Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am writing a numerical program using C++, I need to run some lines of my code in parallel. Also, I need to lock some parameters during calculation to keep them safe from unwanted changes.
I do not have a strong background in Concurrency and parallelism.
I need to know what is the simplest parallelization method in Microsoft VS 2019 considering these requirements?
I am looking forward MS solutions and of course I am not mean Open MPI.
It helps more if you provide some examples.
Thank you very much.
You might want to look into use of /Qpar flag for compiler and #pragma loop. There is online documentation on that.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I recently came across PVS Studio. I would like to know how PVS Studio is different from SonarQube. I see that, both tools perform static code analysis. I am trying to understand which is the best tool to opt for.
Any insights are helpful.
Best Regards
Gowtham
You will certainly get additional advantage when using PVS-Studio together with SonarQube. We do not have a direct comparison between the analyzers, but you can look at this article: "Analysis of PascalABC.NET using SonarQube plugins: SonarC# and PVS-Studio". The thing is, SonarQube is a code quality assurance platform, and it is not primarily orientated at finding errors. In general, it looks for "code smells". For example, a file does not start with a comment block. This is not an error in itself. PVS-Studio is orientated toward finding the 'direct' errors.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 months ago.
Improve this question
What is the difference between both programs besides that one is used for cheating at games and the other is a debugger? I know that Cheat Engine is a memory editor. But what does Ollydbg do exactly; does it only edit .exe files?
CE it's focused on memory editing and analisys, Olly can do the same as CE but its focus is code analysis and patching, there is tasks that you can use both, a case is that CE can easily find a portion of code that changes memory (Olly can do it too but CE makes it very easy) and than you can modify the code with olly.
OllyDbg is a 32-bit assembler level analyzing debugger with a lot of tools Emphasizing on binary code analysis makes it particularly useful in cases
where source is unavailable.
but cheat engine is simple and user friendly app designed
for easier searching in memory and making simple scripts for trainers.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I've googled for a while and the only useful infos are:
github.com/barnex/cuda5
mumax.github.io/
Unfortunately, the latest Arch Linux only provides CUDA 7.5 package, so the barnex's project may be not supported.
Arne Vansteenkiste recommends concurrency rather than pure Golang or Golang plus CUDA. What's more, there's someone says the same idea that "Wouldn't it be cool to start a goroutine on a GPU and communicate with it via channels?". I think both of these ideas are wonderful since I would like to change the existing code as little as possible instead of refactoring the whole program. Is the idea possible, or is there some documents introducing this topic in details?
Update
It seems that there's two bindings to HPC in Golang:
CUDA (< 6.0): github.com/barnex/cuda5
OpenCL: github.com/rainliu/gocl
Both of them are less documented, currently what I got is only Macro13's answer, very helpful, but it's more about java . So please help me some detailed materials in Golang. Thanks!
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm testing the Visual Studio 2013. The intellisense is awesome and helps you a lot, but I'm noticing it slows down a lot my computer. When I write in the IDE, it goes like slow...
Is any option to just show the autocomplete when I press a hotkey? Thanks
See Modifying IntelliSense Options. You want "Tools"->"Options"->"Text Editor"->(choose language or All Languages)->uncheck "Auto list members". You can still get statement completion with ctrl-j.
You may also want to read Productivity Tips for Visual Studio.
[The downvotes might be due to people not realizing that asking about software tools commonly used by programmers is in scope for this forum: What topics can I ask about here?.]
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
All,
I am proposing the addition of code obfuscation to the standard build process at my organization. One of the questions being asked is whether there is a performance hit to running obfuscated code vs. running unobfuscated code.
What is your experience? Have you seen a reduction in performance at runtime because you obfuscated your Java or C# code?
Thanks,
VI
It depends on how you are obfuscating it. If you use one of the tools that replaces all the names of objets and functions, then there should be no change at all. The compilers don't care what you call anything, whether it's useful to a developer (fetchProjects()) or just (funcA()).
You may wish to read about my over-obfuscation experiments: Impact of Flow Obfuscation on Performance.