|
Glad I was able to help!
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently I have converted the application from 32bit to 64bit in VS 2019,all sources are saying the application is of 64bit I'm unable to launch the application, and I am not able to debug the application because the application need to be attach to process to debug, when searched in the event viewer, I am encountering BEX64 error , and have made sure that all the dependent DLL's are of 64bit, Can anyone please help me to resolve this issue.
I am able to open the application from visual Studio 2019, but not able to launch from exe.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to investigate further and provide more information. It is impossible to guess what may be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 16142254 wrote: all sources are saying the application is of 64bit
That is ambiguous.
Your code is probably linking to some other dlls. I would first start with checking those.
Member 16142254 wrote: launch the application
You will have a main method. You can start by commenting ALL of the code in that module out except for the main() method call. So everything in the main() method is commented out also.
If that runs then you can start uncommenting.
If it doesn't run then it indicates that the build of that module itself is a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey. i wanted to ask that i was using the escape sequence \r to write data in files but instead of moving the cursor to the beginning of the current line it moves the cursor to the next line when. However in consloe window it works just fine but in files it functions like \n. As a beginner i am not allowed to use advance stuff like pointers, structure or strings etc etc. So what could be the simplest scenario to move the cursor to the beginning of the current line in a file for the purpose of overwriting the existing txt.
ofstream out("Records.txt" );
out << "This is some text.\rOverwrite";
Output:
This is some text.
Overwrite
Desired Output:
Overwriteome Text.
|
|
|
|
|
I hope this helps. It's from the site that I almost always consult for for C++/STL details:
std::basic_ostream<CharT,Traits>::seekp - cppreference.com[^]
seekp lets you reposition the "cursor" in a read-write file (ofstream) so you can overwrite characters starting at that point. But if your replacement isn't the same size as what you want to overwrite, you'll have to move the rest of the file up (if the replacement is shorter) or down (if the replacement is longer, in which case you have to do this first). It's usually easier to simply create a new file instead manipulating the original. This also preserves the original in case your software misbehaves. 
|
|
|
|
|
It's just not that simple. A file is essentially an array of bytes on disc, which are written sequentially. There is no structure or other information, such as start of line, or record size or anything like that associated with a file(1). When you write a Carriage Return ('\r' hex 0D) to the file, it just appends a CR character at the current location in the file.
Exactly what you need to do, depends on what your exercise is.
If you've got a single string of text as shown above, you'll need to examine each character and decide what to do when you find either a '\n' (start a new line) or a '\r' (move to the beginning of the current line). When you find a newline character, you'll need to write that to the file, and use tellp() to record the current location. When you find a CR ('\r') you'll want to then use seekp() to move to the location returned by the previous tellp(). Don't forget to initialize the variable you use for the result of tellp() when you open the file.
If, on the other hand, you have pairs of input, e.g an initial string ("This is some text") and then the text to overwrite ("Overwrite") then its a bit simpler. You still need to record your current location in the file, but you won't need to examine each character for a CR or NL. You just need to record where you are in the file before you write the line, then use seekp() to move back there when you get the next line of input.
In both cases, you may need to think about what happens when you have multiple lines of input. Are you expected to then move to then end of the current line and continue on, or continue writing at the current file cursor location.
If you know you will only have a single line of text, followed by a single line to overwrite with, things are simpler still. In this case, you just need to write the first line of text, then seekp(0) to the beginning of the file, and write the second line of text.
Note:
(1) This might not be true for all OS's out there. But if you're using Windows, Linux or OS-X, then that is the case.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
Saboor Sarfraz wrote: but instead of moving the cursor to the beginning of the current line it moves the cursor to the next line
Nope. A 'file' never ever does that.
Rather you are attempting to display the file using something else.
And that something else, not the file, is doing that.
Saboor Sarfraz wrote: for the purpose of overwriting the existing txt.
Your code is absolutely correct. For what you state the purpose is.
So the problem is, as I stated above.
If you are on a windows machine you can open a Powershell console or a 'cmd' console. They are NOT the same.
Presumably you are using one of those then running your exe.
So try doing it with the other one.
If perhaps you are using an Apple Mac then you are perhaps out of luck since it always interprets the '\r' in the way you are seeing it behave.
modified 21-Nov-23 11:21am.
|
|
|
|
|
what is your preference?
I'm guessing some people prefer &foo[bar] because they may find the intent to be expressed more clearly.
I find (foo + bar) to be more succinct with less steps, and therefore clearer to me.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
You probably have to be a real C nerd to use (foo + bar). I'm not sure that anyone I work with would grok that they're both the same thing. But maybe I work with journeymen, and not craftsmen?
For me, &foo[bar] gives me a brain cramp when I try to parse it. I'd prefer &(foo[bar]) just to make it obvious what is having it's address taken. Just to be pedantic.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
Hail to the parenthesis. I always get comments that I use unnecessary parentheses in my code when I add them to pointer arithmetic or compound statements. My response is always along the lines of "yes I know and you were able to tell at a glance the order in which those statements were executed, and how the data was manipulated". Just put the damn () in there to make it easy for someone else to follow what you're trying to do without having to resort to the language specification. It's so much more maintainable for the next person, or yourself in 18 months when you go back to it.
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors - and miss.
Lazarus Long, "Time Enough For Love" by Robert A. Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
&bar[foo]
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
I used to write things like 2[array] to wind up certain colleagues.
(Often the ones that insisted on putting the constant on the LHS of a comparison operator.)
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_in_2780 wrote: the ones that insisted on putting the constant on the LHS of a comparison operator.
|
|
|
|
|
No real preference, I use whichever seems (to me) to make most sense at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
If the data type is defined as an array then use it as array in expressions.
If the data type is defined as a pointer then use it as a pointer in expressions.
honey the codewitch wrote: some people prefer &foo[bar]
Rather certain that I am one that would not want to see that. I work to write code that is maintainable and using tricks just because the exist is not something that I look on favorably.
|
|
|
|
|
That's not really a trick.
It's "get me the address of the Nth array element."
It's just another way of writing (foo + bar);
If you insist on not mixing pointer and array ops than you'd be stuck with the very syntax you don't like in order to get the address of an array element, unless there's a 3rd way to do it I'm not considering?
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
So you say it is an array. Then use it as an array when you identify the element you want to take the address of.
|
|
|
|
|
that's exactly what &foo[bar] does.
Literally it reads as take the address of the bar element of foo.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Right. So use that, rather than (foo + bar).
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: It's just another way of writing (foo + bar);
yes I know.
honey the codewitch wrote: If you insist on not mixing pointer and array ops
Not sure what you mean.
If I create an array of pointers then I would use it like an array.
If I create a pointer to memory that contains sequential blocks (regardless of type) then I would use it like a pointer.
The fact that syntactically the access is the same and tradable is not a consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Not sure what you mean.
I mean this
jschell wrote: If I create an array of pointers then I would use it like an array.
If I create a pointer to memory that contains sequential blocks (regardless of type) then I would use it like a pointer
So I think somewhere we started talking past each other.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
&(foo[bar])
makes it real obvious you want the address of the barth element of array foo
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors - and miss.
Lazarus Long, "Time Enough For Love" by Robert A. Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
fair enough.
Edit: To me the operation is obvious, such that using parentheses never even occurred to me. Clearly that's not the case with the other people that have commented here.  Not sure what that says about my code. 
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
