|
Sadly, that Generic Error is the ONLY error provided by GDI+, so debugging them can be a nightmare. Good luck.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I am waiting for a child process to complete initialization so that I can get its window
handle
After I do CreateProcess
I use the PROCESS_INFORMATION pi parameter of The CreateProcess to WaitForInputIdle(pi.hProcess,INFINITE);
The Child process goes about its business intitializing in InitInstance returns TRUE
It has a message map
After the return TRUE from InitInstance, the parent breaks from WaitForInputIdle with a
Access Exception
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
What you have detailed is correct and the recommended way to do it
So you therefore have a coding error which can be
(i) The launched process does not have a graphical interface ... must not be a console app which has no queue
(ii) The createprocess startup structure is invalid
If the launched process is yours you can go around the whole problem by using an Interprocess communication method.
If the launched process isn't yours check your code with notepad or something simple which that technique works with.
In vino veritas
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks so much
I see all of the info of the startup structure can be ignored can I memset
The entire structure to NULLs
|
|
|
|
|
The .cb field is the only mandatory field which must be set to sizeof(STARTUPINFO);
You can memset it and then set the .cb field but it's just as easy to zero the variable creation
STARTUPINFO startupInfo = {0};
startupInfo.cb = sizeof(startupInfo);
your suggestion is fine as well
STARTUPINFO startupInfo;
memset(startupinfo, 0, sizeof(startupinfo));
startupInfo.cb = sizeof(startupInfo);
In vino veritas
|
|
|
|
|
Checking my code seems I have already done that
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Everyone,
is it possible to embed WxWidgets Controls in a MFC based application?
In detail, is there a way to use wxWidget Controls inside a MFC Control? specially CView, CFormView or CDockablePane?
My problem:
I have a huge MFC appication with rich GUI features.
I need to extend this application with a feature, that user will be able to display application data by creating his own views.
I could start this task with an approach like this:
XUIFramework: A GUI Framework based on XML and MFC[^]
Actually it would work with some simple MFC controls, but there will be a lot of work to make it more functional.
So my basic idea is, to use wxWidgets because of its rich functionality. But I cannot rewrite the complete application to base it on wxWidgets instead of MFC.
An further advantage of wxWidget would be, that it should be very easy to create a runtime for other systems like linux to run the user's GUI!
I have found in internet a few comments about such an approach. some says, it could be possible. But I have not found anything concrete. If I would have a very basic sample, I could start such a project.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
xx
modified 28-Mar-16 19:50pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I think you are in the wrong forum. These forums deal with programming issues, we are not fans of hacking.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
is it anyhow possible to mix or overlay MFC Controls in OpenGL controlled screen area?
My aim is as follows:
I have 3D animation (like industrial robot visualisation). Nearby 3D objects I want to display object related information (e.g. with a CListBox Control).
I have already a lot of Controls, based on MFC Controls with enhanced functionality. I want to reuse this at top of a 3D scene?
Any ideas, if it is possible or how I should start?
Many Thanks
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Write a simple expression evaluator that takes a string like the following as input: 1+2*(3+4).
-Only integers need to be supported
-The following operators should be supported: +, -, *.
-Expressions within parenthesis should be evaluated first.
-Then the resulting expressions should be evaluated from left to right (no operator precedence)
-Example:
4+(4-(2*3)+1)+4 = 7
The code should be written in such a way to support additional operators.
Assume the existence of a function tokenise, which could take a string and return an array of strings, for instance
tokenise(‘1+(2*3)+4’) would return [‘1’,’+’,’(‘,’2’,’*’,’3’,’)’,’+’,’4’]
and the functions isNumber and asNumber which would return a Boolean and integer respectively on a single string input.
modified 17-Mar-16 14:44pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, and????? 
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't post the same message in multiple forums.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
do i get your degree if i do your homework ?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: do i get your degree if i do your homework ?
I fear he will keep the degree for himself, and even claim tour work is his. 
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
And you tried something or you just want us to do your HomeWork ?
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
We do not do exam questions here. You see, Like it or not, whether you get your degree or diploma, or not, the real test is: 'Can you do the Job.' Degrees and diploma's are there to sort the corn from the chaff. I Myself have no degree in Computer Science, for the simple reason that in the 1970's when I went to university, computers where things that only large government institutions could afford, the cost of each of them involved billions, and no one was allowing students access to expensive things like that. I studied pure mathematics instead. You are damn lucky that you have access to an affordable computer, with a power that is a large number of magnitudes greater than the machines costing billions some 40 odd years ago!
What happened? Did you miss a Semester at College, or what? Also, Is this an exercise in What? It could de C or CPP (My Guess)
Or, if it is MFC, did you write the Interface, and are now stuck for 'Where the Rubber meets the Road'
For you, and, Only for Once, just a bit of a leg up, to do my bit for humanity.
I Suggest you start searching for 'Reverse Polish Notation' (RPN) to at least get you started.
As a Further bit of help, the question does not ask you do the harder part, (writing the Tokeniser)you only have to write code to evaluate it's result. Should not take too much effort.
