|
Hi,
How to hide the dialogbox in win32. I tried ShowWindow(hWnd,0) in Initdialog()but fails to hide.
|
|
|
|
|
you can only hide a dialog if you have already created it.
A simple way is to only create a dialog if it has to be shown  Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: A simple way is to only create a dialog if it has to be shown
I think the OP wants a hidden dialog. 
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
If the dialogbox is the main window of your application look for the m_nCmdShow member of your CWinApp class. This member could be set in the InitInstance() method of your app.
Here is an article about it: A Simple Method to Control the Startup State of an MFC SDI Application[^]
If it is not the main window try to remove the WS_VISIBLE style from your dialog template.
|
|
|
|
|
Handle the first WM_PAINT message and call ShowWindow(hWnd, false); there. Because that's the first message that will be posted to the dialog after it's created.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
If you are using MFC, see the first part of this article."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
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I created one application in MFC using Visual Studio 2008. I want to run this application exe on OS Windows 2000. When i run this, it gives error about .dll files.
How can i run this application on OS Windows 2000?Abhijit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I run this vcredist_x86.exe on Windows 2000 but it gives error message
"The procedure entry point HeapSetInformation could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll"
What could be the problem.Abhijit
|
|
|
|
|
Select 'Project/Properties' to bring up your project's property sheets. Select the 'Configuration Properties/General' tab. Set 'Use of MFC' to 'Use MFC in a Static Library'.
Rebuild.
You might also want to check out this[^], and download the Dependency Walker[^].L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I change project properties from Use of MFC- Use MFC in a shared DLL to
Use MFC in Static library, but size of application make it to large.
Use MFC in a Shared DLL - size is 50 KB
Use MFC in Static library - size is 500 KB
How can i create minimum size exe or is there any option.Abhijit
|
|
|
|
|
50K are less than 500, but 50K + the size of the MFC DLL are much more than 500!
If you don't want DLL dependency, static linking is a must.
If you want small sizes, welcome in the DLL hell!
2 bugs found.
> recompile ...
65534 bugs found.
|
|
|
|
|
Abhijit D. Babar wrote: Use MFC in a Shared DLL - size is 50 KB
Use MFC in Static library - size is 500 KB
Unless you have strict requirements on the executable size (for instance if you need to send the executable on a slow line) such figures are irrelevant: whenever the executables becomes processes (i.e. are loaded by the OS) the amount of wasted memory is roughly the same.
On the other hand, if an efficient executable is needed, why are you using MFC? 
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]
|
|
|
|
|
| you need to build a setup to install the MFC-Runtime. Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry sir, i am not geting what you mean to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto build option, click on that for build tthe application, and goto debug option click 10 to execution, it will help to what happening in line by line
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to everything below, you need to make sure you don't use any Win32 APIs not in Windows 2000.
To do that you need the following #defines before you include any files in your stdafx.h:
#define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0500
#define WINVER 0x0500 Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
CodeProject MVP for 2010 - who'd'a thunk it!
|
|
|
|
|
heyhey,
I have several projects that are dependent of each other with a lot of source and header files.
Like project: A<-B<-C<-D (B dependent of A, ...)
The projects themselves are each quite large and except one they all build static libraries (of course?). In each project I have a file called like ProjectCPrivate.h that I include from each header file from within project C. in this header actually only project B is referenced (and indirectly A) and some settings (defines) for the project itself. Also for each project I have a file like ProjectC which includes pretty much every class from project C, so that I can easily use this header file for project D and so on...
I'm facing long compile-times as the project grows. I'm not 100% sure if all this is solved by precompiled headers if used correctly. maybe my projects-design is lacking efficiency from the beginning. Using a precompiled header for each project would pretty much map the precompiled-header file to ProjectXPrivate.h, right?
What do you guys think? Thanks a lot in advance
zqueezy
|
|
|
|
|
You could try to use the /MP compiler switch for multiple copies of the compiler (cl.exe).
But this will not work with pre-compiled headers.
So you will have to disable pre-compiled headers.
Build with Multiple Processes[^]
|
|
|
|
|
zqueezy wrote: Using a precompiled header for each project would pretty much map the precompiled-header file to ProjectXPrivate.h, right?
you could also put all the standard C/C++ .H files in there (STL, stdio, windows.h, etc.). i just did that last night for a 12-project solution - all the non-project includes went into the PCH, along with anything that would cause a full (or near full) rebuild anyway. seems to have sped-up the build a bit. it wasn't a huge difference, however.
|
|
|
|
|
zqueezy wrote: I have a file called like ProjectCPrivate.h that I include from each header file from within project C
Sounds like you're coupling the external interface of each 'Project C' to the internal interface - that's probably something to minimise, otherwise changes to that internal interface will require rebuilding of the whole system that's upstream of it.
That should help when doing incremental builds. As for full builds...well, I've never found that the number of include files is much of a problem - it's the total amount of source code needing to be built...Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
CodeProject MVP for 2010 - who'd'a thunk it!
|
|
|
|
|
I have a struct similar to the following:
template<int i>
struct foo {
public:
static const int a;
static const int b;
};
template<>
const int foo<3>::a = 1;
template<>
const int foo<5>::a = 2;
template<int i>
const int foo<i>::b = 3 * foo<i>::a;Then, I attempted to execute the following:
#include <iostream>
#include "foo.h"
using namespace std;
int main() {
cout << foo<3>::b << endl << foo<5>::b << endl;
return 0;
}The first time I ran this code, the code produced the result b=0 for both template instantiations, but at the time I was declaring static member b prior to a. Next, I switched the order of declaration thinking that perhaps static members are initialized in the order they are declared, just like instance members. Again, the code produced 0 for the value of static member b in both template instantiations. Then, I added a cout statement prior to the one presented in the code above to print the value of a when the template parameter i=3. This time, the output was correct and gave b=3 when i=3 and b=6 when i=5. Since then, I have been unable to get my code to break, but think there is some static initialization problem that could be lurking. Does anyone know why this happened, and how I can address it?
I am also wondering how I can move the static member initialization code out of the header file where class foo is declared. I was able to move the initialization of static member a to whatever compilation unit I wanted, but when I moved initialization of b to the other compilation unit I started receiving unresolved external linker errors. Thanks,Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
modified on Thursday, February 11, 2010 3:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| What compiler are you using? When using VS2008, your initial code works fine...I suspect VC++ compiler issues - there are lots of thm with regard to templates... Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
CodeProject MVP for 2010 - who'd'a thunk it!
|
|
|
|
|
| I am using Visual Studio 2008. I think I found my error... when I move the template-specialized definition of foo::a to a different compilation unit, I get unexpected results. Some of my data members declared exactly like foo::b are populated with the correct values dependent on foo::a, while others are being incorrectly initialized to 0. I guess I just don't know the rules for static initialization. Is it performed in the order of declaration, order of definition, or in the order of first access? Thanks, Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Templates complicate the rules, I suspect…
Not sure - the C++ Standard is the ultimate arbiter.Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
CodeProject MVP for 2010 - who'd'a thunk it!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
