I am struggling with bug in my program. and finally i got the point. here integer shows value 1 at the time of declaration. I clean and build again. but it shows 1 value?
please any one explain me why this happen?
When you declare a local variable without specifying a value, you need to assign it first before reading from it becomes valid. The 1 that you see in your integer variable could be any garbage value, it is unspecified. Reading this value is undefined behavior.
int numberOfRecords = 0;
This is different from instance variables, which are initialized by default.
Related
I have been working to understand why I am getting the error messages shown in the attachment.
The bottom-most message that indicates a comma is needed makes no sense to me at all.
The other two messages may well be related to a problem with data types, but I cannot determine what data type rules I have violated.
Many thanks for your time and attention.
It's a few different errors cropping up, and the error about the separator is not really indicative of the problem.
SecondPartFraction is being declared twice. If those are meant to be two different variables, they should have two different names. If you simply wish to reassign a new value to SecondPartFraction, just drop the var off the second time you use it (as is has already been declared, you simply need to refer to it again).
Doubles and Ints can't be together for division, so that error is correct. If you want to get a Double result, just change the 16 to 16.0. Then the compiler won't complain.
The numbers you're getting are originating from a textfield too, which might cause some problems. If the user enters text into your textfields, instead of numbers, the app will crash since StepFirstPart and StepSecondPart are force unwrapped. You will probably want to do some kind of Optional Chaining to handle the case where the entry is not numeric.
In the last line, the label text is being set to an Int - in order to do this, you'll have to use string interpolation instead, since the text for a label must be a string rather than a number:
TotalNumRisers.text = "\(TotalRisers)"
Just one last quick note - in Swift, camel casing is standard for naming, so the first letter of every variable should be lowercase, then the others upper. So StepFirstPart would become stepFirstPart instead.
You create the same variable twice here e.x
var x = 0
var x = value + x
instead it should be
var x = 0
x = value + x // remove var from here
i see that fix documentation says:
http://www.minizinc.org/doc-lib/doc-builtins-reflect.html#Ifunction-dd-T-cl-fix-po-var-opt-dd-T-cl-x-pc
function array [$U] of $T: fix(array [$U] of var opt $T: x)
Check if the value of every element of the array x is fixedat this point in evaluation. If all are fixed, return an array of their values, otherwise abort.
I am thinking it can be used to coerce a var to a par.
Here is the code.
array [1..num] of var int: value ;
%% generate random numbers from 0..num-1, this should fix the value of the var "value" or so i think
constraint forall(i in index_set(value))(let {int:temp_value=discrete_distribution([1|i in index_set(value)]); } in value[i]=trace(show(temp_value)++"\n", temp_value));
%%% this i was expecting to work, as "value" elements are fixed above
array [1..num] of int:value__ =[ trace(show(fix(value[i])), fix(value[i])) | i in index_set(value)] ;
But i get:
MiniZinc: evaluation error:
with i = 1
in call 'trace'
in call 'fix'
expression is not fixed
My questions are:
1) I think i should expect this error as minizinc is not sequential execution language?
2) Examples of fix in user guide is only where output statement is used. Is it the only place to use fix?
3) How would i coerce a var to a par?
By the way I am trying this var to par conversion because i am having problem with array generator expression. Here is the code
int:num__=200;
int:seed=134;
int: two_m=2097184;
%% prepare weights for generating numbers form 1..(two_m div 64), basically same weight
array [1..(two_m div 64)] of int: value_6_wt= [seed+1 | i in 1..(two_m div 64)] ;
%% generate numbers. this dose not work gives out
%% in variable declaration for 'value6'
%% parameter value out of range
array [1..num__] of int : value6 = [ discrete_distribution(value_6_wt) | j in 1..num__];
In the MiniZinc language the difference between a parameter and a variable is only the fact that a parameter must have a value at compile time. Within the compiler we turn as many variables into parameters as we can. This saves the solver from having to do some work. When we know that a variable has been turned into a parameter, then we can use the fix function to convince the type system that we really can use this variable as a parameter and see its value.
The problem here however is that fix is defined to abort when the variable is not fixed to one value. If no testing is done, this requires some (magic/)knowledge about the compilation process. In your case it seems that the second array is evaluated before the optimisation stage, in which all aliasing is resolved. This is the reason why it does not work. (This is indeed one of the things that is a consequence of a declarative language)
Although fix might only be used in the output statements in the examples (where it's guaranteed to work), it is used in many locations in the MiniZinc libraries. If we for example look at the library that is used for MIP solvers, there are many constraints that can be encoded more efficiently if one of the arguments is a parameter. Therefore, you will often see that the a constraint in this library first tests its arguments with is_fixed, and then use a better encoding if this returns true.
The output statement and when is_fixed returns true will both give the guarantee that a variable is fixed and ensure that the compilation doesn't abort. There is no other way to coerce a variable to a parameter, but unless you are dealing with dependant predicate definitions, you can just trust the MiniZinc compiler to ensure that the resulting FlatZinc will contain a parameter instead of a variable.
I was trying to call atoi on the strings 509951644 and 4099516441. The first one got converted without any problem. The second one is giving me the decimal value 2,147,483,647 (0x7FFFFFFF). Why is this happening?
Your second integer is creating an overflow. The maximum 32-bit signed integer is 2147483647.
It's generally not recommended to use atoi anyway; use strtol instead, which actually tells you if your value is out of range. (The behavior of atoi is undefined when the input is out of range. Yours seems to be simply spitting out the maximum int value)
You could also check if your compiler has something like a atoi64 function, which would let you work with 64-bit values.
2147483647 is the maximum integer value in C (signed). It is giving the max that it can... the original is too large to convert to signed int. I suggest looking up how to convert into an unsigned int.
I'm having trouble with this variable declaration:
Code_Length at 0 range 18..20;
I'm familiar with constraints, but the at 0 is what's giving me fits, and I can't find any working examples online anywhere else.
If I had to guess (and I'm totally guessing), the at 0 initializes the value to 0, then the constraint is enforced on any subsequent assignment operation. But I can't find anything to verify that.
That's not a variable declaration, that's a representation clause for a field of a record. Whatever record declaration you excerpted that from has a field named "Code_Length". And this representation clause indicates that the storage for it (3 bits) will be offset 0 bytes from the start of whole record's storage, and occupy bits 18 through 20.
Providing more contextual code would help the explanation.
In iPhone (Xcode 4), using the function,
srandom(time(NULL));
both srand and srandom is giving this warning. But when running its working fine.
Why I am getting the warning in one of my class file? I have used that in other files, but no warning.
Warning: passing argument 1 of 'srand' makes integer from pointer
without a cast
However, using arc4random() can solve this problem. But in most example srand() is used in this way and nobody complains. Thats why I am confused.
Because srand is expecting an integer and time() is returning a pointer (from the looks of your particular error). Casting explicitly to an int will make it go away. Or perhaps reading the pointer to get the actual time value might be what you are looking for instead. Not 100% certain of time's return value here, but I'd double check to make sure it is indeed returning a tics value instead of a pointer to a time_t object that will remain mostly the same over time.
According to what I just read, it's supposed to return a time_t value, which when cast as an int, is the number of seconds elapsed since 1972ish. So not a pointer usually, but in your case it may be. Either way, add either a dereference and a cast, or just a cast if you can get it to return the time_t directly.