英文字典中文字典


英文字典中文字典51ZiDian.com



中文字典辞典   英文字典 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k   l   m   n   o   p   q   r   s   t   u   v   w   x   y   z       







请输入英文单字，中文词皆可：


请选择你想看的字典辞典：
单词字典翻译
198816查看　198816　在百度字典中的解释百度英翻中〔查看〕
198816查看　198816　在Google字典中的解释Google英翻中〔查看〕
198816查看　198816　在Yahoo字典中的解释Yahoo英翻中〔查看〕

安装中文字典英文字典查询工具!


中文字典英文字典工具:
选择颜色:
输入中英文单字

































































英文字典中文字典相关资料:


  • c++ - Understanding memcpy - Stack Overflow
    memcpy works on the byte level, but integers are a series of bytes Depending on your target architecture, the bytes within an integer may be arranged differently (big-endian, little-endian, etc) Using memcpy on integers may or may not do what you expect It's best to use byte arrays when learning how memcpy and friends work
  • c++ - Is it better to use std::memcpy() or std::copy() in terms to . . .
    C++ was explicitly designed to allow using C libraries This was not an accident It is often better to use std::copy than memcpy in C++, but this has nothing to do with which one is C, and that kind of argument is usually the wrong approach –
  • memcpy(), what should the value of the size parameter be?
    int dst[ARRAY_LENGTH]; memcpy( dst, src, sizeof(dst) ); Good, sizeof(dst) returns sizeof(int) * ARRAY_LENGTH If dst just happens to be a pointer to the first element of such an array (which is the same type as the array itself), it wont work:
  • c - memcpy () vs memmove () - Stack Overflow
    (Unfortunately, I can't find decent examples, but these will do) Compare the memcpy and memmove implementations shown here memcpy just loops, while memmove performs a test to determine which direction to loop in to avoid corrupting the data These implementations are rather simple
  • c++ - memcpy with startIndex? - Stack Overflow
    Please note: memcpy is C, not C++ Although i use it frequently there is no doubt that memcpy in general is in total contrast to major C++ concepts as type safety, inheritance, exceptions etc Its very easy to screw up everything with memcpy –
  • c - faster alternative to memcpy? - Stack Overflow
    If the compiler doesn't know the value, it will have to fall back to the byte-level implementation of memcpy - the issue being that memcpy has to respect the one-byte granularity It will still move 128 bits at a time, but after each 128b it will have to check if it has enough data to copy as 128b or it has to fall back to 64bits, then to 32
  • C++ memcpy return value - Stack Overflow
    C standard library often supports this technique, memcpy being another example A possible use case might be something along the lines of char *clone_buffer(const char *buffer, size_t size) { return memcpy(new char[size], buffer, size); } If memcpy did not return the destination buffer pointer, we'd probably have to implement the above as
  • In what cases should I use memcpy over standard operators in C++?
    That's because memcpy() will copy byte by byte while the second version could copy 4 bytes at a time As it's always the case, you should always profile applications to be sure that what you expect to be the bottleneck matches the reality Edit Same applies to dynamic array Since you mention C++ you should use std::copy() algorithm in that





中文字典-英文字典  2005-2009