What's the Opposite of Od(1)

What's the opposite of od(1)?

Use:

% xxd -r -p in.txt out.bin

Hexdump reverse command

There is a similar tool called xxd. If you run xxd with just a file name it dumps the data in a fairly standard hex dump format:

# xxd bdata
0000000: 0001 0203 0405
......

Now if you pipe the output back to xxd with the -r option and redirect that to a new file, you can convert the hex dump back to binary:

# xxd bdata | xxd -r >bdata2
# cmp bdata bdata2
# xxd bdata2
0000000: 0001 0203 0405

Should I use != or for not equal in T-SQL?

Technically they function the same if you’re using SQL Server AKA T-SQL. If you're using it in stored procedures there is no performance reason to use one over the other. It then comes down to personal preference. I prefer to use <> as it is ANSI compliant.

You can find links to the various ANSI standards at...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL

In C/C++ what's the simplest way to reverse the order of bits in a byte?

If you are talking about a single byte, a table-lookup is probably the best bet, unless for some reason you don't have 256 bytes available.

CSS Units - What is the difference between vh/vw and %?

100% can be 100% of the height of anything. For example, if I have a parent div that's 1000px tall, and a child div that is at 100% height, then that child div could theoretically be much taller than the height of the viewport, or much smaller than the height of the viewport, even though that div is set at 100% height.

If I instead make that child div set at 100vh, then it'll only fill up 100% of the height of the viewport, and not necessarily the parent div.

body,html {    height: 100%;}
.parent {    background: lightblue;    float: left;    height: 200px;    padding: 10px;    width: 50px;}
.child {    background: pink;    height: 100%;    width: 100%;}
.viewport-height {    background: gray;    float: right;    height: 100vh;    width: 50px;}

<div class="parent">    <div class="child">        100% height        (parent is 200px)    </div></div>
<div class="viewport-height">    100vh height</div>

Regular cast vs. static_cast vs. dynamic_cast

static_cast

static_cast is used for cases where you basically want to reverse an implicit conversion, with a few restrictions and additions. static_cast performs no runtime checks. This should be used if you know that you refer to an object of a specific type, and thus a check would be unnecessary. Example:

void func(void *data) {
  // Conversion from MyClass* -> void* is implicit
  MyClass *c = static_cast<MyClass*>(data);
  ...
}

int main() {
  MyClass c;
  start_thread(&func, &c)  // func(&c) will be called
      .join();
}

In this example, you know that you passed a MyClass object, and thus there isn't any need for a runtime check to ensure this.

dynamic_cast

dynamic_cast is useful when you don't know what the dynamic type of the object is. It returns a null pointer if the object referred to doesn't contain the type casted to as a base class (when you cast to a reference, a bad_cast exception is thrown in that case).

if (JumpStm *j = dynamic_cast<JumpStm*>(&stm)) {
  ...
} else if (ExprStm *e = dynamic_cast<ExprStm*>(&stm)) {
  ...
}

You can not use dynamic_cast for downcast (casting to a derived class) if the argument type is not polymorphic. For example, the following code is not valid, because Base doesn't contain any virtual function:

struct Base { };
struct Derived : Base { };
int main() {
  Derived d; Base *b = &d;
  dynamic_cast<Derived*>(b); // Invalid
}

An "up-cast" (cast to the base class) is always valid with both static_cast and dynamic_cast, and also without any cast, as an "up-cast" is an implicit conversion (assuming the base class is accessible, i.e. it's a public inheritance).

Regular Cast

These casts are also called C-style cast. A C-style cast is basically identical to trying out a range of sequences of C++ casts, and taking the first C++ cast that works, without ever considering dynamic_cast. Needless to say, this is much more powerful as it combines all of const_cast, static_cast and reinterpret_cast, but it's also unsafe, because it does not use dynamic_cast.

In addition, C-style casts not only allow you to do this, but they also allow you to safely cast to a private base-class, while the "equivalent" static_cast sequence would give you a compile-time error for that.

Some people prefer C-style casts because of their brevity. I use them for numeric casts only, and use the appropriate C++ casts when user defined types are involved, as they provide stricter checking.

---

Related Topics