Public Group

# to_lower function entering an infinite loop

## Recommended Posts

I am super confused by this...

I was in the middle of an experiment, maybe is just that I am tired and I'm missing the obvious here (so facepalm is ready), but things are not working as expected, Image below (I'll also paste the code in case you want to try it out yourself)

#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>
using namespace std;

void to_lower(char* s)
{
char* text = s;
while (s != '\0')
{
char letter = *s;
if (letter > 'A' && letter < 'Z')
{
*s = 'a' + (letter - 'A');
}
s++;
}
cout << text << endl;
}

int main()
{
char* text = new char[12] {"Hello World"};
to_lower(text);
delete[] text;
return 0;
}

As you see in the debug image, the content of s[0] is 'l', but "char letter = *s;" is yelding a 'e'...what is this madness?! O_O

EDIT: forget what I asked above, I just understood that the yellow arrow means that the line isn't executed yet, I just had to step forward once

So, since that question turned useless I renamed this topic and I have a new question: my function enters an infinite loop.

Apparently the test "while (s != '\0')" is not good because when s points to '\0', the content of s is "" according to the debugger... so how do I test for '\0'?

Edited by MarcusAseth

##### Share on other sites

You're comparing a pointer, i.e. a memory address, against what you're expecting to see when dereferencing the pointer, i.e. the number 0 or '\0'. You need to dereference the pointer.

Also, your if statement is wrong.

And, you're wasting your time duplicating a standard language function.

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kylotan said:

You're comparing a pointer, i.e. a memory address, against what you're expecting to see when dereferencing the pointer, i.e. the number 0 or '\0'. You need to dereference the pointer.

Also, your if statement is wrong.

And, you're wasting your time duplicating a standard language function.

ops, missed that dereference in the while, I knew I was tired x_x

Fixed my >= and <= , thanks!

I disagree on the last point though, I don't think this time is wasted, we are probably assigning value to different things

Edited by MarcusAseth

##### Share on other sites

Though you wouldn't do this in production code, I agree you should know/understand how to handle pointers.

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alpha_ProgDes said:

Though you wouldn't do this in production code, I agree you should know/understand how to handle pointers.

Exactly my goal here

What I'm currently writing is probably ugly and a bit buggy, but I'm getting useful practice, today first time I use const_cast and write my template, so...IMPROVEMENT (for better or worse...)

char* findx(const char* s, const char* x)
{
if(s == nullptr || x == nullptr)
{ return nullptr; }

char* Tmp = const_cast<char*>(x);
int FindSize = 0;
while (*Tmp++ != '\0') { FindSize++; };

int ID = 0;
int firstOccurrence = 0;
bool isMatch = false;

while (s[ID] != '\0')
{
if (s[ID] == x[0])
{
firstOccurrence = ID;
for (size_t i = 0; i < FindSize; i++)
{
if (s[ID + i] != x[i]) { break; }
if (i == FindSize - 1) { isMatch = true; }
}
if (isMatch) { break; }
}
ID++;
}
return (isMatch ? const_cast<char*>(s) + firstOccurrence : nullptr);
}

Edited by MarcusAseth

##### Share on other sites

Using const cast looks horribly wrong, "find" shouldn't change the string!

You have "char *tmp" and return a "char *",  change that to "const char *" too.

At a higher level, you are accepting const char * values as parameters, users don't expect that you break your promise, and sneakily return a modifiable point in their const string as return value.

Edited by Alberth

##### Share on other sites

The Exercise in the book I'm following gave as only instructions:

Quote

Write a function, char* findx(const char* s, const char* x), that finds the first occurrence of the C-style string x in s.

I don't know how to return a char* out of a const char*, so I tried removing the const, just to fullfill the assignment

Edited by MarcusAseth

##### Share on other sites

Book is just wrong

##### Share on other sites

Here you go friend

//take two char* (strings) and return char* to first occurence of second string
char* findx(char* str, char* strx ) {

if (!str || !strx) return nullptr;

char* found = nullptr;

for (int s = 0, x = 0; str[s] != '\0' && strx[x] != '\0'; s++) {

if (str[s] == strx[x]) {
if( !found ) found = &str[s];
x++;
} else {
found = nullptr;
x = 0;
}
}

return found;
}

##### Share on other sites

@h8CplusplusGuru much more clean/compact than mine, regardless if I had done it without the const char required by the exercise, thanks for showing me

