|
My Question is how can i attach That (another .exe file ) to my application`s exe
|
|
|
|
|
ShellExecute I think he want to execute a excutable from his executable!
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture
cheers,
Alok Gupta
VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV
Support CRY- Child Relief and You
|
|
|
|
|
Aabid wrote: an .exe file in my projec
???
Do you want to send the exe as an attachment with an e-mail?
Do remember that some servers may restrict sending/receiving of exe's
Did you see MAPI?
You need to google first, if you have "It's urgent please" mentioned in your question.
 _AnShUmAn_
|
|
|
|
|
What is MAPI??
Actually i need to send the "Eicar.com" (that is not a virus but it is testing file for the detection of a virus, its behaviour is smthng like a virus)
|
|
|
|
|
well, what is stopping you from creating a new file (C), reading in the contents of file (A), writing it into C, reading in another file (B) and writing that to C also.
The fact that these are .exe's rather than .txt's or .fwibble's is irrelevant.
If you want to compile your ivebeencorrupted.exe, you could add the imavirus.com as a binary resource. It would then appear in the end file, ready for detection.
Iain.
|
|
|
|
|
Iain Clarke wrote: If you want to compile your ivebeencorrupted.exe, you could add the imavirus.com as a binary resource. It would then appear in the end file, ready for detection.
Very good, but you should try harder in order to be the first 2009 entry in the CP's memorable quotes list!
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]
|
|
|
|
|
I am wounded sir, wounded!
Iain.
|
|
|
|
|
That is just because your standard is so high.
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]
|
|
|
|
|
Iain Clarke wrote:
I am wounded sir, wounded!
Ambulance please
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture
cheers,
Alok Gupta
VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV
Support CRY- Child Relief and You
|
|
|
|
|
And whats the result?which one of you were winner? our Iain 
Of one Essence is the human race
thus has Creation put the base
One Limb impacted is sufficient
For all Others to feel the Mace
(Saadi )
|
|
|
|
|
Are you referring to something like this?
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"The brick walls are there for a reason...to stop the people who don't want it badly enough." - Randy Pausch
|
|
|
|
|
I have created a modal dialog from another modal dialog using DoModal() function. When I open the dialog (modal) from the parent modal dialog, it opens fine. But when I click on the Parent modal dialog I am able to gain focus on the Parent modal dialog which is not supposed to be. Any one pls suggest me how to prevent it... so that when I click on the parent modal dialog when the child modal dialog is open, the parent modal dialog should not gain focus.
|
|
|
|
|
i doubt you have used DoModal() function. because when you use DoModal the focus will always be on the child than the parent. the problem that you have mentioned happens only when you create a modeless dialog.
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure, I am using the DoModal() function.
My application has a mainwindow, which opens a first modal dialog, which in turn opens a second modal dialog. When I click on the main window after opening the first modal dialog alone, the focus is not going to the main window. When I open the second modal dialog from the first modal dialog and then click on the application main window, now also the main window is not getting the focus. But the problem is when i Click on the first modal dialog, when the second modal dialog is still open, the focus is going to the first modal dialog which is not supposed to be.
Pls provide the solution to prevent this behaviour.
Note: The first modal dialog was previously derived from CPropertyPage which i have changed it to derive from CDialog.
|
|
|
|
|
Tried with an example the way you have explained. its working fine for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that the parent of your second modal dialog is your main window rather then the first modal dialog?
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
|
|
|
|
|
manohar_balu wrote: another modal dialog using DoModal() function. When I open the dialog (modal) from the parent modal dialog, it opens fine. But when I click on the Parent modal dialog I am able to gain focus on the Parent modal dialog which is not supposed to be.
Is this the problem?
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dialog/notmodaldialogs.aspx[^]
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: I'm using an "Intel" machine to test the following codes.
I have an array of 48 Bytes named aArray and as you know it looks like some thing like this in memory:
100011011001110110110101 ...
