I *am* checking sizes before the move, which is why it surprised me that things
were going out of bounds -- the trouble is I forgot the array index [0]
On Sat 24 Apr 2010, Martin wrote:
> On 24/04/2010 22:01, Andrew Brunner wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > I don't see how you are not getting memory leak
On 24/04/2010 22:01, Andrew Brunner wrote:
David,
I don't see how you are not getting memory leaks by doing a move
before making sure that the destination buffer has the memory
allocated. You see, in Delphi and FPC, move d/n actually move the
memory... It just copies it.
You were warned :-)
O
David,
I don't see how you are not getting memory leaks by doing a move
before making sure that the destination buffer has the memory
allocated. You see, in Delphi and FPC, move d/n actually move the
memory... It just copies it.
You were warned :-)
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:01 PM, David Emerson
a release of directfb bindings with support for both 1.4 and (new) 1.2.7
binaries (as included in ubuntu karmic, for example) is now available:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wiseslap/files/ (look for:
'fpc-directfb-1.4+1.2.7.tar.gz')
anyone wishing to experiment with directfb on a standard deskt
cobines wrote:
> David Emerson wrote:
> > move (src.f_data, self.f_data, length(self.f_data) * sizeof(byte));
>
> I think it should be:
>
> SetLength(self.f_data, length(src.f_data));
> move (src.f_data[0], self.f_data[0], length(self.f_data) * sizeof(byte));
Well, the setlength is not necessary
2010/4/24 David Emerson :
> move (src.f_data, self.f_data, length(self.f_data) * sizeof(byte));
>
I think it should be:
SetLength(self.f_data, length(src.f_data));
move (src.f_data[0], self.f_data[0], length(self.f_data) * sizeof(byte));
--
cobines
___
I have a class that has a field,
f_data : array of byte; // a dynamic array
Within a method of this class (which takes as a parameter "src", another
instance of the class) I have the following code:
move (src.f_data, self.f_data, length(self.f_data) * sizeof(byte));
It appears that this move
spir ☣ wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:17:51 +0200
Marc Weustink wrote:
Somehow I get the idea that you mix the definition/use of sets with arrays.
Yes, it seems Pascal sets are rather related to enums than collections. I mean
they look like packs of kinds of flags, which themselves are named
