking the strict aliasing rule? My understanding is that it's not legal and could lead to trouble with trap representations but I just wanted to make sure.
When I worked with Fibonacci it was pretty easy since I just had to decrement the next member for each step. I used the following:
#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #define MAX 100 int fib(int n) { static int memorize[MAX] = {1,1}; if(memorize[n]) return memorize[n];
[Code] ....
My main problem is that I have no visual of the current function, as well as the fact that it takes the f(n+3) = f(n+2) + f(n+1) + f(n), whilist I've only got f(n) to begin with.
I am having problems copying outputs of the above code into other unsigned char other[32]. I need to keep the output of dev/urandom for backup. But, when I try to assign the values by memcpy(other, key, 32), the values do not match. The same problem happens by assigning values index by index in a loop.
Example radix sort function to sort an array of 64 bit unsigned integers. To allow for variable bin sizes, the array is scanned one time to create a matrix of 8 histograms of 256 counts each, corresponding to the number of instances of each possible 8 bit value in the 8 bytes of each integer, and the histograms are then converted into indices by summing the histograms counts. Then a radix sort is performed using the matrix of indices, post incrementing each index as it is used.
Code: typedef unsigned long long UI64; typedef unsigned long long *PUI64; PUI64 RadixSort(PUI64 pData, PUI64 pTemp, size_t count) { size_t mIndex[8][256] = {0}; /* index matrix */ PUI64 pDst, pSrc, pTmp; size_t i,j,m,n; UI64 u;
I've sometimes encountered unexpected runtime issues caused by unsigned values being decremented below zero.
Example 1: "unsigned_value += negative_integer_value;" Example 2: "for( size_t i = size - 1; i >= 0; --i )"
My compiler doesn't provide any compile-time or run-time warnings.
As far as I know, it's not possible to overload operators of primitive data types to check if the unsigned value is decremented below zero.
Any clever strategy to trace such cases at debug runtime, without having to add asserts all over the code? It's important that it does not affect performance in release mode.
how is the best way to free unsigned pointer array allocated with cmallc?
Code:
uint8_t *buf; buf = cs_calloc(ca->len + 13);
i do like this , but i know this is not quite right , since i got compile warning passing argument 1 of ‘free’ makes pointer from integer without a cast
Code:
for (i = 0; i < ca->len + 13; i++) { free(buf[i]); buf[i] = NULL; }
free(buf); do i need to free each element of array like above?