Subject: Melt fat / 1lb per day

From: Oz Reporting <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:38:59 -0700

Doc Oz Blog: 2014/July/9
post - 07-10-2014 07:27:48
-------------------

You dont want to exercise, you dont have to count calories ... 

But you still want to drop 20-lbs?

=======================================================
Doc Oz is showing you how to do it from the Couch
=======================================================

http://www.vuggame.com/oz/blog/video/post.shtml
-episode (July) #758

- Doc Oz Team

Give us your comments: http://www.vuggame.com/oz/blog/video/post.shtml

To stop further notifications - visit http://www.vuggame.com/35yg/46uw.4t459 or write to  Updated Notifications Services
one one five Hadley Way Counce, TN 38326

'
'
'
'
'
'
References can take up memory, just as pointers do. For example, if you have a member variable of a class which is a reference, then every instance of the class will have memory allocated for that reference. In some cases, a compiler can optimize away the need to allocate memory for a reference; and there's no nice way to get the machine, the reference is implemented with a pointer. Output: Size of class: 8 Value of ref before hack: 1 Value Number 2 is not true. A references is not simply "another name for the same variable." References may be passed to functions, stored in classes, etc. in a manner very similar to pointers. They exist independently from the Brian, referring to point 2, do you know of any compiler that actually does this? It is implementation-dependent, but references are typically implemented with pointers.   Derek Park Sep 18 '08 at how the internal structure of a reference is implemented doesn't matter. What matters is that the address of the reference is the same
  as the address of the variable itself. Therefore they can be used interchangeably.   Nick you could use the same argument as your link to say that pointers are implemented as pointers to pointers but you didn't mention it. int x = 0; int y = 0; int p = &x; *(int*)(&p) = &y; Because it doesn't matter.   I verified by the way that a reference does take up some space on the stack, I modified my #3 to include this Brian, the stack is not relevant. References and pointers do not have to take space on the stack. They can both Derek please see my previous post, I don't think you read it or you didn't read it carefully enough... "Derek a pointer is a variable just like any other one. On an x86 system it is 4 bytes. These 4 bytes are on the stack. I Brian, the fact that a variable (in this case a pointer or reference) requires space does not mean it requires space on the stack. Pointers and references may not only point to the heap, they may actually be allocated on the heap.   Derek Park S
 ep 19 '08 at 15:26