Hi All!
SerializeToString is used for translate PB object to std::string, but i
want to use this string assign to another PB object's colum.
I cannot to do it.
a.proto
message A
{
required string user = 1;
}
b.proto
message B
{
required int counts = 1;
}
So, B.SerializeToString(
Hi,
My problem:
I am working on a Java application which is using protocol buffers to
communicate with an application written in C++. I've met some
challenges at the Java end, because I do not have the opportunity to
compile the .proto files into my Java app.
At the C++ end we did not encounter a
I have a bizarre and not very reproducible segfault / core dump, that
happens when my program exits.
Here is the stack trace:
#0 0xf7becf99 in __gnu_cxx::__exchange_and_add () from
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
#1 0xf7f1d7f0 in __gnu_cxx::hashtable, std::string,
google::protobuf::hash, std::_Select1s
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:11, SuKai wrote:
>
> Hi All!
>
> SerializeToString is used for translate PB object to std::string, but i
> want to use this string assign to another PB object's colum.
>
> I cannot to do it.
What exactly does not work ? What do you try to do and what do you
expect but
Hi,
This is my build script to cross compile protobuf 2.2.0:
#!/bin/sh
FLAGS="--disable-shared --disable-crypto-auth --without-gnutls --
without-ssl --without-zlib \
--without-libssh2 --disable-ipv6 --disable-manual --disable-telnet
--disable-tftp \
--disable-ldap --disa
There is no .proto parser in Java. However, you can use protoc's
--descriptor_set_out flag to generate a FileDescriptorProto representing the
file (or use FileDescriptor::CopyTo() in C++). This is a protocol buffer
representation of everything defined in the .proto. In Java, you can then:
1) Par
First, change A.user to have the type "bytes" instead of "string".
Then do this:
b.SerializeToString(a.mutable_user());
But why not declare "user" to be of type A instead? Like:
message A {
required B user = 1;
}
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:11 AM, SuKai wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> SerializeToString
When you compile a program against libprotobuf, you need to use pkg-config
to find out what additional cflags and libs are necessary. Example:
g++ -c my_prog.cc `pkg-config --cflags protobuf`
g++ -o my_prog my_prog.o `pkg-config --libs protobuf`
Your specific problem is probably that you are
It looks like you are calling exit() from a signal handler. Lots of stuff
is not safe to do in signal handlers. You should perhaps use _exit()
instead to bypass destruction of global variables.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:04 AM, edan wrote:
> I have a bizarre and not very reproducible segfault /
Hmm... not sure if my last msg got eaten or not, but the issue was
specifying '-pthread' instead of '-lpthread'. Not sure why the
protobuf requires this when nothing else does... but regardless,
thanks for the pointer to pkg-config... it helped solve the problem
for me! :)
Thanks again!
-Rob
It seems there's some ambiguity as to whether -pthread implies -lpthread.
Are you able to compile and run the tests?
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Rob wrote:
>
> Hmm... not sure if my last msg got eaten or not, but the issue was
> specifying '-pthread' instead of '-lpthread'. Not sure why
Your first 3 minutes are FREE talking live with me.
Please visit my website at: http://keen.com/Ask+Fran
Or, call me right now at: 1-800-275-5336 x0160
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>From your output, it appears that the tests are, in fact, crashing mid-run
(hence "Abort"). You may want to run in a debugger and find out what is
happening.
But what I was expecting was that you wouldn't be able to compile the test
in the first place due to the -pthread/-lpthread issue. I'm pre
Hi Kenton,
I've crosscompiled the tests and ran them on the target board, here are the
results... everything appears to have passed! I'm assuming some of those
tests verify the threading (pthreads)? Is there anything else I should run?
-Rob
root:~>
> ./protobuf-lite-test
> PASS
>
And...
>
Oh, I didn't even see the 'Abort'. It must be related to the uClinux's lack
of 'fork()'. Maybe use 'vfork()' as a drop in replacement?
http://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/doku.php?id=living_without_forks
Would you recommend sticking to the 'lite' interface? That test actually
passed!
On Wed, Oct
I just wanted to clarify to anyone who runs into this - I had to use '-
pthread' because '-lpthread' did not work (linker flags) for my target
(blackfin).
On Oct 21, 12:29 pm, Rob wrote:
> Hmm... not sure if my last msg got eaten or not, but the issue was
> specifying '-pthread' instead of '-lpt
The lite test does not actually test all the features of the lite runtime.
It only tests that the lite runtime works stand-alone. The full tests
verify other features (many of which are shared between the two
implementations). So you want to run the full tests.
The problem you seem to have is ac
Because A_instance.user stored with different type of PB.
Fill A_instance.user with B, C, or D , these are diff PB objects.
ok, i will try the follw method.
Thanks!
Kenton Varda 写道:
> First, change A.user to have the type "bytes" instead of "string".
>
> Then do this:
>
> b.SerializeToString(a
I will try .
Instead of string with bytes.
This PBs are RW may be on different language(C++ / Java/ Python).
Henner Zeller 写道:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:11, SuKai wrote:
>
>> Hi All!
>>
>> SerializeToString is used for translate PB object to std::string, but i
>> want to use this string
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:04 PM, SuKai wrote:
> Because A_instance.user stored with different type of PB.
>
> Fill A_instance.user with B, C, or D , these are diff PB objects.
>
Then you should have three different fields:
message A {
optional B user_b = 1;
optional C user_c = 2;
optional
I release this proto at R1:
message A {
optional B user_b = 1;
optional C user_c = 2;
optional D user_d = 3;
}
but if I find some fault with this proto or extend this proto at R2:
message A {
optional B user_b = 1;
optional C user_c = 2;
optional E user_d = 3;
optional F user_e = 4;
}
So , I wan
I don't quite understand your question. It's safe to add new fields to a
protocol buffer.
If you want to store all the values as one unit -- for instance, so that old
releases that don't know about new fields still know that the fields
represent the same "column" -- you could always wrap them in a
I want to define my protocol with PB.
So, first I define the protocol head.
message head
{
requirement int command = 1;
requeirment string mask = 2;
... and so on.
optional Module_A ma = 10;
optional Module_B mb = 11;
... and so on.
}
message Module_A
{
...
}
message
Now , I wrote like this.
message head
{
requirement int command = 1;
requeirment string mask = 2;
... and so on.
optional bytes module = 10;
}
All these module PB objects SerializeToString() into head_instance's
module column.
It is ok , between C++ and Python.
SuKai 写道:
> I wan
I can try that - I actually thought exit() was safe to call from a signal
handler - thanks for opening my eyes.
But the interesting thing is that I can also see that my program was not in
the middle of any protobuf-related stuff when it was interrupted by the
signal handler - it was in a sleep. Th
25 matches
Mail list logo
