Visual C++ :: How To Use Watch When Using Singleton
Aug 24, 2014
I have code like this:
Code:
if (S::I().File.isDirectory(arg, S::I().Stat.workingPath)) {
// find out if there is -r option after 1st argument to join files
src_temp.join = true;
S::I().Stat.getRegEx = true;
}
The S is singleton class and I() returns instance of Singleton; there is a Stat object too. When I debug (line by line) I would like to see what values are in the Stat object. Is it possible to do it using Watch panel in Visual Studio 2010?
I'm new to C programming and am quiet lost, create a program that takes a start and stop time and prints the passed, or show me where I can find the information needed?
class BoundingBoxTest : public DemoApplication { public: #ifdef DYNAMIC_CHARACTER_CONTROLLER btCharacterControllerInterface* m_character;
[Code] ....
I am creating the object by calling : BoundingBoxTest::Create();
Do I make a getter to retrieve the demo object or do I build on the Create() method... So that it will return the instance if it is not null. and creates one if there is none?
I need to implement a singleton, so I've been reading about it online and I'm still not quite sure about all the types of constructors I need to declare:
I've tried to program a Singleton class. But the problem is that I don't know how to access the g_pInstance() function. Because this is not working because the constructor and deconstructor is private:
Singleton::g_pInstance() Code: #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Singleton {
[Code]....
I'm not sure of how to access any object, function, variables in the class when you are using a Singleton. How do you access that?
I'm just asking because I want to know how to do that if I have to use a Singleton sometime when I'm programming.
I have a class in my application that only needs to be created once, but the object needs to be available to all other classes in my application if necessary. Since declaring everything static can be restrictive (as I understand), I created a class like this:
class Foo { // Data members // Constructor/Destructor // Functions }; extern Foo* myFoo = new Foo();
And then the global variable gets deleted at the very end of the main method when everything is done:
#include "Foo.cpp" // (yes, I know this is normally bad, this is how I'm required to code) int main() { // do stuff delete myFoo; return 0; }
These won't link, though, because I get undefined reference linking errors to myFoo wherever I use it. I'm pretty sure this means I'm creating a singleton wrong, but I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong -- there's no const conflicts and the pointer is properly initialized (to my understanding). If there's a better way to do this than extern, I'm completely open to it, as long as it's understandable and works.
I've been upkeeping a mess of a code recently, that uses "pseudo" singletons. Basically, the current code has "Initialize_All" static functions that initializes all the singletons in a given order. At the end of the program, we call "Destroy_All", and destroy everything in the reverse order.
The code is actually heavilly dll'ed, and Initilize_All and Destory_All are referenced counted. We ask that any client who uses our code call Initialize_All first and then Destroy_All when they are finished. The first Initilize_All will initialize everything, and the last Destory_All will delete everything.
This is showing its limits.
I'd like to move us to a fully singleton design. The singleton pattern means we don't have to use an Initilize_All, and each singleton can manage construction dependencies by itself (we are mono-threaded).
Each singleton is "clean", so it is cleans itself up at dll destruction.
The big question is this one:
If there is a singleton dependency during destruction, eg: ~A requires an instance of singleton B (which is in another DLL), are we guaranteed proper behavior?
Or, is there an "Static de-initialization order fiasco"?
If yes, are there any design that can combat this fiasco, short of having each singleton register itself in a manager, that will destroy them in reverse order?
My current idea of how to work with user settings goes like this:
1. Create a class to hold all of the user settings. 2. Use that class to load/save/hold settings in memory. 3. Create an instance of that class once in the entry point of the program (int Main or whatever). 4. Pass, by reference this same class instance around to all of the other classes that need the user settings. 5. Once all other objects deleted, save and then delete the User Settings class.
I created a psuedo-code example below of this. My question is if this is the best way or should I be doing something else. In particular, I am wondering if somehow I can avoid passing the settings class by reference all of the time. Would this be a good case scenario for a "Singleton" type class?
