...size the dialog box such that the distance between the left edge of the client region and the left edge of the leftmost control is the same as that between the right edge of the rightmost control and the right edge of the client region.
Unless I'm way out in left field, this is what you do via the resource editor. If you have the guides enabled (Format ==> Toggle Guides), then you can drag your leftmost control to the left until it snaps to the left, and drag your rightmost control to the right until it snaps to the right.
If you don't have or want the guides enabled, you can do it manually. For the leftmost control, just drag it until its left edge is at whatever X pos you want, usually 7 DLUs. For the rightmost control, take the sum of the control's width and the guide value (e.g., 7), and subtract that from the from the dialog's width. That is X pos of the control. It sounds way more complicated than it is. Back when I was doing dialog design regularly, I could do it easily. Just get within 10 DLUs visually, and then do the math on the tens place in your head.
Microsoft used to adhere to these guidelines where spacing, DLUs, and such were all explained, but that may have changed.
"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
My problem is that as I write larger and more complicated (C) programs, errors in manual memory management become much harder to find and more catastrophic, particularly if caused by memory corruption.
I'd like to detect any DMA related errors as quickly as possible perhaps only when a debug flag is #defined.
I pass a pointer to a pointer to the create and destroy object functions. Create will fail if a pointer to non NULL memory is passed which prevents doubly allocating.
I am thinking of storing pointers to all allocated objects in a balanced BST, which would enable me to tell if a pointer is valid before free()in it. After Free() I can write NULL to prevent it's use and to prepare it for allocation again.
Any function that wants to check if an object pointer is valid can then call a check of the BST inventory.
Further I was thinking of tagging each entry with a scope of some sort so that I can check for missed Free() as soon as the object is no longer used:
That way I can check at EndScope that all foobar scoped objects were freed.
This would enable me to make objects that were dynamically allocated have a stack based/automatic scope for example, if they are not going to be used after the function exits.
If using scopes for 'automatic' object allocation and nesting them in a stack, an error can be detected if a higher level scope is ended before a lower one.
These mechanisms are all intended to trigger errors as quickly as a problem can be detected and before it worsens. And furthermore to do so with the most minimal burden on the user.
I couldn't find a standard practice because garbage collection does not seem to be the same concept as detecting errors in memory management.
Is this good? Is there a better way of doing it / standard practice?
When you code reaches a certain complexity you have to stop and implement test benches on each unit file .. I take it you are not doing so.
At the moment you are treating the symptoms not the cause.
Put simply your
Should be known to work bug free because it passes your benchtest unit with clear use guideline API
One of the things writing the bench test unit does is makes you stop and think about possible errors because you try to bench test the errors.
Your bench test code should obviously include malloc failing and all memory writes should be checked for size in the benchtest. So put bluntly
your code is failing because you are failing to test properly.
For even larger projects especially if threaded it often becomes necessary to use a MOCK framework to actually cross test the units together.
Typical test frameworks are listed in the C section of List of unit testing frameworks - Wikipedia[^]
The more common ones are CMock, Ceedling and Unity.
Many memory problems come from inherent issue with pointers that lets you copy the reference to an allocated object without restriction, but then doesn't let these references track when someone deletes it. Neither indirection nor garbage collection can solve that. Instead, use smart pointers!
Smart pointers behave for the most part like normal pointers, but they also make sure that the allocated objects get released when they are no longer referenced. And not earlier!
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
My problem is that as I write larger and more complicated (C) programs, errors in manual memory management become much harder to find and more catastrophic, particularly if caused by memory corruption....I couldn't find a standard practice
Err...because you are going at it from the wrong end. You are trying to fix it after it happens rather than stopping it before it occurs.
You do the latter by strict care in your design and implementation.
Create design that strictly specify where allocations occur and where they are cleaned up.
Implement code that follows that and if you allocate something then BEFORE you do anything else implement, strictly, how it is cleaned up.
That also applies to how you use each pointer also. If you are code a piece of code and your are not sure how to use it, whether it is defined or what you can put in it, then you have already done something wrong.
Hi, I'm new to Socket Programming, I don't know how to create a NamedPipe Server and Client Application, Here My requirement is below
1.) Create multithreaded pipe server and pipe Client inter-process sample application VC++/MFC.
2.) Transfer unsigned Char arr dummy bytes to and fro pipe client.
3.) Result display in printf both side.
By using VC++ or MFC Classes,
I have CListCtrl and updating this control with love data using OnTimer(). But i want to select some rows and do furthur actions. But when i select the row, the selected color appears,but moment it updating using OnTimer(), the selected row color become normal. How can i keep the selection row visible always?
(and so on...) in your test.cpp source file.
An altrernative, available only with C++ 17 compliant compilers is to declare such variables inline inside the header file (see, for instance INLINE VARIABLES[^]).