r_array_new_with_free_func(mydestroy);
// Add lots of individuals to the array.
for (i=0; i<2500;i++) {
makeRandIndV1(myRand, &theInd);
g_ptr_array_add(myAry, theInd);
}
// free the array.
g_ptr_array_free(myAry, TRUE);
}
return 0;
}
On Sun, Mar 07, 201
_ptr_array_free(myAry, TRUE);
return 0;
}
--
Brian Lavender
http://www.brie.com/brian/
"There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other
way is to make it so complicated that there are no ob
for the same resource.
It is your typical dining philosopher problem. An atomic operation
is used in place of a mutex (may actually use a mutex or a semaphore
underneath), so that access to a resource is synchronized.
I haven't quite figured out the resource that is being guarded here, but
it look
pass arguments!
void load_array( GArray *(*garray)[NUM_ARYS] );
I will check out the g_ptr_array!
brian
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 06:50:34PM -0800, Brian Lavender wrote:
> === simplearray2.c ===
>
>
> #include
>
> #define NUM_ARYS 5
>
> void load_array( GArray *(*garray)
\n", j);
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
g_print ("index %d value %d\n",
i, g_array_index (garrays[j], gint, i));
}
for (j=0; j < NUM_ARYS; j++)
g_array_free (garrays[j], TRUE);
}
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 02:48:01PM -0800, Brian Lavender wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27,
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:06:46PM -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Brian Lavender wrote:
> > I guess the list stripped the attachments. The code is included in this
> > message.
> >
>
> Hi,
> First of all it would be help
Sorry, the second set of code is what I want to do, but if you run it,
the arrays have all the same values, instead of the values actually
inserted, not quite what I had wanted.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:06:46PM -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Brian Laven
I guess the list stripped the attachments. The code is included in this
message.
brian
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 06:47:30PM -0800, Brian Lavender wrote:
> I was experimenting with creating an array of arrays. Maybe I shouldn't
> be using GArray but something different such as pointer
know if I have a problem with
operator precedence or if the GArrays point to just one array.
The two programs are the following.
simplearray.c - loads just one array
simplearray2.c - loads an array of arrays
Any input is appreciated.
brian
--
Brian Lavender
http://www.brie.com/brian/
"
