This is my struct  struct Entry {     int a;     int b; };  int main() {      struct Entry data[260000]; //ok     struct Entry data[262144]; //crash      return 0; }   I want to declare an array of Entry with the size is 2^18 (262144 elements) But I'm not able to do so. It seems like I go beyond the max. Is there another way to do this?
1982
The following code is generating a stack overflow error for me  int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {     int sieve[2000000];     return 0; }   How do I get around this? I am using Turbo C++ but would like to keep my code in C  EDIT:  Thanks for the advice.  The code above was only for example, I actually declare the array in a function and not in sub main.  Also, I needed the array to be initialized to zeros, so when I googled malloc, I discovered that calloc was perfect for my purposes.  Malloc/calloc also has the advantage over allocating on the stack of allowing me to declare the size using a variable.
86999
Admittedly I don't get it. Say you have a memory with a memory word of length of 1 byte. Why can't you access a 4 byte long variable in a single memory access on an unaligned address(i.e. not divisible by 4), as it's the case with aligned addresses?
22068
Why is Array.Length an int, and not a uint. This bothers me (just a bit) because a length value can never be negative.   This also forced me to use an int for a length-property on my own class, because when you  specify an int-value, this needs to be cast explicitly...  So the ultimate question is: is there any use for an unsigned int (uint)? Even Microsoft seems not to use them.
20515
This question was inspired by a similar question:   My question is a little different:  Is there any way to determine the size of a C++ array programmatically?  And if not, why?  Every function I've seen that takes an array also requires an integer parameter to give it the size.  But as the linked question pointed out, delete[] must know the size of the memory to be deallocated.  Consider this C++ code:  int* arr = new int[256]; printf("Size of arr: %d\n", sizeof(arr));   This prints "Size of arr: 4", which is just the size of the pointer.  It would be nice to have some function which prints 256, but I don't think one exists in C++.  (Again, part of the question is why it doesn't exist.)  Clarification: I know that if I declared the array on the stack instead of the heap (i.e. "int arr[256];") that the sizeof operator would return 1024 (array length * sizeof(int)).
77872
Say I have the following C++:  char *p = new char[cb]; SOME_STRUCT *pSS = (SOME_STRUCT *) p; delete pSS;   Is this safe according to the C++ standard? Do I need to cast back to a char* and then use delete[]? I know it'll work in most C++ compilers, because it's plain-ordinary-data, with no destructors. Is it guaranteed to be safe?
32907
Are there any downsides to passing structs by value in C, rather than passing a pointer?  If the struct is large, there is obviously the performancd aspect of copying lots of data, but for a smaller struct, it should basically be the same as passing several values to a function.  It is maybe even more interesting when used as return values. C only has single return values from functions, but you often need several. So a simple solution is to put them in a struct and return that.  Are there any reasons for or against this?  Since it might not be obvious to everyone what I'm talking about here, I'll give  a simple example.  If you're programming in C, you'll sooner or later start writing functions that look like this:  void examine_data(const char *ptr, size_t len) {     ... }  char *p = ...; size_t l = ...; examine_data(p, l);   This isn't a problem. The only issue is that you have to agree with your coworker in which the order the parameters should be so you use the same convention in all functions.  But what happens when you want to return the same kind of information? You typically get something like this:  char *get_data(size_t *len); {     ...     *len = ...datalen...;     return ...data...; } size_t len; char *p = get_data(&amp;len);   This works fine, but is much more problematic. A return value is a return value, except that in this implementation it isn't. There is no way to tell from the above that the function get_data isn't allowed to look at what len points to. And there is nothing that makes the compiler check that a value is actually returned through that pointer. So next month, when someone else modifies the code without understanding it properly (because he didn't read the documentation?) it gets broken without anyone noticing, or it starts crashing randomly.  So, the solution I propose is the simple struct  struct blob { char *ptr; size_t len; }   The examples can be rewritten like this:  void examine_data(const struct blob data) {     ... use data.tr and data.len ... }  struct blob = { .ptr = ..., .len = ... }; examine_data(blob);  struct blob get_data(void); {     ...     return (struct blob){ .ptr = ...data..., .len = ...len... }; } struct blob data = get_data();   For some reason, I think that most people would instinctively make examine_data take a pointer to a struct blob, but I don't see why. It still gets a pointer and an integer, it's just much  clearer that they go together. And in the get_data case it is impossible to mess up in the way I described before, since there is no input value for the length, and there must be a returned length.
