i am reading swift from apple docs and learning about statements. but couldnot find any information about the Line Control Statements.
According to the docs
A line control statement is used to specify a line number and filename
that can be different from the line number and filename of the source
code being compiled. Use a line control statement to change the source
code location used by Swift for diagnostic and debugging purposes.
A line control statement has the following forms:
#sourceLocation(file: filename, line: line number)
#sourceLocation()
My question is when should i use it? The docs lags an example about the topic.Any links or some hints would be helpful.
This isn't the sort of thing you'd ever need as a beginner, and you could probably go through an entire career without using it. It seems to be meant for use in tools that generate source code. See the comments in the original feature proposal for the complete story.
TL/DR: Don't worry about it, you'll never need it.
Related
I just started using Atom for LaTeX, and i use a lot of snippets to make my life easier.
Now, this often means that i will "nest" snippets, meaning i might use a snippet for a fraction ...
\frac{$1}{$2} $0
... and then insert another snippet inside of this one, e.g.
\sqrt{$1} $0
Now, i have an issue where the pointers "break" when nesting the snippets. So, when i insert the square root snippet into the fraction snippet, the function to tab into the next pointer continues for the squareroot snippet, but breaks for the fraction snippet.
Is there a way to circumvent this?
Thanks :)
As of December 2018... this has been an issue for a while now. Atom's snippets package doesn't do well when trying to insert a snippet with tab stops into another snippet with tab stops. You can view the issue here:
https://github.com/atom/snippets/issues/152
Also, there has been a pull request to fix the issue, but it hasn't been merged into the master branch... and it's quite old and because of that, the patch has some file conflicts so you can't just apply the patch without resolving those conflicts. You can view that pull request here:
https://github.com/atom/snippets/pull/192
This may be fixed in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Your best bet for fixing this issue is to either fork the snippets package and create your own that works as expected or to try to use the code here to patch your local copy of the snippets package
After googling a bit it seems there is no multi-line comment support in Erlang, is this really the case?
And if so, why?
I know some editors support commenting out regions (adding % first on every line of the region) but i don't really want to pick editor based on this.
It's simple. Use preprocessor:
-ifdef(comment).
Something to comment
You can add text or
function(Declaration) ->
...
Which will removed from file
-endif.
There are no multi-line comments in Erlang.
In general, I haven't found this to be a big deal: I use templates for gen_server and supervisor and a general template for other modules, and all of these include the boilerplate top doc blocks. I get some template support from my editor (Emacs) but you could be editor-agnostic and just write some templates and copy them to any new modules you want.
The biggest use of multi-line comments other than documentation is to comment-out a big chunk of code. Since your Erlang code should generally be small functions, you can just comment out the function call, which is a one-line comment.
I have an application and posted to Cydia recently. It has been cracked by someone else and posted it in torrent sites. I have a binary checksum verification mechanism inside and they were able to create a new checksum file based on the changes they have made to the binary. They have edited two functions and decompiled it and posted it to torrents.
I saw that it's possible to see the actual implementation of functions and classes. But in order to edit the functions they have to find the address of that function and edit it via HEX EDITOR. I don’t want to make it "unhackable", but I really want to find out how they hack.
How can I edit a function in an iOS binary and re-compile it? For example I have a following method in one of my classes.
- (id) getSomething {
return #"Something";
}
I want to edit the return value of this function. Is that possible?
Usually, you don't "re-compile" it. Just feed the file to IDA, look for strings, function calls or whatever you are looking for and then use a hex editor or similar to edit the file on assembly level. In most cases it's enough to simply change a conditional jump into an unconditional jump or a nop (no operation). If you want to change return values, you have to put a little more effort into it, but in my experience you either edit the char sequence right inside the binary file, if it's specified as a constant or initial value - or you just write a completely new function and "copy" the assembler code of it into the original file. You just have to make sure your new function does not take more space than the original - or everything's getting a lot more complex.
I hope that's what you were asking for, otherwise just tell us which app you are talking about and we can look deeper into it :)
Could someone provide a simple example using getopt.pas with short and long command line switches use case?
Getopt.pas is a delphi unit for parsing command line switches.
I've found more than one version of it.
from fpc http://www.koders.com/delphi/fid428067C2ABEF87A674F64BF48FD6E2278E322A18.aspx
The following is another SO question regarding this subject but no example is given; beside it this links to a source that alike the previous links is not self-contained
Is there an implementation of "getopt" for Delphi?
Here is a demo of the GPC code that you link to: getoptdemo.pas [koders.com]
I am trying to create a code coverage tool using Delphi 2007.
My general approach is to use the Win32 Debug API to insert breakpoints for each source line and then remove the breakpoints as I pass them - thus I would be able to track each executed source line.
Outline of my approach:
parse the detailed MAP file (as generated by Delphi 2007) to find all the addresses for each source line (only for .text segments)
open the application in debug mode using the OpenProcess API call
iterate over each source line and insert an Int3 instruction (one $cc byte using WriteProcessMemory + FlushInstructionCache) at the address of each line
continue executing and as each breakpoint is triggered, remove the corresponding breakpoint and mark the line as covered
After either each breakpoint is passed or program exists I generate a report on what lines were covered and which lines were not for each source module
Now on to my question:
Is each source line address in a detailed MAP file a valid address to insert an Int3 breakpoint?
While the approach was successful for some simple units, I run in to access violations for some larger applications where the violated address includes a $cc - which would lead me to think that my approach needs some modification to work.
Hints on better approaches also very welcome!
Well, in theory: yes. And practical, I think yes too. If Delphi can place a breakpoint on every line, so can you :-).
Probably you need some specific handling for some case (for example: first line of a procedure is initialization of local vars, setting EBP etc).
So can you find out in which case it fails?
Btw: nice project! Is it open source?
P.S. if you need some assembly code handling: look at koldetours.pas (use google search).