I think yes. It is located in the header file.

Creating it in the header file is wrong. The solution given by @itsmanjeet won't work for that case. There is no way to do this in C which doesn't have default initializers or constructors. So you must instead provide an init factory function which should be called every time you want a struct object to be initialized. This is the only recommended way

Did you check out haste?

Is it some sort of wrapper for structure? Can you suggest some article or what I should be looking for?

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44574856/initialize-c-struct-through-a-function/44575797 The accepted answer has an example.

for(i=0;i<size-1;i++) { if(i<position) { temp[i]=a[i]; } if(i>=position) { temp[i]=a[i+1]; } }

If I set the fd of the socket to non-blocking mode, and then I use sendmsg to send fd to another process, do I still have to deal with the non-blocking unsent complete error(EAGAN?)

If I set the fd of the socket to non-blocking mode, and then I use sendmsg to send fd to another process, do I still have to deal with the non-blocking unsent complete error(EAGAN?)

Yes you definitely have to. The shared socket between the processes uses the same underlying kernel structures. Assuming proper synchronisation is in place, you will have to deal with an error that a non blocking send would be an error if it would block which it would in your case. I don't quite understand exactly what it is that you are trying to do. If you want two processes to share a socket descriptor, you will have to send the descriptor through another UNIX socket piped pair.

Can i do something like this? char *s; if (something) { static char buffer[64]; // do something with buffer s = buffer; } // do something with s

Int number; If((number & 1 )==0) Someone can explain me this line ?

u can use the move-assignment explicitly

Write a program in codeblocks to find the product of two floating point numbers and to display it. The inputs should be entered by the user.

r u use the clang compiler?

Here's some answer that may be helpful https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31186391/using-or-not-using-parentheses-when-initializing-an-array

u can define the copy constructor and assignment, check if can be used

https://www.google.com/search?q=g%2B%2B+optimization+level

default maybe the c++2x level😂

class A { public: A(A && rhs) noexcept; A& operator=(A && rhs) noexcept; A(int i): val(i) { std::cout « "hello" « "\n"; } private: int val = 0; }; A::A(A&& rhs) noexcept: val(rhs.val) { std::cout << "Move constructor." << "\n"; } A& A::operator=(A && rhs) noexcept { val = rhs.val; std::cout << "Move-assignmemnt constructor." << "\n"; return *this; } A foo() { A ret(5); // expression 1 return ret; } int main() { A a = foo(); return 0; } Guys, I need some help here: The above snippet gives hello on output, which was given by expression 1, so I wonder: 1. how did `a` in main function got initialized? It does not use move or move-assignment consturctor, and since copy and copy-assignment constructor is deleted, they are not used either

what is difference with the NRV?

i use the -std=c++11 only call Default Constructor, btw

if delete the copy and move semantics, compile is error😂i guess it use the NRV

c++17 is error, btw

copy and move assignment all delete, btw😂

You wrote: > I use sendmsg to send fd to another process Can you rephrase that part? I don't understand the part "send fd to another process". I suppose: - process A calls sendmsg(). - process B calls recvmsg(). Is that what you mean?

Yes you definitely have to. The shared socket between the processes uses the same underlying kernel structures. Assuming proper synchronisation is in place, you will have to deal with an error that a non blocking send would be an error if it would block which it would in your case. I don't quite understand exactly what it is that you are trying to do. If you want two processes to share a socket descriptor, you will have to send the descriptor through another UNIX socket piped pair.

RVO is a special form of copy elision. It is usually used to refer to the copy elision optimization performed by the compiler when you return a named local variable/temporary from a function and use it to initialize another variable of the same type. But before C++17, you still required an accessible copy or move constructor. Post C++17, this optimization is mandatorily required and is hence not considered an optimization. So even if a class does not have an accessible copy or move constructor, the compiler can perform the copy elision. Thus copy elision is the proper way to refer to this rather than as an optimization which may or may not be performed by the compiler.

hello folks, what vim plugins are you using ?

hello folks, what vim plugins are you using ?

#include <iostream> #include <cstring> class Example { private: char* str; public: // no args constructor Example () : str {nullptr} { str = new char[1]; *str = '\0'; } // Overloaded constructor Example (const char* s) : str {nullptr} { if (s == nullptr) { str = new char[1]; *str = '\0'; } else { str = new char[std::strlen(s) + 1]; std::strcpy(str, s); } } // Copy constructor Example (const Example& source) : str {nullptr} { str = new char[std::strlen(source.str) + 1]; std::strcpy(str, source.str); } // Copy assignment Example& operator = (const Example& rhs) { std::cout << "Using Copy assignment for " << rhs.str << std::endl; if (this == &rhs) { return *this; } delete [] this->str; // clear the pointer str = new char[std::strlen(rhs.str) + 1]; // allocate the memory on heap thats the same length as rhs string std::strcpy (this->str, rhs.str); // doing copy assignment return *this; // return the obj by reference } // Destructor ~Example(){ if (str == nullptr){ // std::cout << "Destructor for nullptr" << std::endl; } else { // std::cout << "Destructor for " << str << std::endl; } delete [] str; } friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Example& rhs){ os << rhs.str; return os; } friend std::istream& operator>>(std::istream& is, Example& rhs){ char* buff = new char[1000]; is >> buff; rhs = Example {buff}; delete [] buff; return is; } }; int main (void) { using namespace std; Example strep; cout << "Enter the third stooge's first name: "; cin >> strep; cout << "You entered: " << strep << endl; return 0; }

void push_back(std::string&& str) { // 1 data->push_back(std::move(str)); } void push_back(std::string&& str) { // 2 data->push_back(str); } Guys, I've tried to implement a vector like class and I've got some problem implementing the move version push_back: * Are the above two member function identical? * Since the str argument is already a rvalue reference, so I soppose it's redundant to use std::move to convert str, and function 2 is enough, am I right?

1 is correct. 2 is wrong. This is because, in 1, though str is an rvalue reference, inside the function's scope it is a named value and hence str as such is an lvalue. So you have to call std::move again to cast it to an rvalue reference. For ex in function1 you will notice the error if you try doing something like: void push_back(std::string&& str) { // 1 std::string&& s = str; //will fail to compile as str is an lvalue data->push_back(std::move(str)); }

yes