|
Thank you for your reply.
So it isn't possible to set the alingement to right during the execution of the application.
I tried already to manipulate the CreateStruct before the OnCreate is startet, but this
also don't work.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
"before he OnCreate" does it mean PreCreateWindow().
if not please try CEditDerivedClass::PreCreateWindow()
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your answer 
Is it possible that it don't stop into the CEditDerivedClass::PreCreateWindow()
with a DDX_CONTROL created Textbox ?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
So you are using the control already on the resource.
Would I like to know if are applying the style before
Create and I hope not change it thereafter, why don't you
set the edit control style in the resource to Align Right
|
|
|
|
|
To built views faster.
I put for example 50 textboxes on a view. 30 of them are right-align.
I need to change all styles.
During coding the view, i set all 30 textboxes to number-textboxes (labelPrice.SetDecimal() )
Now, the SetDecimal() sets different parameters to the textbox (only numbers, right-align, ... )
I must anyway write one line per textbox, so this line changes also the styles.
If i like to change something, i don't need to change all textboxes on Dialog-Ressource, but only
some line of codes ...
In future, some peoples who don't programm a lot, should design all views, so it should be so quickly and easy as possible 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
The dialog child items are created at dialog creation.
DDX_Control will only subclass controls not creating the control.
subclassing will allow the messages to be routed to the
class we specified. but at that time the control will be created already, so you won't get oncreate or precreatewindow events for the control.
In my opinion, setting styles after DDX_Control doesnot "built views faster".
If you specify Styles in resource designer it would have assigned at creation.
But you are then interrupting the control while ModifyStyle which involves sendMessage like process.
I suggest you specify styles of controls in resource design and SetDecimal will do the initialisation of data excluding the style.
Best Regards
|
|
|
|
|
I mean by "built views faster", that the developer can design faster the views, not that the view
is faster created at runtime.
Ok, i'll set those styles at the designer.
Big thanks anyway
|
|
|
|
|
baerten wrote: So it isn't possible to set the alingement to right during the execution of the application.
Not exactly. It's just not possible to change those styles after the control has been created.
You need to specify ES_RIGHT when you create the control. If the control is on a dialog resource
(in other words, NOT being created manually at runtime) then set that style in the dialog
resource.
Mark
"Posting a VB.NET question in the C++ forum will end in tears." Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Coders!
IDE: Microsoft Visual Studio version 6.0
Lang: C++
Question:
Would anyone know a standard timing function that provides accuracy at the microsecond(us) scale, or at the very least at the low millisecond(ms) scale?
Why:
I am running an application that is supposed to send out data along a line every 24 milliseconds. I have the data to send at every interval, I just need a timer to send it accurately at the specified times(every 24 ms).
Thanks everyone for your suggestions!!
L
|
|
|
|
|
If you need precision of the order of the milisecond, then you'll need to use another operating system than Windows which is not real-time. You will never be able to have such precision.
EDIT: except if you use WinCE, in which case it is a real-time operating system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These links are excellent!
I am really glad I found this forum!
Thanks!!
|
|
|
|
|
Your're welcome.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I am getting back into C++(be doing C# heavey for the past few years), Can anyone give me some help on how I can improve the function so no problems dont arise when it is run? I appreciate the help you guys.
void* memcpy( void* dest, void* src, size_t size )
{
byte* pTo = (byte*)dest;
byte* pFrom = (byte*)src;
assert( dest != NULL && src != NULL );
while( size-- > 0 )
*pTo++ = *pFrom++;
return (dest);
}
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
joshp1217 wrote: how I can improve the function so no problems dont arise when it is run?
Correctly using the standard one!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to improve this code for a test, so any help you can Provide I would greatly appreciate.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO it is good as it stands.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
So there is no way I can optimize it or make it more efficient, because when I looked at it it seemed fine to me to but I have to make sure.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO it seems OK, i.e. It is correct. But maybe you can find a more efficient way to copy memory (e.g. copying machine-words instead of bytes).
I think someone else will give a better hint than me about.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
1. copy DWORDs instead of bytes.
2. make sure those DWORDs are aligned on 32-bit boundaries.
and if you're willing to learn a lot about the working of your microprocessor,
3. use MMX/SSE, paying careful attention to caching, pipelines, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Other than "for a test," why do you think the code needs to be changed? How do you know it's inefficient? Do you have any metrics that support this? What if you left it as is?
That said, the only change I'd suggest, but is really not required for your case, is:
while (size-- > 0)
{
*(char *) pTo = *(char *) pFrom;
pTo = (char *) pTo + 1;
pFrom = (char *) pFrom + 1;
}
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
Use
--size
instead of
size--
Prefixed operations always run faster and will improve the function's performance some, but maybe not a lot in this specific case.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Sadlon wrote: Prefixed operations always run faster and will improve the function's performance...
You might want to qualify that a bit with:
For non-intrinsic types, prefixed operations always run faster and will improve the function's performance...
"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
Hint. You could try making it safe. Thread Safe? Exception Safe? Bad parameter safe? All depends on who set the test but it is a test so I'm not going to give you all the answers just a few hints.
What happens when dest==src?
What happens if size < 0
What happens if size > the allocated memory dest points to.
What happens if src isn't null but isn't valid either.
Or...
On the other hand you could try making it faster! Make it work in machine words as suggested in the other comments and once you've got it compiled disassmeble it again and hand optimise the assembler. Then rewrite the function as an inline __delcspec(naked) function containing nothing but inline assmebler __asm{...}. Even faster perhaps you could replace it altogether with the Compiler intrinsic memcpy where the compiler writers already did this for you.
You see it all depends on what the person who set the test means by 'improve'.
In my opinion the ultimate memcpy would have all the bells and safety whistles, thorough checking at every point when built for Debug but when built in Release it would all boil away to that ultimately optimised piece of inline assmebly. Pull that off and you'll not need to pass any test.;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
