|
In C# I could remove security check on an C DLL call by tagging my function as follow:
[System::Security::SuppressUnmanagedCodeSecurityAttribute]
[DllImport("SomeDll.dll")]
static extern void SomeMethod();
In Managed C++ I don't declare the function I just #include the headers.
How could I avoid security stack walk?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a managed C++ API which calls extensively into native API.
I would like to remove the security walk above!!
in C# I could tag my declaration like that:
[System::Security::SuppressUnmanagedCodeSecurityAttribute]
extern static void SomeCFunction();
but in managed C++ I don't declare the function, I just import the header
and call the function.
how do I avoid stack walk?
|
|
|
|
|
I am getting a large number of errors with this function in my program:
private: void downloading(System::String ^location, System::String ^file){<br />
System::Net::WebClient::DownloadFile(location,file);<br />
}
When I try to compile the program I get c2352 errors (illegal call of non-static member function). I think there is something small that I am missing but I am not sure what it is. I have tried many different versions of this code, and placing it in different parts of the code, etc. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
p.s. I am working on a windows forms application with vs2005 c++ express.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob X wrote: illegal call of non-static member function
DownloadFile is a non-static function which you are calling statically so... you can't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: which you are calling statically
Would you please be able to point out how to call it non-statically. I have tried many different ways, all of which have not worked.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Bob X wrote: Would you please be able to point out how to call it non-statically.
Certainly, they hide those examples in the documentation[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am a silent member of the group. I have a question and I would like to know the logic behind the development of the program...
The question is as follows:
There are 4 cowboys each wearing a hat which can be of two colours: Green and red. There is a sheriff whose pocket is full of coins. When the sheriff takes out a coin from his pocket, the cowboys changed their hat from one colour to another.
The problem is to write a c++ or a c code to find those cowboys who are wearing the same colour hat at any moment...
If someone can develop the program , I would be grateful...
shekkk.
|
|
|
|
|
shekkk wrote: The problem is to write a c++ or a c code to find those cowboys who are wearing the same colour hat at any moment...
Number of the coin out of the pocket % 2;
if(result == 0)
wearing origional hats
else
wearing other colour hats
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised that you don't mind doing someone else's homework ?
|
|
|
|
|
So you mind a lot...huh. I think you don't know anything at all..
|
|
|
|
|
You're the one who cannot do a simple homework question, we are mostly professional developers here - clearly you are not, maybe you should stick to an easier profession if you cannot do your own homework, maybe be a cleaner or something better suited to you skills (or lack of them).
We are more than happy to help those that at least try to solve the problem themselves, not completely lazy people like you.
Darka [ Xanya]
"When you're taught to love everyone, to love your enemies, then what value does that place on love?"
|
|
|
|
|
how do i get the system time as nanosecond?
|
|
|
|
|
I want to make a one second while loop but the resolution of the time must be very high (nanosecond). Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how you get the time in nanoseconds of the top of my head, but you might be able to do what you want to do with a timer function.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob X wrote: you might be able to do what you want to do with a timer function
no chance (if you mean windows WM_TIMER) as it is not high enough resolution, QueryPerformanceCounter() is better but I don't think you will ever get a one nanosecond loop as WIndows is not a realtime operating system.
See here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/03/HighResolutionTimer/[^]
Why do you need such accuracy anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
I am most intrigued by an application that requires an event to occur every second but to 1 billionth of a second accuracy, please tell us more...
If you need +/- 1ns accuracy then because the windows OS family are not real time operating systems this will not be acheivable, perhaps +/- 10ns but realistically +/- 100ns should be assumed.
If this is not adequate, then in order to measure to 1ns with an acceptable error then you actually need sub nanosecond timing solutions. Have you calculated what level of error you can tolerate in the application to which this problem pertains?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
Can anyone tell me how to run C programs in Turbo C++ IDE ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have written followng linked program using doubly linked list and the errors are:
1-> code has no effect.
2-> unreachable code.
3-> statement missing.
and the code is are as follow
#include
#include
create(int);
add_atbeg (int);
add_after (int ,int);
del();
display();
count();
rev();
struct node
{
struct node *left;
int data;
int *tmp;
struct node *right;
}*start;
main()
{
int ch,n,m,po,i;
start=NULL;
printf("\n1 :create list");
printf("\n2:add at begining");
printf("\n3:add after");
printf("\n4:delete");
printf("\n5:display");
printf("\n6:count");
printf("\n7:reverse");
printf("\n8:quit");
while(1)
{
printf("enter choice\t");
scanf("%d",&ch);
switch(ch)
{
case 1:printf("how many nodes you want\t");
scanf("%d",&n);
for(i=0;i {
printf("enter the element%d\t",i+1);
scanf("%d",&m);
create(m)
{
break;
case 2:printf("enter the element\t");
scanf("%d",&m);
add at beg (m);
break;
case 3:printf("enter the element\t");
scanf("%d",&m);
printf("enter the position after which element\t");
