help2002

It's UWAweek 47

help2002

This forum is provided to promote discussion amongst students enrolled in CITS2002 Systems Programming.
Please consider offering answers and suggestions to help other students! And if you fix a problem by following a suggestion here, it would be great if other interested students could see a short "Great, fixed it!" followup message.

Displaying the 6 articles in this topic

Showing 6 of 828 articles.
Currently 105 other people reading this forum.

UWA week 42 (2nd semester, week 12) ↓

2nd project Memory struct and output verification (all 6)

4:16pm Tue 15th Oct, Anthony S.

Hi, I know the memory struct given to us is an unnamed struct but is it okay if we make a new type called struct memory? This is how I have defined my struct: struct memory { int process_id; int page_num; int last_accessed; }; Also can you verify this output: in.txt 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 3 2 out.txt 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 99, 99, 99, 99, 5, 99, 99, 99, 6, 99, 0,0,5; 0,0,5; 0,1,6; 0,1,6; 0,2,10; 0,2,10; 0,3,3; 0,3,3; 1,0,4; 1,0,4; 2,2,14; 2,2,14; 3,2,13; 3,2,13; 1,1,9; 1,1,9;

2nd project Memory struct and output verification (all 6)

4:23pm Tue 15th Oct, ANONYMOUS

"Anthony Stewart" <24*0*5*9@s*u*e*t*u*a*e*u*a*> wrote:

> Hi, I know the memory struct given to us is an unnamed struct but is it okay if we make a new type called struct memory? > This is how I have defined my struct: > > struct memory { > int process_id; > int page_num; > int last_accessed; > }; > > Also can you verify this output: > > in.txt > 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 3 2 > > out.txt > 0, 1, 2, 3, > 4, 7, 99, 99, > 99, 99, 5, 99, > 99, 99, 6, 99, > 0,0,5; 0,0,5; 0,1,6; 0,1,6; 0,2,10; 0,2,10; 0,3,3; 0,3,3; 1,0,4; 1,0,4; 2,2,14; 2,2,14; 3,2,13; 3,2,13; 1,1,9; 1,1,9;

I got the same output, so it's probably correct. In case anyone is looking at this later and wants to know the output for not allowing process pages to be read more than once, the output should be something like this: 0, 1, 2, 3 4, 7, 99, 99 99, 99, 5, 99 99, 99, 6, 99 0,0,0; 0,0,0; 0,1,1; 0,1,1; 0,2,2; 0,2,2; 0,3,3; 0,3,3; 1,0,4; 1,0,4; 2,2,14; 2,2,14; 3,2,13; 3,2,13; 1,1,9; 1,1,9

2nd project Memory struct and output verification (all 6)

4:39pm Tue 15th Oct, Joshua N.

Both are correct. The struct you make doesn't need to be exactly the same.

2nd project Memory struct and output verification (all 6)

1:16pm Wed 16th Oct, ANONYMOUS

Are you assuming time stamp increases when you ignore a page? Our output is: 0, 1, 2, 3 4, 7, 99, 99 99, 99, 5, 99 99, 99, 6, 99 0,0,0; 0,0,0; 0,1,1; 0,1,1; 0,2,2; 0,2,2; 0,3,3; 0,3,3; 1,0,4; 1,0,4; 2,2,11; 2,2,11; 3,2,10; 3,2,10; 1,1,7; 1,1,7; Cheers

2nd project Memory struct and output verification (all 6)

1:32pm Wed 16th Oct, ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS wrote:

> Are you assuming time stamp increases when you ignore a page? Our output is: > > 0, 1, 2, 3 > 4, 7, 99, 99 > 99, 99, 5, 99 > 99, 99, 6, 99 > > > 0,0,0; 0,0,0; 0,1,1; 0,1,1; 0,2,2; 0,2,2; 0,3,3; 0,3,3; 1,0,4; 1,0,4; 2,2,11; 2,2,11; 3,2,10; 3,2,10; 1,1,7; 1,1,7;

You are correct on that, yes. By not incrementing the time that is the expected output - you should list that as one of your assumptions though, just in case.

2nd project Memory struct and output verification (all 6)

8:05pm Wed 16th Oct, Joshua N.

ANONYMOUS wrote:

You are right the time stamp shouldn't increase when you ignore a page I got mixed up with the reloading.