Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Rhinorhino on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Search results for query: *
- Users: Guest42
- Order by date
-
accept() returns 0
Whoops. I might add that, if instead of closing the '0'ed socket, I let it try to recieve a message, I get the "Socket operation on non Socket" error, which I suppose means 0 is reserved for something else. -
accept() returns 0
I'm am trying to learn about sockets by writing a simple chat client. Basically, multiple users will be able to connect to a server which will relay the messages back to each user At the moment it does not relay messages back. This is because connecting multiple users seems to cause a problem... -
LVM recovery
Actually, it just wasn't seeing the VolumeGroups no way no how, which meant that unless we dumped out the raw data onto another drive and sorted it out, the partition was basically trashed. We decided it wasn't worth it. It seems like a really weird issue, but LVM basically messed up bad. What...- Guest42
- Post #6
- Forum: Linux (server)
-
LVM recovery
None of that really help. The thing is, Redhat's hardware browser shows that there's an LVM on the partition, but LVM itself doesn't recognize it. I set LVM to level 3 verbosity, and it says that sdb3 has no label, so... I don't know if there's someway I can make LVM point to the data.- Guest42
- Post #4
- Forum: Linux (server)
-
LVM recovery
Somebody at at the office needs us to recover information of of a linux HD that won't boot, so we plugged it into our Redhat machine, and the partitions on it are as follows: /dev/sdb1 - boot /dev/sdb2 - swap /dev/sdb3 - LVM Unfortunately, since all the infomation about the volume groups in...- Guest42
- Thread
- Replies: 6
- Forum: Linux (server)
-
socket() hangs up in Linux
#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <sys/utsname.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/socket.h> #include <netinet/in.h> #include <arpa/inet.h> #include <netdb.h> #include <unistd.h> int _GetHostName(char* buffer, int length); const char MESSAGE[] = "Big brown... -
socket() hangs up in Linux
I'm trying to create a simple test server in linux (which I basically just copied from an example to see how it works). However, early on in the program when socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TPC) is called, the program hangs. It compiles fine, and gdb doesn't show any of my variables being... -
Review my Vector Code?
Well, I just fixed the program. I found out I can just say: realloc(v->go, (v->capacity * sizeof(struct game_object*))); Instead I have to do this: v->go = realloc(v->go, (v->capacity * sizeof(struct game_object*))); Or else v->go might not get moved to the correct spot. Also, I had to... -
Review my Vector Code?
Actually, the line: v->go = (struct game_object**)malloc(v->capacity * sizeof(struct game_object*)); Isn't determined by the length variable (which is the current number of elements stored), but by capacity, which isn't zero. Perhaps my naming system could be better, but this line is necessary... -
Review my Vector Code?
Right. Not a real big concern, just wanted to make sure I understood how it works. There's still the problem that, in the program, v->go[0]->x returns some address rather than the value of x, where as the rest of v->go[n]->x return the value of x. I can't figure out what's up with that.... -
Review my Vector Code?
So using realloc(), this seems to do the same thing that the made-up-out-of-my-head struct does, in a much less complicated way: http://cyberworld.kicks-ass.net/comic/VectorRealloc.c The only problem is that trying to access v->go[0]->x brings up a memory address rather than the value of x... -
Review my Vector Code?
I suppose I ought to take a look at a C++ vector then. The reason that I didn't think about realloc() was because I didn't know it existed until this thread o.O I also didn't realize you could implement void like that, though I realized there must be some way to do in C what you can do with... -
Review my Vector Code?
Actually, scratch that, as making a copy of the pointer wouldn't make a difference, since I'm going to end up with the same space used, ultimately pointing to the same spot. Duh. Anyway, you say access will be exponentially slower? If you have a lot of little nodes, this would certainly be... -
Review my Vector Code?
Well, you probably know better than I, but I think that sending it through like that makes a copy of the the argument, rather than just dereferencing your pointer, which is what I need to do. Like, if you want to dereference int n, you need *int, and if you want to dereference int *n, you need **int -
Review my Vector Code?
Alright. As sort of an experiment I wanted to see if I could make a Vector (expandable array) in C, kinda like the Vector class in Java, only this one holds a specific type of structure. It appears to be fairly successful, although it is very simple at this point. Anyway, I was hoping someone... -
Pointer/struct syntax
Quick syntax question If I have some field **go and I say *go = malloc(sizeof(whatever)) If go is a field in struct v, how would I achieve the same thing? For example, "v->go = malloc" would be the same thing as go = malloc, but I need *go = malloc. -
Odd strtok issue
I understand what you're saying cpjust. Makes perfect sense when I think about how strtok works, but I didn't know the reason for it. And thanks for the info, ArkM. For my purposes, I don't think strtok will be dangerous, but I'll make sure to keep this in mind. Anyway, I want to thank everyone... -
Odd strtok issue
Still, it bothers me, looking back, that strtok() is unsafe for threading. Not to drag this forum thread on longer than it needs, but could you explain a little to me about what the issues with strtok() are that make it unsafe for threading? What are the potential negative effects? I don't mean... -
Odd strtok issue
Hah. I guess that is a much better way of doing things, sedj. I can only hope that once I become more pointer savy I will have wit left to be more clever about how I write my programs. But at least for now I can look at it and learn something from it. Would it be reasonable to allocate **ret... -
Odd strtok issue
Well, the output seems to be better, and yet str still gets cut down, and I have no idea why. The reason this bothers me is that I am just trying to get the hang of pointers, but I don't really undersstand why this is happening. Coming over from Java where I don't have to worry about this stuff...
