|
I dont have 'InsertItem' only InserString or AddString.
|
|
|
|
|
Larsson wrote: I dont have 'InsertItem' only InserString or AddString.
Then you don't have a list control. You're probably using a CListBox and will need to use SetTopIndex()[^] instead
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right. See my earlier reply.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any way i can display text boxes using the win32 api. I know i can display shapes and text using the gdi.dll libraries, but had no luck finding out how to display text boxes. Any help is welcome, thnkx
|
|
|
|
|
you can use CreateWindow to create a text box (or any other control you want)
|
|
|
|
|
You can use of ::CreateWindowA("EDITBOX",...);
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in desperate need of some help, this problem is way beyond my understanding and knowledge  .. but if someone can point me in the right direction, I'd love to figure this out.
It started with a need for java.util.zip.ZipInputStream functionality in an activeX control (not .net based).
Instead of writing it from scratch using zlib, I found an old utility called ZIPIOS++ (which is nearly a port of the java class) . Got it, compiled it, wrote a small test program and when I compile/link it, I get 7 unresolved externals from the library... The func. declarations all appear to match, using dumpbin the externals appear to be in the lib. I've tried under VC 6 and VC 8.
Here is one example of the header object of one of the unresolved externals and the linker message.
Link to header file: http://zipios.cvs.sourceforge.net/zipios/zipios/zipios%2B%2B/zipfile.h?view=markup[^]
Link to Source file: http://zipios.cvs.sourceforge.net/zipios/zipios/src/zipfile.cpp?view=markup&sortdir=down[^]
3 relevant unresolved externals from the above source:
jim_test.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: __thiscall zipios::ZipFile::ZipFile(class std::basic_string<char,struct std::char_traits<char="">,class std::allocator<char> > const &,int,int)" (??0ZipFile@zipios@@QAE@ABV?$basic_string
jim_test.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual __thiscall zipios::ZipFile::~ZipFile(void)" (??1ZipFile@zipios@@UAE@XZ)
jim_test.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual class std::basic_istream<char,struct std::char_traits<char=""> > * __thiscall zipios::ZipFile::getInputStream(class zipios::SimpleSmartPointer<class zipios::fileentry="" const=""> con
st &)" (?getInputStream@ZipFile@zipios@@UAEPAV?$basic_istream@DU?$char_traits@D@std@@@std@@ABV?$SimpleSmartPointer@$$CBVFileEntry@zipios@@@2@@Z)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm way off, but my first thought is that the classes in the DLL aren't exported.
What if you do something like the AFX_EXT_CLASS macro in MFC.
Add something like this to your precompiled header or someplace before every .h file is
compiled:
#if !defined(ZIPIOS_IMP_EXP)
#if defined(ZIPIOS_DLL_BUILD)
#define ZIPIOS_IMP_EXP __declspec(dllexport)
#else
#define ZIPIOS_IMP_EXP __declspec(dllimport)
#endif
#endif
In the zipios source, change the class declarations from
class ZipFile : public FileCollection {
...
to
class ZIPIOS_IMP_EXP ZipFile : public FileCollection {
...
(base classes need to be exported as well)
Define ZIPIOS_DLL_BUILD when building the dll and don't define it when building the app.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
In Dev-C++, I'm compiling a script, and whenever I run the program that's compiled, a file called gmon.out gets outputted. Is it important? If not, how do I make the compiler not create the file while compiling?
(I'm using Dev-C++)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm all for helping out, but wouldn't this be a Dev-C++ question?
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I'll go post at sourceforge.net
|
|
|
|
|
Hi!
I am currently programming server/client stuff with the c++ functions send and recv. Normally everything works fine but sometimes the client tells me it has sent a message successfully but it is not received by the server. I tracked the packets in the network and no packet had been sent. Documentation says not every successful call to send() guarantees that the data is received by the client. Unfortunately the packet is never sent (waited up to 3 minutes). Since Tcp/Ip is a reliable protocol, I expected the packets to be received by the client as long as the connection is not terminated. How can I make sure that send really sends my data? Is there a flush() command? (using Tcp/Ip non blocking windows socket, checking for send/receive with select).
Any help would be greatly appreciated!!!
Thx
Flo
P.S. Before you ask: it has to be c++ send and recv - no MFC or C# stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
I would check every send and recv call (breakpoint) and add up the bytes sent/received.
Keep in mind that recv doesn't always give you all the bytes you request in one call and
send doesn't always send the number of bytes you asked it to in one call. Check those return
values!
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
I checked the number of bytes received and sent. The problem is that the send command really does not send anything (I observed my network traffic) but tells me it has sent the correct amount of bytes. I doublechecked with breakpoints and everything I can think of and I have no idea why it does not send anything. The other side is listening with select and no data is to be received. This happens only sometimes. Normally it works fine.
Frustrating 
Flo
|
|
|
|
|
florianhaar wrote: Frustrating
Indeed!
Which select are you using? Can you post the code you use to receive (it's almost always a
problem on the receiving end)?
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your help so far Mark. I hope this code snippet gives you an idea for a solution:
TIMEVAL tv;
tv.tv_sec=0;
tv.tv_usec=5;
FD_ZERO(&clientSet);
FD_SET(theClient->sock,&clientSet);
if ((errCode=select(0,&clientSet,NULL,NULL,&tv))>0)
{
if ((recvMsgSize=recv(theClient->sock,addBuffer,maxRead,0))<=0)
{
//error handling
...
}
else
message handling...
I do not receive an error or a message. Select() returns only timeout.
Flo
|
|
|
|
|
if ((recvMsgSize=recv(theClient->sock,addBuffer,maxRead,0))<=0)
...
What is maxRead?
How are you handling if recvMsgSize < maxRead after the call?
|
|
|
|
|
maxRead is the maximum number of bytes the buffer can store. if recvMsgSize is smaller than maxRead (which is normally the case) I copy the data to additional buffers and combine them as soon as all bytes are received. With my problem the data received is always smaller than maxRead.
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm From what I've seen there shouldn't be a problem.
You've debugged the code? Examining network packets isn't necessarily the way to debug since the
potocol is free to re-packetize your data as needed.
Have you changed any socket options on either end?
There's a bug in the code somewhere 
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I have to think through my code step by step once again. At least I know now, that send() should send after 200ms as long as the connection is established.
Thanks again for your help!
Flo
|
|
|
|
|
If you'd like to post the send-side code I'd be happy to look at it as well.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
I generally agree with Mark's observation that problems like this are almost always caused by code on the receiving side.
Here, you have set the timeout for select() to 5 microseconds. That's way too short.
Your understanding of the send() function is slightly wrong. send() does not actually send bytes out over the wire; that happens later when the winsock TCP stack determines that it's time to send data on the wire, after considertion of things like Nagle, delayed ACK etc. Rather, a successful call to send() only indicates that the winsock stack has successfully transferred data in your user buffer to its internal winsock buffer. The return value from send() tells you exactly how much of your buffer has been accepted; you should therefore inspect the returned value to ensure that winsock transferred everything to its internal buffer.
So, if you are debugging and single-stepping through your code, and you see a successful completion of the call to send(), then it's probably still too early for a sniffer to see the actual data on the wire. That will happen, but it will happen at some indeterminate time in the future.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Mike!
Maybe you meant to post this to the OP
For some reason I assumed his code was in a loop. If it's not then that 5microsecond timeout is definitely not going to work (well, rarely).
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Flo,
Check out Mike O'Neill's reply above.
I asked previously how you're handling it when you don't receive the number of bytes requested.
Are you looping until you get the bytes you're expecting or just trying to recv once after the
5microsecond wait?
Mark
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