On pain of being blackballed by fellow members, I remark that you are requested to implement an abstract RPN execution stack.
Success 
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
Bram van Kampen wrote: ...implement an abstract RPN execution stack.
Did this in undergraduate school. Was a fun exercise.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Well Indeed,
The Real Fun and Complication was to build the RPN instruction List in the first place. This OP was not asked to do that.
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
The "official" way to do expression evaluation involves parse trees and reverse Polish notation, but I found a simpler more practical approach: Repeatedly process your list of tokens, making it one step simpler each time by applying a series of rules:
1. If you see the sequence '(', 'number', ')', replace it with just 'number'.
2. For each operator in decreasing precedence, look for the sequence 'number', 'operator', 'number' and replace it with the result of the operation.
If you end up with a single number, that's your answer. Anything else indicates a syntax error in the input expression.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am still struggling on in Silence with Multiple threads, and See working Code break for no apparent reason following minor Edits.
I have read several articles about it, and, if I take all advice to hart, the answer is "You Can't" The Preferred Method of One Expert leads to grave Demise by another.
I am writing a Dialog Based system where a user Logs In, and, perform certain transactions. I am trying to implement a Controlled Log Out (and return to Base) in the absence of User Activity (Mouse Moves, Clicks, Kb Keys Pressed)
In Adittion, when TimeOut comes Close, a Small ProgresBar+ Message Appears , counting Down, only XX Seconds remaining.
I constructed a New Class, CTimedDialog, and a new App Class, CTimedWinApp. The Latter maintains a list of the m_hWnd of the Dialog Stack, and has a Timer, 1 tick per Second. The 'OnInitDialog' of CTimedDialog (This is a Class that sits between CDialog and the Ultimate UserDialog Class)registers the Class with CTimedWinApp. Upon Time-Out, A Registered Message(WM_TIME_OUT) is '::SentMessage'ed from the timer thread,to the hWnd from the Top of the List, following tru to the bottom, giving each dialog the chance to handle the message, and do a Cleanup (if required), and to close the all dialogs, and, so returning to the Base of the initial menu screen.
In adition, as each Dialog 'Knows' it's timeout value, I set up a separate timer in each CTimedDialog, that initially shows a Progress Bar, and a Text Message to display the remaining time. This timer updates the text with SetWindowText(...) and the ProgressControl with SetProgress(...)
Yes, the Progress Controls had their ranges set.
All worked to perfection when I built a Skeleton Application, of essentially blank Dialogs.
Started to fill in Details, Controls, etc, and the App Clock Ticks are no longer recognised.
Question, Do I have a hard to chase Bug, or, do I do something Wrong.
The Core code involved is quite large, too large to publish here, and covers several files.
I can mail the lot to whoever is interested as a ZIP.
As a Bottom line, there are multiple ways to skin a cat. MFC is capable of multithreading, witness the existence of MS-Office
We need to find the Right way of running Multiple threads in MFC from MS. The guidance for now seems to be: don't
Regards,
Regards
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
Bram van Kampen wrote: Upon Time-Out, A Registered Message(WM_TIME_OUT) is '::SentMessage'ed from the timer thread
Don't use SendMessage to send messages from one thread to another. Use PostMessage or SendMessageTimeout instead.
While this probably does not solve your current problem it may avoid future problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Bram van Kampen wrote: Started to fill in Details, Controls, etc, and the App Clock Ticks are no longer recognised.
That seems unlikely, unless you are somehow blocking them or throwing them away somewhere. Where do you handle the actual tick messages?
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
I also consider it Unlikely, but that is what both Concept mistakes and stupid Bugs are made of.
The Tick Messages are sent to the Application. The Application has a List of Structures, consisting of: the hWnd of the Dialog, the Default TimeOut, and the Current Count. Upon every tick the Top Count get decremented, and, when it reaches 0, a Registered Windows Message, WM_REG_TIME_OUT is sent to all Dialogs, in Sequence. The CTimedDialog primitive answers to this by a virtual OnDlgTimeOut(), which by default ends the dialog by OnEndDialog(IDABORT). If the Dialog ends for "Natural" reasons, the EndDialog() of CTimedDialog Pops the reference to the Top Dialog of the list, and resets the Current Count of the new Top Object to it's Default value. I have used a CRITICAL_SECTION where needed, but did not go over the top with belts and braces.
The Time-Out bar on the dialogs is more of a debug feature than anything else. It assures me that the clock is ticking, and that things did not deadlock.
Thanks for giving me the foothold for assuring me that I am not doing something fundamentally wrong,as other books and autors seem to suggest. (NEVER mix a Worker and a GUI Thread) my Concept is at least not wrong in your judgement. I Start looking for a stupid mistake somewhere.
Timed and Activity based actions are notoriously difficult to debug.
Stupid Mistakes, (and I made many in the past 60 odd years), are the most difficult ones to find.
I'll let you know when I discover what went wrong. I also think that when I get it right, that the subject is of sufficient interest to merit an article.
Regards,
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