• 9
• 13
• 41
• 15
• 12
• ### Similar Content

• bs::framework is a newly released, free and open-source C++ game development framework. It aims to provide a modern C++14 API & codebase, focus on high-end technologies comparable to commercial engine offerings and a highly optimized core capable of running demanding projects. Additionally it aims to offer a clean, simple architecture with lightweight implementations that allow the framework to be easily enhanced with new features and therefore be ready for future growth.
Some of the currently available features include a physically based renderer based on Vulkan, DirectX and OpenGL, unified shading language, systems for animation, audio, GUI, physics, scripting, heavily multi-threaded core, full API documentation + user manuals, support for Windows, Linux and macOS and more.
The next few updates are focusing on adding support for scripting languages like C#, Python and Lua, further enhancing the rendering fidelity and adding sub-systems for particle and terrain rendering.
A complete editor based on the framework is also in development, currently available in pre-alpha stage.

View full story

• bs::framework is a newly released, free and open-source C++ game development framework. It aims to provide a modern C++14 API & codebase, focus on high-end technologies comparable to commercial engine offerings and a highly optimized core capable of running demanding projects. Additionally it aims to offer a clean, simple architecture with lightweight implementations that allow the framework to be easily enhanced with new features and therefore be ready for future growth.
Some of the currently available features include a physically based renderer based on Vulkan, DirectX and OpenGL, unified shading language, systems for animation, audio, GUI, physics, scripting, heavily multi-threaded core, full API documentation + user manuals, support for Windows, Linux and macOS and more.
The next few updates are focusing on adding support for scripting languages like C#, Python and Lua, further enhancing the rendering fidelity and adding sub-systems for particle and terrain rendering.
A complete editor based on the framework is also in development, currently available in pre-alpha stage.

