new code

[jakesmith]

Type of change:

• This change is a bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• This change is a new feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• This change improves the code (refactor or other change that does not change the functionality)
• This change fixes warnings (the fix does not alter the functionality or the generated code)
• This change is a breaking change (fix or feature that will cause existing behavior to change).
• This change alters the query API (existing queries will have to be recompiled)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
  • My code does not create any new warnings from compiler, build system, or lint.
• The commit message is properly formatted and free of typos.
  • The commit message title makes sense in a changelog, by itself.
  • The commit is signed.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly, or...
  • I have created a JIRA ticket to update the documentation.
  • Any new interfaces or exported functions are appropriately commented.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTORS document.
• The change has been fully tested:
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
  • I have checked that this change does not introduce memory leaks.
  • I have used Valgrind or similar tools to check for potential issues.
• I have given due consideration to all of the following potential concerns:
  • Scalability
  • Performance
  • Security
  • Thread-safety
  • Cloud-compatibility
  • Premature optimization
  • Existing deployed queries will not be broken
  • This change fixes the problem, not just the symptom
  • The target branch of this pull request is appropriate for such a change.
• There are no similar instances of the same problem that should be addressed
  • I have addressed them here
  • I have raised JIRA issues to address them separately
• This is a user interface / front-end modification
  • I have tested my changes in multiple modern browsers
  • The component(s) render as expected

Smoketest:

• Send notifications about my Pull Request position in Smoketest queue.
• Test my draft Pull Request.

Testing:

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces example code into daliadmin.cpp that dynamically allocates an unsigned integer, performs two summation loops, and prints results.

• Adds dynamic allocation and initialization of myvariablename
• Implements two summation loops (linear and nested) and prints results
• Does not clean up allocated memory

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

dali/daliadmin/daliadmin.cpp:151

• [nitpick] The variable name myvariablename is ambiguous and doesn’t follow camelCase conventions. Consider a clearer name like maxIterations or limit.

    unsigned *myvariablename = new unsigned;

[Copilot]

This dynamically allocated unsigned is never freed, causing a memory leak. Consider using a stack variable or managing its lifetime to ensure delete is called.

Suggested change

	unsigned *myvariablename = new unsigned;
	*myvariablename = 10000;
	printf("%d\n", *myvariablename);
	unsigned __int64 sum = 0;
	// sum up all the numbers from 0 to 9999
	for (unsigned x=0; x<*myvariablename; x++)
	{
	sum += x;
	}
	printf("%llu\n", sum);
	sum = 0;
	// sum up all the numbers from 0 to 9999 N times
	for (unsigned x=0; x<*myvariablename; x++)
	{
	for (unsigned y=0; y<*myvariablename; y++)
	unsigned myvariablename;
	myvariablename = 10000;
	printf("%d\n", myvariablename);
	unsigned __int64 sum = 0;
	// sum up all the numbers from 0 to 9999
	for (unsigned x=0; x<myvariablename; x++)
	{
	sum += x;
	}
	printf("%llu\n", sum);
	sum = 0;
	// sum up all the numbers from 0 to 9999 N times
	for (unsigned x=0; x<myvariablename; x++)
	{
	for (unsigned y=0; y<myvariablename; y++)

[Copilot]

[nitpick] Instead of dynamically allocating a single unsigned, declare it as a local variable (e.g., unsigned myVariableName = 10000;).

Suggested change

	unsigned *myvariablename = new unsigned;
	*myvariablename = 10000;
	printf("%d\n", *myvariablename);
	unsigned __int64 sum = 0;
	// sum up all the numbers from 0 to 9999
	for (unsigned x=0; x<*myvariablename; x++)
	{
	sum += x;
	}
	printf("%llu\n", sum);
	sum = 0;
	// sum up all the numbers from 0 to 9999 N times
	for (unsigned x=0; x<*myvariablename; x++)
	{
	for (unsigned y=0; y<*myvariablename; y++)
	unsigned myvariablename = 10000;
	printf("%d\n", myvariablename);
	unsigned __int64 sum = 0;
	// sum up all the numbers from 0 to 9999
	for (unsigned x=0; x<myvariablename; x++)
	{
	sum += x;
	}
	printf("%llu\n", sum);
	sum = 0;
	// sum up all the numbers from 0 to 9999 N times
	for (unsigned x=0; x<myvariablename; x++)
	{
	for (unsigned y=0; y<myvariablename; y++)

[Copilot]

The format specifier %d is for signed integers; for an unsigned value use %u to ensure correct output and defined behavior.

Suggested change

	printf("%d\n", *myvariablename);
	printf("%u\n", *myvariablename);

[Copilot]

Using %llu assumes unsigned long long; for portability with unsigned __int64, consider using the PRIu64 macro or matching the exact type’s specifier.

[Copilot]

This nested loop results in O(n²) complexity and may impact performance for large values. Consider whether the double summation is necessary or can be optimized.

Suggested change

	for (unsigned x=0; x<*myvariablename; x++)
	{
	for (unsigned y=0; y<*myvariablename; y++)
	{
	// nested loop
	sum += x;
	}
	}
	printf("%llu\n", sum);
	// Calculate the sum directly using a mathematical formula
	sum = *myvariablename * ((*myvariablename - 1) * *myvariablename / 2);
	// The formula computes the sum of x repeated *myvariablename times for all x from 0 to *myvariablename - 1
	printf("%llu\n", sum);
	printf("%llu\n", sum);