|
If it helps, I tried the program written this way (differences on the last 7 lines):
for (unsigned i=0; i<frames; i++)
{
Matrix F(4,4);
double angle;
F=BA.inverse() * Jtertiary.at(i) * MA;
trans(x)=F(x,3); trans(y)=F(y,3); trans(z)=F(z,3);
trans(tertiaryaxis)=0;
if (tertiaryaxis==X)
{
angle=ExtractX(F.inner(), RotationSequence);
F=(Xrot(angle).transpose() * F.inner()).homogeneous();
F(x,3)=0; F(y,3)=trans(y); F(z,3)=trans(z);
F3.at(i)(1)=trans(x); F3.at(i)(2)=trans(y); F3.at(i)(3)=trans(z);
}
else if (tertiaryaxis==Y)
{
angle=ExtractY(F.inner(), RotationSequence);
F=(Yrot(angle).transpose() * F.inner()).homogeneous();
F(x,3)=trans(x); F(y,3)=0; F(z,3)=trans(z);
F3.at(i)(1)=trans(x); F3.at(i)(2)=trans(y); F3.at(i)(3)=trans(z);
}
else if (tertiaryaxis==Z)
{
angle=ExtractY(F.inner(), RotationSequence);
F=(Zrot(angle).transpose() * F.inner()).homogeneous();
F(x,3)=trans(x); F(y,3)=trans(y); F(z,3)=0;
F3.at(i)(1)=trans(x); F3.at(i)(2)=trans(y); F3.at(i)(3)=trans(z);
}
else
throw("ERROR: Tertiary Axis designation invalid for Three Axis Functional Alignment.\n");
F3.at(i)(0)=degrees(angle);
Matrix er;
er=BA * F * MA.inverse();
cout << i << endl;
er.dump();
E.push_back(er);
if (angle<minangle) minangle=angle;
if (angle>maxangle) maxangle=angle;
}
Again, the program can run several times without apparent error. When the error does occur it will even go several times through the for loop before it crashes. In the format I am giving here, it will print out the iteration of the loop and the matrix that was provided to the E vector (which should be pretty close to a 4x4 identity matrix).
The program just stops. No error messages are given. I've tried throw-catch around it, but I don't know what to catch here other than ..., and that doesn't work.
In my experience, odd behavior like this is due to a memory leak. But, the only place I can think of where memory is leaking would be if the Matrix destructor is not being called when the E (or other similar vectors like F3) goes out of scope.
Am I correct in this suspicion? If so, how do I invoke an array destructor before the vector of arrays goes out of scope?
I know that many of you want me to re-write the Matrix class with vectors instead of dynamic arrays. That may be the only correct ultimate solution to my problem. But right now, this is also an academic question about the proper use of a vector of arrays.
And, of course, if the vector of arrays issue is not my problem, then I am really lost and in greater need of any help that can be offered.
Thanks for the efforts so far, and for any efforts that appear in the future to help me solve this thing.
|
|
|
|
|
E.push_back(er);
So that is where you need to look to try and establish why. Either E or er are not valid; but there is no way anyone here can guess which. Also, expressions like er=BA * F * MA.inverse(); do not make it easy. You need to look at BA, F and the result of MA.inverse at the time of the crash.
|
|
|
|
|
This looks weird. I normally use min / max as a "limiter". Are the angles always valid?
if (angle<minangle) minangle=angle;
if (angle>maxangle) maxangle=angle;
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Does C implement the concept of a namespace?
modified 17-Apr-19 5:39am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C does not provide support for namespace like C++. Without Namespace, we cannot declare two variables of the same name.
We can count Namespaces as a
limitation of C programming Langauge.
|
|
|
|
|
You mean you can not have the same name in the same scope.
It is routine to carry the same name such as i, j, count etc but they get restricted to
within a local scope as a local variable in a function or unit.
Not like there should be many but global variables obviously can't have the same name.
In vino veritas
|
|
|
|
|
It is not a limitation. When C was designed there was not thought to be a need for such a feature. But you could still have variables and functions that were limited to specific source modules. And local variables inside functions were hidden from others automatically.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to be clear namespaces should not be considered a limitation or a feature that is used to protect the scope of variables.
Rather it should be considered as a way to protect other entities like classes and methods.
If you have a problem with namespace collision in scopes with variables then you need to refactor your code so variables are not exposed at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Why C is not popular among developers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And what is popular among developers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You, politically incorrect!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Wine, women and song.
<looks around> Where?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
I do like 'C' because my name is Carlo. Richard, for instance, likes more 'R'.
|
|
|
|
|
And i really do like 'M'...
|
|
|
|
|
Of course.
|
|
|
|
|
C is highly portable and simple language. But, because of some limitation of C, it is loosing fame.
The main reason behind is, it doesn't support object-oriented programming features. Means-
Inheritance
Encapsulation
Polymorphism etc.
are not suported by C programming language, that's why C++ is developed.
Even C doesn't perform run time type checking.
modified 16-Apr-19 21:38pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Abhays01 wrote: The main reason behind is, it doesn't support object-oriented programming features
…
Inheritance
Encapsulation
Inheritance (structs inheriting from other structs), and encapsulation (struct name in the H file, and struct implementation in the C file) are certainly possible with C.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
David Crow wrote: struct name in the H file, and struct implementation in the C file
That's not encapsulation, in any sense.
|
|
|
|
|
In object oriented programming languages, encapsulation is used to refer to one of two related but distinct notions, and sometimes to the combination thereof:
- A language mechanism for restricting direct access to some of the object's components.
- A language construct that facilitates the bundling of data with the methods (or other functions) operating on that data.
Opaque structs in C fit at least one of those definitions for abstraction. You could probably make the case that since you'd need to bundle the opaque struct with some subroutines to manipulate it that you're basically writing methods - the only difference is the class keyword and the lack of an implicit *this* pointer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