#include <string> class UserSettings { private: std::string SettingOne; int SettingTwo; bool SettingThree:
#include <iostream> int main() { int bit = 1; int init = 0xf ^ (1 << bit); char* c = new char(2); sprintf(c, "%x", init); std::string initVal = std::string("4'h") + c; std::cout << initVal << std::endl; }
Above code is compiling as I expect it to be.
Problem is when I run it, it prompts me the following message:
Out-of-bounds access (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON). Passing "c" to function "operator +(HSTString const &, char const *)" which uses it as an array. This might corrupt or misinterpret adjacent memory locations.
#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <iostream> using namespace std; class singleTon {
[Code] ....
this is a singleton pattern first,it doesn't matter, why I could delete this pointer twice?because the gcc compiler?That mean in the surface, "delete pInstance1;" this movement just mark the memory pInstance1 has been deleted but not real?does any one encounter this phenomenon?
I'm playing with the idea of a singleton base class, but I'm having an issue with how to implement the GetInstance() function in the base class. Since I'm trying to make this ridiculously simple for the child, I'd like to handle that in the base.
class Singleton { private: static Singleton* instance; Singleton() { Construct(); } // Private to avoid other instances
I am trying out a technique for a singleton class:
// access controlled singleton, accessed through function "instance()" // singleton is constructed in this function // so that constructor and destructor will be used class single { // private constructor/destructor
[Code] .....
Playing around with the code in main(), I am having trouble with auto:
single& s = single::instance(); // works fine auto a = single::instance(); // error ~single() is private
When I make the destructor public, the output of the program is:
ctor dtor dtor
So I fixed this by typing auto&. I'm still confused though, why wouldn't auto know I am returning a reference?
I was going through Singleton design pattern and get to know that objects can be created only by static function of that class and constructors are make private.
My question is, why assignment operators are not made private through which we can create a copy of already existing object.
I tried below code and assignment works, so I have new object sc3. I know that its referring to memory of sc1 but finally I was able to create object without using static function.
Also, why copy constructor not made as private.
Below is code:
#include <iostream> using namespace std; class Singleton { private: static bool instanceFlag;
The project is about reading data from PIC and display the data on the dialogue created by the MFC GUI of Visual studio 2010. There are 4 data need to be displayed (2 weight and 2 angle). the data will be display on the edit control box on the dialogue.
I have try to solve the COMPort and Readdata issues many times, but I'm fail. I have read many sources and implement the source codes... They are never work....
The detail about the issues that I need to solve is clearly mentioned on the main dialogue.cpp. Take a look to an uploaded zip file that I have attached.
I heard that you can't use it with express, but that doesn't seem right... Can you use it with Codeblocks, at least? I just hate the Qt Creator IDE. I don't like the UI... all I want to do is code Qt. I don't care much for the GUI editors.
I am trying to create a OCX from a C++ dll., Here's the scenario I have a C++ dll and this dll needs to be called in VB.net program my boss want's me to create an OCX out of this.
C++ dll and use it in a VB.net class library, apparently I have created an OCX but it requires a form but the VB.net program is a class library.
In a C++ project, I need to call a C# created COM object (as a .dll)
Is there a way to use such a COM object without having it be registered in the registry?
The C# COM dll is just a "go between" our C++ code and a .NET library, there's no "COM contract" of any kind, the COM interfaces change each version. The fact it's COM and needs registration is annoying because it makes it hard to have multiple versions of our software installed (needed under some circumstances) and running at the same time.
I'd like a way to not have any registration at all. And just be able to do a LoadLibrary("c:TheRightPathcom.dll") of the right dll and then get going from there.
I had tried to use something appropriate founded on CP, but they are using DrawItem, and I had problems with windows style, and I had tried to make myself one, overriding OnPaint, but I front with flickering (I put the sample below)... so, I wonder if I could get (from somewhere) CSplitButton and add to my project ... if you say that I could, can you provide me the CSplitButton source code ? I mean, only .cpp implementation file ...
