一级毛片视频免费公开

[Jens Thoms Toerring]

Hi Gary,

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:57:44AM -0500, Gary Fisher wrote:
>         >>> What does "return (static char *)Null" mean?
> 
> My mistake...I meant "return (const char *)Null" ... not static....and yes
> I do believe NULL is used in C++.  At least the compiler didn't witch at me
> for it.

There's still no reason for the cast. And while you use 'NULL'
in C quite often it's frowned upon in C++. All you really need
is

     return 0;

Since the compiler knows that the function returns a 'const char *'
it will automatically do the conversion. By casting (and then
even using a C-style cast, which is strongly discouraged in C++)
you tell the compiler "I know better than you" and you shouldn't
do that unless there's something the compiler can't figure out
on his own since a) you keep the compiler from explaining about
stuff that shouldn't/can't be done (don't see compiler complaints
as a nuisance but as a valuable help you to write correct pro-
grams) and b) you make the next person reading your code wonder
what this is all about.

> When I use "nm -C libword.so" on my little wrapped library I see nothing in
> the output to suggest a "word" class or a "reverse" method.

And that's at the very heart of your problem: the symbols needed
by the wrapper script don't exist in 'libword.so'. Rhe reason is
that there's not the slightest bit of necessity for the compiler/
linker to put them in there: you have a class declared with in-
lined methods that is never used anywhere. So there's no reason
to use the class for anything and it simply gets thrown out.

Every program using your library would include a header file for
the library that defines the interface. And while doing so it
would see the declaration of the class and would construct it's
own version of the class when it's needed.

I'm a bit at a loss at understanding how you got your SIP wrapper
to work without a header file, but that's another topic;-)

The quick fix is to simply splitting the word.cpp file up into
two parts, the necessary header file with the class declaration
and a cpp file with the function definitions. I.e. something
like this:

------- word.hpp -----------------------------
#ifndef WORD_HPP_
#define WORD_HPP_

class Word {
  public:

    Word( const char * w );

    const char * reverse( );

  private:

    const char * the_word;
};

#endif
------- word.cpp -----------------------------
#include "word.hpp"

Word::Word( const char * w ) :
    the_word( w )
{ }

const char *
Word::reverse( )
{
   return 0;
}
----------------------------------------------

BTW: don't forget the 'public:' in the class!

If you now compile this into a shared library it will con-
tain both the symbols for the constructor and the reverse()
method. And within the SIP wrapper you include the 'word.hpp'
header file.

  However, when
> I run "nm -C word.so" against the library generated by make I get things
> like:
> 
> 000021b4 d methods_Word
>          U Word::Word(char const*)
>          U Word::reverse() const
> 
> among other things.

Yes, the 'word.so' library needs those symbols and expects
them in one of the libraries it was linked with, but they
aren't anywhere. That will be only noticed when Python tries
to load the 'word.so' library and thus it fails.

BTW, the code in your program looks a bit broken. 

> class Word {
>   const char *the_word;
>   //  const char *the_reverse;
>   char buffer[20], *pb;
> 
>   int i, len;
> 
>   Word( const char *w) {
> 	the_word = w;
>   }

Do you realize that 'the_word' is now set to some memory
that doesn't belong to this class? It looks as if you 
would like to store a word using this class, but that's
not what you do - all you keep is a pointer to some
string somewhere else in memory (and not owned by the
class instance). And if this memory is used for something
else then the 'the_word' pointer will point to memory that
doesn't contain a string anymore. I guess you're coming from
languages where memory allocation is done for you in the
background (like in Python), but if you write in C++ (or C)
you will have to be very careful to do the right thing with
memory, e.g. just holding a pointer to some memory doesn't
make it "yours" - you have to ensure that nothing else will
fiddle with the memory pointed to.

>   const char *reverse () {
> 
> 	return (const char *) NULL;
> 
> 	/************************
> 	len = strlen(the_word);
> 	strcpy (buffer, the_word);

What happens if what 'the_word' points to is longer than 19
chars? You write past the end of buffer with unforseeable
effects. In the worst case it even might seem to work at
firt until some strange and hard to trace erros show up
much later...

> 	pb = (char *)the_word;

That's exactly one of the places were a cast shouldn't be
used. 'the_word' points to memory you are not allowed to
change. And to get around this you need the cast. So you're
now operating directly on the memory where your word is
stored which could reside in read-only memory.

> 	for (i=len-1 ; i>=0 ; i--) {
> 	  *pb = buffer[i];
> 	  pb++;
> 	}

> 	*pb = '\0';
> 
> 	return the_word;
>   }
> };

Here's some way you could do it (but note, I didn't carefully
check everything):

------- word.hpp -----------------------------
#ifndef WORD_HPP_
#define WORD_HPP_

#include <cstring>

class Word {
  public:

    Word( const char * w );

	~Word( );

    const char * reverse( );

  private:

    char * the_word;
};

#endif
------- word.cpp -----------------------------
#include "word.hpp"

Word::Word( const char * w )
{
    the_word = new char [ ( w != 0 ? strlen( w ) : 0 ) + 1 ];

    if ( w != 0 )
        strcpy( the_word, w );
    else
        *the_word = '\0';
}

Word::~Word( )
{
    delete [ ] the_word;
}

const char *
Word::reverse( )
{
    char *ps = the_word,
         *pe = the_word + strlen( the_word );

    while ( ps < pe )
    {
        char tmp = *ps;
        *ps++ = *pe;
        *pe-- = tmp;
    }
        
    return the_word;
}
----------------------------------------------

But since you write C++ it is probably nuch more reasonable
(and safer) to use the std::string class instead of creating
a probably inferior and slower version on your own;-) And all
this is very C-ish, for example in C++ you would rather return
a Word instance from the reverse() method instead of a pointer
to something in the innards of the class...

                            Regards, Jens
-- 
  \   Jens Thoms Toerring  ________      jt at toerring.de
   \_______________________________      http://toerring.de