|
includeh10 wrote:
u want to CreateFile("c:" ,...) ?
i think the function can not be used in this way according to VC help.
Sure it can. Read the Disk Devices section. The format is:
CreateFile("\\.\C:", ...);
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
|
|
|
|
|
I know how to open drives using createfile, it surely is possible.
What i want to know is how can i open the same drive in read mode when another program is already having that opened in write mode?
|
|
|
|
|
Since you did not actually post your code, I am guessing that maybe you did not set the sharing permissions correctly?
Your program opening for read must allow at least sharing in open for writing so other program can open the file for writing.
Likewise, the progrma opening the file for writing must allow at least sharing for read, so the program opening for reading can open the file.
At least look into the sharing permissions and try again.
|
|
|
|
|
How do i programmatically create a system restore point and then later restore from that point on
C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a bunch 
looked all around couldn't find em
C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg
|
|
|
|
|
Hello! Dear friends, I need some help at creating service which will work with serial ports (read information from COM1, save it on HD & write to COM2). If somebody have any sources or any information on this topic, I`ll be glad to any opinions & advises.
Thank you!
Best regards, ILIA.
|
|
|
|
|
Reading and writing to a serial port is the same as reading and writing to a file. Instead of using a file name you use COM1: for reading and COM2: when writing.
Look here at MSDN[^]
Ant.
I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Walliams (Little Britain)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I need to know if there is a better way to swap variables values in assembly code. I have a thread that sort some variables and I wanted to make it as fast as possible. Also, I wanted to do it in assembly code just to learn a little about it. It is my first attempt in assembly code so apologize for mistakes. If you know how to do it in a better way, let me know! The code you see below works great but I'm sure we can do that in a more "fancy" way.
This how I call the function :
UltraSwap( &Var1, &Var2 );
Then this is the function in assembly code :
#pragma warning (disable:4035) // disable warning 4035 (function must return something)<br />
<br />
_inline PVOID UltraSwap( LONG* a, LONG* b ) <br />
{ <br />
LONG x = *a;<br />
LONG y = *b;<br />
__asm mov eax, x<br />
__asm mov ebx, y<br />
__asm mov x, ebx<br />
__asm mov y, eax<br />
<br />
*a = x;<br />
*b = y;<br />
}<br />
<br />
#pragma warning (default:4035) // Reenable it
The only thing I don't understand is that I can't move *x or *y into eax and ebx respectively. I had to declare two local variables to achieve that. I think that just declaring that will take some times. I didn't tested what's the difference in time between swapping two variables in C++ code and in assembly because I didn't know how to, since GetTickCount() isn't too much reliable and not so much fast.
Let me know if you guys find something!
Have a nice day!
Stef
Progamming looks like taking drugs...
I think I did an overdose. 
|
|
|
|
|
Stephan Poirier wrote:
_inline PVOID UltraSwap( LONG* a, LONG* b )
{
LONG x = *a;
LONG y = *b;
__asm mov eax, x
__asm mov ebx, y
__asm mov x, ebx
__asm mov y, eax
*a = x;
*b = y;
}
Can the local variable be avoided like this ?
_inline PVOID UltraSwap( LONG* a, LONG* b )
{
__asm mov eax, dword ptr [a]
__asm mov ebx, dword ptr [b]
__asm mov dword ptr [a], ebx
__asm mov dword ptr [b], eax
}
suhredayan
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
|
|
how about
__asm mov eax, x<br />
__asm mov x, y<br />
__asm mov y, eax ?
For swapping only three variables/memory places are needed.
Hope this helps.
"If I don't see you in this world, I'll see you in the next one... and don't be late." ~ Jimi Hendrix
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote:
__asm mov x, y
That is not a valid assembly language statement. You always require a register for mov instruction AFAMK.
suhredayan
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
|
|
you have to go through the registries? I forgot (it was a long time  )
"If I don't see you in this world, I'll see you in the next one... and don't be late." ~ Jimi Hendrix
|
|
|
|
|
if you are only concerned about speed, there is no need for the assembly in this case:
<br />
inline void UltraSwap( LONG* a, LONG* b )<br />
{<br />
LONG x = *a;<br />
LONG y = *b;<br />
__asm mov eax, x<br />
__asm mov ebx, y<br />
__asm mov x, ebx<br />
__asm mov y, eax<br />
<br />
*a = x;<br />
*b = y;<br />
}<br />
<br />
inline void UltraSwap2( LONG* a, LONG* b )<br />
{<br />
LONG t = *b;<br />
<br />
*b = *a;<br />
*a = t; <br />
}<br />
<br />
inline void UltraSwap3( LONG* a, LONG* b )<br />
{<br />
*b ^= *a ^= *b ^= *a;<br />
}<br />
of these three methods UltraSwap2 is simplest and fastest (almost twice as UltraSwap) and
UltraSwap3 is approx. same as UltraSwap.