72626
What's the difference between struct and class in .NET?
43660
I have a list of structs and I want to change one element. For example :  MyList.Add(new MyStruct("john"); MyList.Add(new MyStruct("peter");   Now I want to change one element:  MyList[1].Name = "bob"   However, whenever I try and do this I get the following error:     Cannot modify the return value of   System.Collections.Generic.List.this[int]‘ because it is not   a variable   If I use a list of classes, the problem doesn't occur.  I guess the answer has to do with structs being a value type.  So, if I have a list of structs should I treat them as read-only? If I need to change elements in a list then I should use classes and not structs?
122083
A colleague of mine recently got bitten badly by writing out of bounds to a static array on the stack (he added an element to it without increasing the array size).  Shouldn't the compiler catch this kind of error?  The following code compiles cleanly with gcc, even with the -Wall -Wextra options, and yet it is clearly erroneous:  int main(void) {   int a[10];   a[13] = 3;  // oops, overwrote the return address   return 0; }   I'm positive that this is undefined behavior, although I can't find an excerpt from the C99 standard saying so at the moment.  But in the simplest case, where the size of an array is known as compile time and the indices are known at compile time, shouldn't the compiler emit a warning at the very least?
99917
If you declare variables of type byte or short and attempt to perform arithmetic operations on these, you receive the error "Type mismatch: cannot convert int to short" (or correspondingly "Type mismatch: cannot convert int to byte").   byte a = 23; byte b = 34; byte c = a + b;   In this example, the compile error is on the third line.
107003
I'm working on a sparse matrix class that needs to use an array of LinkedList to store the values of a matrix. Each element of the array (i.e. each LinkedList) represents a row of the matrix. And, each element in the LinkedList array represents a column and the stored value.  In my class, I have a declaration of the array as:  private LinkedList&lt;IntegerNode&gt;[] myMatrix;   And, in my constructor for the SparseMatrix, I try to define:  myMatrix = new LinkedList&lt;IntegerNode&gt;[numRows];   The error I end up getting is     Cannot create a generic array of LinkedList&lt;IntegerNode&gt;.   So, I have two issues with this:   What am I doing wrong, and Why is the type acceptable in the declaration for the array if it can't be created?   IntegerNode is a class that I have created. And, all of my class files are packaged together.
123640
I was trying to insert matrix into a \subsection{}:  \subsection{Suppose $X= \begin{array}{cc} 1 &amp; 2 \\ 3 &amp; 4 \end{array}$}   This gives me an error:   ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [input stack size=5000].   What is wrong here? Thanks!
117860
Given a struct like this:  public struct SomeStruct {     public SomeStruct(String stringProperty, Int32 intProperty)     {         this.StringProperty = stringProperty;         this.IntProperty = intProperty;     }      public String StringProperty { get; set; }     public Int32 IntProperty { get; set; } }   Of course, a compiler error is generated that reads The 'this' object cannot be used before all of its fields are assigned to.  Is there a way to assign values to the backing fields or the properties themselves, or do I have to implement properties the old-fashioned way with my own explicit backing fields?
1431
Foo* set = new Foo[100]; // ... delete [] set;   You don't pass the array's boundaries to delete[]. But where is that information stored? Is it standardised?
13470
I am a little surprised by the following.  Example 1:  char s[100] = "abcd"; // declare and initialize - WORKS   Example 2:  char s[100]; // declare s = "hello"; // initalize - DOESN'T WORK ('lvalue required' error)   I'm wondering why the second approach doesn't work. It seems natural that it should (it works with other data types)? Could someone explain me the logic behind this?
117780
On the MSVC++ compiler, one can use the __int8, __int16, __int32 and similar types for integers with specific sizes. This is extremely useful for applications which need to work with low-level data structures like custom file formats, hardware control data structures and the like.  Is there a similar equivalent I can use on the GCC compiler?
37944
Is there a max length for an array in C++?  Is it a C++ limit or does it depend on my machine? Is it tweakable? Does it depend on the type the array is made of?  Can I break that limit somehow or do I have to search for a better way of storing information? And what should be the simplest way?  What I have to do is storing long long int on an array, I'm working in a Linux environment. My question is: what do I have to do if I need to store an array of N long long integers with N > 10 digits?  I need this because I'm writing some cryptographic algorithm (as for example the p-Pollard) for school, and hit this wall of integers and length of arrays representation.