Now, I want to separate six-bit chunks from the begin, useing bit fields as the follow:
struct CHUNKS
{
unsigend __int32 FirstChunk:6;
unsigend __int32 SecondChunk:6;
unsigend __int32 ThirdChunk:6;
unsigend __int32 FourthChunk:6;
}*pChunk = NULL;
for(int iCountor=0; iCountor<48; iCountor+=3)
{
pChunk = (CHUNKS*) (aArray + iCountor);
...
}
What I expect is this:
Suppose aArray = 10001101 10011101 10110101 ...
and Say iCountor is equal to 0 at the moment.
pChunk->FirstChunk ... pChunk->FourthChunk should be as follow:
100011 011001 110110 110101
But that's not the case! pChunk->FirstChunk ... pChunk->FourthChunk are as follow:
pChunk->FirstChunk is equal to 001101 as follow:<br />
10<big>001101</big> 10011101 10110101<br />
<br />
pChunk->SecondChunk is equal to 110110 as follow:<br />
<big>10</big>001101 1001<big>1101</big> 10110101<br />
<br />
pChunk->ThirdChunk is equal to 011001 as follow:<br />
10001101 <big>1001</big>1101 101101<big>01</big><br />
<br />
pChunk->FourthChunk is equal to 101101 as follow:<br />
10001101 10011101 <big>101101</big>01
As you can see and I guess, no body can make anything of this situation.
Thank you masters!
|
|
|
|
|
Please read about LSB und MSB this is also to tricky for me. 
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
the struct CHUNKS, i guess will require no more than 24 bits, i.e one single unsigned int(32 bits = 4 bytes) will be enough.
give a try for this one,
CHUNKS st;
memcpy(&st, aArray, 4);
pChunk = &st;
now try to access
pChunk->FirstChunk & pChunk->FourthChunk
|
|
|
|
|
Due to bit alignment in bytes, I think you cannot avoid a bit of bitwise manipulation. 
For instance
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
void main()
{
unsigned char aArray[]={0x8D, 0x9D, 0xB5, 0xFE, 0xDC, 0xBA};
unsigned char bChunk[4];
cout << setbase(16);
for(int iIndex=0; iIndex<6; iIndex+=3)
{
bChunk[0] = aArray[iIndex] >> 2;
bChunk[1] = (aArray[iIndex] << 4) & 0x3F | aArray[iIndex+1] >> 4;
bChunk[2] = (aArray[iIndex+1] << 2 ) & 0x3F | aArray[iIndex+2] >> 6;
bChunk[3] = aArray[iIndex+2] & 0x3F;
cout << (int)bChunk[0] << " " << (int)bChunk[1] << " " << (int)bChunk[2] << " " << (int)bChunk[3] << endl;
}
}
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]
|
|
|
|
|
Like you, this behaviour seems a little unintuitive to me. Intel chips are little-endian (i.e. least-significant bytes first), but I thought that within a byte, a bit-field would extract the most significant bits first. Obviously not - as documented[^], Microsoft treat bytes as least-significant bit first as well.
Your only way round this is to do some bit manipulation yourself - the easiest way is probably to use bit-fields to extract the bits and glue them together again in methods of the struct - something like this:
struct CHUNKS
{
unsigned int FirstChunk() const { return firstChunk; }
unsigned int SecondChunk() const { return (secondChunkMSB<<4)|secondChunkLSB; }
unsigned int ThirdChunk() const { return (thirdChunkMSB<<2)|thirdChunkLSB; }
unsigned int FourthChunk() const { return fourthChunk; }
private:
unsigned int secondChunkMSB:2;
unsigned int firstChunk:6;
unsigned int thirdChunkMSB:4;
unsigned int secondChunkLSB:4;
unsigned int fourthChunk:6;
unsigned int thirdChunkLSB:2;
}*pChunk = NULL;This does give the expected results for your test data.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the relevance of these code in C#? Thanks
unsigned char HartSendBuffer [200];
memset(SendBuffer,'\0',sizeof(SendBuffer));
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, they are should be :
unsigned char SendBuffer [200];
memset(SendBuffer,'\0',sizeof(SendBuffer));
|
|
|
|
|
an82 wrote: What is the relevance of these code in C#?
It is the relevance that C code has to C# language...
BTW: What about documentation [^]?
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]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