|
|
|
|
|
Zdeslav Vojkovic wrote:
of these three methods UltraSwap2 is simplest and fastest
Following is the assembly code for the UltraSwap2(),
LONG t = *b;
004137CE mov eax,dword ptr [b]
004137D1 mov ecx,dword ptr [eax]
004137D3 mov dword ptr [t],ecx
*b = *a;
004137D6 mov eax,dword ptr [b]
004137D9 mov ecx,dword ptr [a]
004137DC mov edx,dword ptr [ecx]
004137DE mov dword ptr [eax],edx
*a = t;
004137E0 mov eax,dword ptr [a]
004137E3 mov ecx,dword ptr [t]
004137E6 mov dword ptr [eax],ecx
Can you pls tell how the above the is simplest and fastest than the following:
__asm mov eax, dword ptr [x]
00413701 mov eax,dword ptr [x]
__asm mov ebx, dword ptr [y]
00413704 mov ebx,dword ptr [y]
__asm mov dword ptr [x], ebx
00413707 mov dword ptr [x],ebx
__asm mov dword ptr [y], eax
0041370A mov dword ptr [y],eax
suhredayan
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I thought at first sight. I didn't tested Zdeslav's code, I just relied on the comment he gaves us, it seemed to have sence. I didn't thought to scan the code in assembly , my fault !
So I did a little test with performance counters, just to see what's the real result...
I tested the code on my old P3 450, I've tested each solution 10 times and did an average.
For the Zdeslav solution:
<code>void UltraSwap( LONG* a, LONG* b )
{
LONG t = *b;
*b = *a;
*a = t;
}</code>
IN DEBUG IN RELEASE
One single call : 0.004190476 ms 0.004190476 ms
1000 calls loop : 0.186895210 ms 0.035199995 ms
10000 calls loop : 1.822018770 ms 0.307580906 ms
and for the suhredayan solution:
<code>_inline PVOID UltraSwap2( LONG* a, LONG* b )
{
__asm mov eax, dword ptr [a]
__asm mov ebx, dword ptr [b]
__asm mov dword ptr [a], ebx
__asm mov dword ptr [b], eax
}</code>
IN DEBUG IN RELEASE
One single call : 0.004190476 ms 0.003352380 ms
1000 calls loop : 0.170133307 ms 0.016761902 ms
10000 calls loop : 1.599923566 ms 0.158399976 ms
So, know, everyone can see the results. I don't think I have to explain furter...
In debug mode, there is not a lot of difference but after a 10000 calls loop in release mode, now I'm sure that UltraSwap2 is the great winner! It just took the half time of the other one.
If you want to see my test code, let me know, I will try to post it.
Thanks suhredayan for your advise, you pointed me on the right track!!
Have a nice day,
Stef
Progamming looks like taking drugs...
I think I did an overdose.
|
|
|
|
|
ok, we have a misunderstanding here: i compared the results with original post, not with suhredayan's solution which i didn't tested because of comments below it. i never said that my solution is the fastest one, i said that it is fastest of the three i showed.
it would be extremely stupid to say that something is fastest, everything can be optimized.
another thing is that dissasembly for my function is larger but not that much as it seems, because suhredayan's version is missing prolog and epilog code, which is automatically added by the compiler. when you compare code which is really generated, suhredayan's version is only 2 instructions shorter (16:14).