• Hi again,  After some looking around I have decided to base my game directly on Direct X rather than using an existing game engine.  Because of the nature of the stuff I'm doing it just didn't seem to fit very well and I kept running into road blocks.  At this point I have a big blob of code for doing fractal world generation and some collision code,  and I'm trying to put it into some form that resembles a game engine.  Since I've never used one before It's a bit alien to me ..... so can someone direct me to a book, website, article, whatever... that covers this?  I'm mainly looking for stuff that covers C++ library design. I'm not adverse to using 3rd party tools for stuff I can used them for.
• By chiffre
Introduction:
In general my questions pertain to the differences between floating- and fixed-point data. Additionally I would like to understand when it can be advantageous to prefer fixed-point representation over floating-point representation in the context of vertex data and how the hardware deals with the different data-types. I believe I should be able to reduce the amount of data (bytes) necessary per vertex by choosing the most opportune representations for my vertex attributes. Thanks ahead of time if you, the reader, are considering the effort of reading this and helping me.
I found an old topic that shows this is possible in principal, but I am not sure I understand what the pitfalls are when using fixed-point representation and whether there are any hardware-based performance advantages/disadvantages.
(TLDR at bottom)
The Actual Post:
To my understanding HLSL/D3D11 offers not just the traditional floating point model in half-,single-, and double-precision, but also the fixed-point model in form of signed/unsigned normalized integers in 8-,10-,16-,24-, and 32-bit variants. Both models offer a finite sequence of "grid-points". The obvious difference between the two models is that the fixed-point model offers a constant spacing between values in the normalized range of [0,1] or [-1,1], while the floating point model allows for smaller "deltas" as you get closer to 0, and larger "deltas" the further you are away from 0.
To add some context, let me define a struct as an example:
struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits float[2] texCoord; //2x32-bits float[3] normals; //3x32-bits } //Total of 32 bytes Every vertex gets a position, a coordinate on my texture, and a normal to do some light calculations. In this case we have 8x32=256bits per vertex. Since the texture coordinates lie in the interval [0,1] and the normal vector components are in the interval [-1,1] it would seem useful to use normalized representation as suggested in the topic linked at the top of the post. The texture coordinates might as well be represented in a fixed-point model, because it seems most useful to be able to sample the texture in a uniform manner, as the pixels don't get any "denser" as we get closer to 0. In other words the "delta" does not need to become any smaller as the texture coordinates approach (0,0). A similar argument can be made for the normal-vector, as a normal vector should be normalized anyway, and we want as many points as possible on the sphere around (0,0,0) with a radius of 1, and we don't care about precision around the origin. Even if we have large textures such as 4k by 4k (or the maximum allowed by D3D11, 16k by 16k) we only need as many grid-points on one axis, as there are pixels on one axis. An unsigned normalized 14 bit integer would be ideal, but because it is both unsupported and impractical, we will stick to an unsigned normalized 16 bit integer. The same type should take care of the normal vector coordinates, and might even be a bit overkill.
struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint16_t[3] normals; //3x16bits } //Total of 22 bytes Seems like a good start, and we might even be able to take it further, but before we pursue that path, here is my first question: can the GPU even work with the data in this format, or is all I have accomplished minimizing CPU-side RAM usage? Does the GPU have to convert the texture coordinates back to a floating-point model when I hand them over to the sampler in my pixel shader? I have looked up the data types for HLSL and I am not sure I even comprehend how to declare the vertex input type in HLSL. Would the following work?
struct VertexInputType { float3 pos; //this one is obvious unorm half2 tex; //half corresponds to a 16-bit float, so I assume this is wrong, but this the only 16-bit type I found on the linked MSDN site snorm half3 normal; //same as above } I assume this is possible somehow, as I have found input element formats such as: DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_SNORM and DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_UNORM (also available with a different number of components, as well as different component lengths). I might have to avoid 3-component vectors because there is no 3-component 16-bit input element format, but that is the least of my worries. The next question would be: what happens with my normals if I try to do lighting calculations with them in such a normalized-fixed-point format? Is there no issue as long as I take care not to mix floating- and fixed-point data? Or would that work as well? In general this gives rise to the question: how does the GPU handle fixed-point arithmetic? Is it the same as integer-arithmetic, and/or is it faster/slower than floating-point arithmetic?
Assuming that we still have a valid and useful VertexData format, how far could I take this while remaining on the sensible side of what could be called optimization? Theoretically I could use the an input element format such as DXGI_FORMAT_R10G10B10A2_UNORM to pack my normal coordinates into a 10-bit fixed-point format, and my verticies (in object space) might even be representable in a 16-bit unsigned normalized fixed-point format. That way I could end up with something like the following struct:
struct VertexData { uint16_t[3] pos; //3x16bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint32_t packedNormals; //10+10+10+2bits } //Total of 14 bytes Could I use a vertex structure like this without too much performance-loss on the GPU-side? If the GPU has to execute some sort of unpacking algorithm in the background I might as well let it be. In the end I have a functioning deferred renderer, but I would like to reduce the memory footprint of the huge amount of vertecies involved in rendering my landscape.
TLDR: I have a lot of vertices that I need to render and I want to reduce the RAM-usage without introducing crazy compression/decompression algorithms to the CPU or GPU. I am hoping to find a solution by involving fixed-point data-types, but I am not exactly sure how how that would work.

• Well i found out Here what's the problem and how to solve it (Something about world coordinates and object coordinates) but i can't understand how ti works. Can you show me some examples in code on how you implement this???

Scaling Matrix:
m_Impl->scale = glm::mat4(1.0f); m_Impl->scale = glm::scale(m_Impl->scale, glm::vec3(width, height, 0)); Verticies:
//Verticies. float verticies[] = { //Positions. //Texture Coordinates. 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 2.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 2.0f, 2.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f }; Rendering:
//Projection Matrix. glm::mat4 proj = glm::ortho(0.0f, (float)window->GetWidth(), 0.0f, (float)window->GetHeight(), -1.0f, 1.0f); //Set the uniform. material->program->setUniformMat4f("u_MVP", proj * model); //model is the scale matrix from the previous code. //Draw. glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, material->ibo->GetCount(), GL_UNSIGNED_INT, NULL);
#shader vertex #version 330 core layout(location = 0) in vec4 aPos; layout(location = 1) in vec2 aTexCoord; out vec2 texCoord; uniform mat4 u_MVP; void main() { gl_Position = u_MVP*aPos; texCoord = aTexCoord; } #shader fragment #version 330 core out vec4 colors; in vec2 texCoord; uniform sampler2D u_Texture; void main() { colors = texture(u_Texture, texCoord); }
Before Scaling (It's down there on the bottom left corner as a dot).

After Scaling

Problem: Why does the position also changes?? If you see my Verticies, the first position starts at 1.0f, 1.0f , so when i'm scaling it should stay at that position