|
how many threads can possibly be made in a program please explian launguage wise
|
|
|
|
|
CreateThread documentation [^], Remarks section:
The number of threads a process can create is limited by the available virtual memory. By default, every thread has one megabyte of stack space. Therefore, you can create at most 2,048 threads. If you reduce the default stack size, you can create more threads. However, your application will have better performance if you create one thread per processor and build queues of requests for which the application maintains the context information. A thread would process all requests in a queue before processing requests in the next queue.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
|
jt_snjy07 wrote: how many threads can possibly be made in a program please explian launguage wise
http://www.nvidia.com/object/fermi_architecture.html[^]
Thousands, many thousands.... probably not the architecture you meant.... but you didn't specify any limits. 
_________________________
John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the thread library's implementation. For example if you were mad enough to create a user mode library then the number of threads would depend on how many thread contexts you could fit into memory in one process. If you're using kernel threads then it depends on how the OS is implemented and how many thread contexts it reserves space for.
Cheers,
Ash
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever I hear this question (it comes up a lot) I immediately suspect it's from someone who's application is using way too many.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
C calling convention we all know defines a way how the parameters are pushed onto the stack.
My question is when and how does this C calling conventions matters to a user?
When the user will have to bother about the calling conventions in his project?
|
|
|
|
|
For instance when you write a dll that could be used in programs which are using another calling convention. Typically, using a C dll in a VB program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, It's time for WTF.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
WTF (What The F..k) ??? you mean WPF!
2 bugs found.
> recompile ...
65534 bugs found.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I meant just WTF: bad irony as you may call it (The OP looks, IMHO, a bit pointless).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: (The OP looks, IMHO, a bit pointless).
He also sounds a bit clueless.
"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
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
I have been using it for 1 1/2 years and love it.
-Saurabh
|
|
|
|
|
QT is more easy to use than MFC, i think.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree there. I've only recently started getting into QT and I'm impressed. I can't see why I'd ever bother with MFC again if I was given a choice.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently updating my XCrashReport article, and I had forgotten that I have some assembler in it:
__asm
{
mov eax, fs:[4]
mov pStackTop, eax
}
The purpose of this is to get the top of the stack, so I can do a stack dump. Unfortunately, I need to replace it, since VS doesn't allow asm code when compiling for x64.
I have found this code, which works ok in x86:
NT_TIB *pTib = (NT_TIB *)NtCurrentTeb();
PVOID pStackTop = pTib->StackBase;
I am just wondering if this will work on x64 as well (haven't had a chance to try it yet).
Anyone have any experience with this technique?
|
|
|
|
|
In x64, the FS register has been replaced by the GS register.
And you have to use compiler intrinsics instead of inline assembly.
The following intrinsics will allow you to read from an offset in the GS register.
__readgsbyte
__readgsword
__readgsdword
__readgsqword Just for completeness, there are also similar intrinsics available in x86 to read from an offset of the FS register -
__readfsbyte
__readfsword
__readfsdword
__readfsqword
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, that looks more straightforward.
I got the stack top using
void *pStackTop = (void *) __readfsdword(0x04);
so on x64 I would use
void *pStackTop = (void *) __readgsdword(0x04);
Or would it be __readgsqword ?
|
|
|
|
|
Since all pointers are 64-bit in x64, I guess you should be using __readgsqword.
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds pretty dangerous to me, but I know how it can be when you just have to do some things.
You can declare a simple local variable and take its address, that will give you an address to begin working with.
But you need to ensure that the variable does exist (not removed by optimizer) and you then need to make sure you understand the stack frame layouts under both x86 and x64, they aren't the same.
Harry.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I writed a program that saves data on file, its runs on windows XP ,but whan I execute it on windows 7 its not open the file, I understood its because the uac property,
if somebody know how can I disable the uac from my program ,
I would be vary thankfull for him.
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing you're creating the file in a folder that is not recommended like in C:\ or C:\Windows.
You should change this location so that you will not need elevated privileges.
|
|
|
|
|
can you give me example of recommended place to save the file?
thank you for the halp.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