however, i did some test with following test app:
<code>
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <wtypes.h>
#define ITERATIONS 300000000
inline void UltraSwap2( LONG* a, LONG* b )
{
LONG t = *b;
*b = *a;
*a = t;
}
inline void UltraSwap4( LONG* a, LONG* b )
{
__asm mov eax, dword ptr [a]
__asm mov ebx, dword ptr [b]
__asm mov dword ptr [a], ebx
__asm mov dword ptr [b], eax
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
long t;
long a = 111111111;
long b = 222222222;
char txt[1024];
{
t = GetTickCount();
for(long i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; ++i)
{
UltraSwap2(&a, &b);
}
t = GetTickCount() - t;
sprintf(txt, "UltraSwap2: %ld iterations done in %ld ms\n", ITERATIONS, t);
printf(txt);
}
{
t = GetTickCount();
for(long i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; ++i)
{
UltraSwap4(&a, &b);
}
t = GetTickCount() - t;
sprintf(txt, "UltraSwap4: %ld iterations done in %ld ms\n", ITERATIONS, t);
printf(txt);
}
return 0;
}
</code>
here are my results (3 runs for each version):
release build, non optimized:
D:\test\Release>test.exe
UltraSwap2: 300000000 iterations done in 3024 ms
UltraSwap4: 300000000 iterations done in 4376 ms
D:\test\Release>test.exe
UltraSwap2: 300000000 iterations done in 4387 ms
UltraSwap4: 300000000 iterations done in 4366 ms
D:\test\Release>test.exe
UltraSwap2: 300000000 iterations done in 4376 ms
UltraSwap4: 300000000 iterations done in 4537 ms
release build, optimized for speed:
D:\test\Release>test.exe
UltraSwap2: 300000000 iterations done in 201 ms
UltraSwap4: 300000000 iterations done in 771 ms
D:\test\Release>test.exe
UltraSwap2: 300000000 iterations done in 210 ms
UltraSwap4: 300000000 iterations done in 761 ms
D:\test\Release>test.exe
UltraSwap2: 300000000 iterations done in 211 ms
UltraSwap4: 300000000 iterations done in 771 ms
in non optimized version, results are similar. but it seems that suhredayan's version is much harder to optimize by compiler, so in optimized version it is much slower. i believe that reason for this is that compiler cannot reuse the registers to best-fit the other optimizations, resulting in significantly larger code. this means that it is hard to outperform the compiler's optimization and it should be done only in extreme situations.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I found something interesting while playing with my test application, I did a modification to UltraSwap2 and made this one :
</code>_inline PVOID UltraSwap3( LONG* a, LONG* b )
{
__asm mov eax, dword ptr [a]
*a = *b;
__asm mov dword ptr [b], eax
}</code>
It's not quite elegant for a "supposed" assembly but look at the result in Release mode :
UltraSwap2 after 1 loops : 0.004190476 ms
UltraSwap2 after 1000 loops : 0.016761902 ms
UltraSwap2 after 10000 loops : 0.138285693 ms
UltraSwap2 after 1000000 loops : 13.729674098 ms
UltraSwap2 after 10000000 loops : 218.611242878 ms
-------------------------------------
UltraSwap3 after 1 loops : 0.003352380 ms
UltraSwap3 after 1000 loops : 0.013409522 ms
UltraSwap3 after 10000 loops : 0.092190462 ms
UltraSwap3 after 1000000 loops : 8.895541502 ms
UltraSwap3 after 10000000 loops : 128.132170951 ms
It's a lot more faster for long loops!!
Stef
Progamming looks like taking drugs...
I think I did an overdose.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, almost every solution can be made even better, but this solution doesn't work correctly, it stores the address of a into eax, then sets a to value of b, and then sets b to value now stored in a which results in a and b being equal.
if you have a chance, take a look at michael abrash's book "zen of code optimization", it will show you many neat tricks.
understanding/knowing assembly can only make you a better developer, so this is the right way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
Oups!!
I've tested every code in debug to be sure that everything was swapped properly but forgot this one !
Thanks Zdeslav! For sure, I will look for the book you're talking about.
I ran my test program with swap codes exactly identical to the ones you tested yourself and it gives me always the same result, the assembly code is always still faster. I don't understand. Maybe it depend on the way it is compiled and on which CPU it is ran...
I use MS Visual C++ 6.0
Compiler version : MS 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 12.00.8168 for 80x86
Linker version : MS Incremental Linker Version 6.00.8168
My CPU is : Intel Pentium III, 450MHz
SDK installed : MS SDK for WinXP SP2
My project settings are the base one for an MFC dialog-based application.
Also, every loops are called within a worker thread sets with normal priority.
Progamming looks like taking drugs...
I think I did an overdose.
|
|
|
|
|
Forget my last post Zdeslav!
I found what's going wrong, I missed to place the "inline" instruction in my function header!! Sorry.
Ok, now I go sleep, I think I need it! Ha ha ha!
Thanks for help!
Progamming looks like taking drugs...
I think I did an overdose.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks everyone!
I think I will use the UltraSwap2 solution from Zdeslav, since it is more faster than all the other ones. It was my mistake to think that it should be faster to do it in assembly code.
But if I refer at my wishes to learn some assembly code, the suhredayan solution is what I was looking for.
I used to code on some industrial programmable controllers a long time ago and it was in assembly code. But both syntax and function names wasn't the same.
Great help guys!
Stef
Progamming looks like taking drugs...
I think I did an overdose.
|
|
|
|
|
Before putting forward my question, i'd like to show what i want to achieve: First, i will make a directory in which all of the secrete information are saved, of course, only the authorized users can access this directory, and also, in order to defend the secrete information, for example, the source code of a firm, it's necessary to prevent these users from disclosing the secrete information in any way, for instanse, copy a file in this director to another directory, or open a file with one application program, and then save as another file to other place. So my question is how to achieve this goal, please give me some ideas. Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
|
zymoonstone wrote:
of course, only the authorized users can access this directory
Once you give the access, then hope they will not disclose it.
suhredayan
There is no spoon.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean it is impossible?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