scanf("%d",&po);
add_after (m,po);
break;
case 4:printf("enter the element for deletion\t");
scanf("%d",&m);
break;
case 5:display(); break;
case 6:count(); break;
case 7:rev(); break;
case 8:exit();
default :printf("wrong choice");
}
}
}
}
create(int num)
{
struct node *q,*tmp;
tmp=malloc(size of(struct node));
tmp->data=NULL;
tmp->right=NULL;
if(start==NULL)
{
tmp->=NULL;
start->right=tmp;
start=tmp;
}
else
{
q=start;
while(q->right!=NULL)
q=q->right;
q=right=tmp;
tmp->left=q;
}
add_beg (int num)
{
struct node *tmp;
tmp=malloc(size of(struct node));
tmp->=NULL;
tmp->data=num;
tmp->right=start;
start->left=tmp;
start=tmp;
}
add_after(int num,int c)
{
struct node *tmp,*q;
int i;
q=start;
for(i=0;i {
q=q->right;
if (q==NULL)
{
printf("therre are less than %d elements\n");
return;
}
}
tmp=malloc(size of(struct node));
tmp->data=num;
q->right->left=tmp;
tmp->right=q=right;
tmp->left=q;
q->right=tmp;
}
del(int num)
{
struct node *tmp,*q;
if(start->data==num)
{
tmp=start;
start=start->right;
start->left=NULL;
free(tmp);
return;
}
q=start;
while(q->right->data==num)
{
tmp=q->right;
q->right=tmp->right;
tmp->right->left=q;
free(tmp);
return;
}
q=q->right;
}
if(q->right->data==num)
tmp=q->right;
free(tmp);
q->right=NULL;
return;
}
printf("element %d not found\n",num);
}
display()
{
struct node *q;
if(start==NULL)
{
printf("list is empty\n");
return;
}
q=start;
printf("list is\n\n");
while(q!=NULL)
{
printf("%d",1->data);
q=q->right;
}
printf("\n");
}
count()
{
struct node *q=start;
int cnt=0;
while(q!=NULL)
{
q=q->right;
cnt++;
}
printf("number of elements are %d\n",cnt);
}
rev()
{
struct node *p1,p2;
p1=start;
p2=p1->right;
p1->=NULL;
p1->left=p2;
while(p2!=NULL)
{
p2->left=p2->right;
p2->right=p1;
p1=p2;
p2=p2->right;
}
start=p1;
}
}}
arun
arun
|
|
|
|
|
I tried system("c:\\....exe") and ShellExecute("c:\....exe") but both of them shows a black DOS box.. I want do launch the program directly
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have Visual C++, Version 6.0. Old, I know, but I will purchase a new one based on what I learn about its ability for polymorphic overloading of operators.
I want to overload operators in a polymorphic fashion. The idea is to be able to create a sort of algebra of geometric objects. So, for example, I can easily overload vector operators for vector addition by overloading the + operator for that particular class, and the code will look like mathematical notation.
If however I want to overload operators for a class of objects, I must use a messy construction, depending on dereferencing pointers. The notation doesn't look quite like textbook notation.
This is because Microsoft C++ does polymorphism through pointers, not through the objects themselves.
I will explain by example:
I have two classes of objects: spline and cube. Both are based on class geom. I also have a matrix class. Code snippets follow:
class geom : public CObject {
public:
geom();
virtual ~geom();
DECLARE_SERIAL(geom);
void Serialize(CArchive& ar);
geom(geom&);
void operator=(geom& obj);
virtual geom operator *(matrix); // Right product by matrix
virtual geom operator*=(matrix&); // Right product by matrix
}; // class geom
class cube : public geom {
public:
cube();
virtual ~cube();
DECLARE_SERIAL(cube);
void Serialize(CArchive& ar);
geom operator *(matrix); // Right product by matrix
geom operator*=(matrix&); // Right product by matrix
// A cube has some vectors in it, which can be transformed by operator *
// overloaded for matrix multiplication
}; // class cube
class spline : public geom {
public:
spline ();
virtual ~ spline ();
geom operator *(matrix); // Right product by matrix
geom operator*=(matrix&); // Right product by matrix
// A spline has some vectors in it, which can be transformed by operator *
// overloaded for matrix multiplication
}; // class spline
I want to use matrix multiplication thusly:
spline sp;
spline sp_transformed;
cube cu;
cube cu_transformed;
matrix xformer;
sp_transformed= sp * xformer; // Comes out not really a spline- only a geom.
cu_transformed= cu * xformer; // Comes out not really a cube- only a geom.
What comes out is just the geom part. No amount of doodling with
geom(geom&);
void operator=(geom& obj);
will help.
However, if I use pointers, as follows, this works. But it is clumsy, and I also have to
worry about deleting the intermediate products:
class geom : public CObject {
public:
geom();
virtual ~geom();
DECLARE_SERIAL(geom);
void Serialize(CArchive& ar);
geom(geom&);
void operator=(geom& obj);
virtual geom *operator *(matrix); // Right product by matrix
virtual geom *operator*=(matrix&); // Right product by matrix
}; // class geom
class cube : public geom {
public:
cube();
virtual ~cube();
DECLARE_SERIAL(cube);
void Serialize(CArchive& ar);
geom *operator *(matrix); // Right product by matrix
geom *operator*=(matrix&); // Right product by matrix
// A cube has some vectors in it, which can be transformed by operator *
// overloaded for matrix multiplication
}; // class cube
class spline : public geom {
public:
spline ();
virtual ~ spline ();
geom *operator *(matrix); // Right product by matrix
geom *operator*=(matrix&); // Right product by matrix
// A spline has some vectors in it, which can be transformed by operator *
// overloaded for matrix multiplication
}; // class spline
spline sp;
spline sp_transformed;
cube cu;
cube cu_transformed;
matrix xformer;
sp_transformed= *(sp * xformer); // Messy
cu_transformed= *(cu * xformer); // Messy
So, my question is, does anybody know of a C++ implementation which supports the first kind of polymorphic overloading, which I might call "puristic"?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently in the process of writing an assembly, and I'm trying to test some of the code that I wrote. I'm wondering if it's possible to debug the code inside the assembly. Does anyone know if I can do this? If so, is there any documentation on this?
Cheers!
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
I may be missing something, but...
run it under the debugger using either the mixed mode or managed debugger.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
