|
Do you have any extra threads running, that aren't marked "background threads"?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure, but that's a good start or point in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
Try "Break" instead of "Stop" for your debug session
and observe the stack(s) of the existing thread(s) 
They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;
They pursued it with forks and hope;
They threatened its life with a railway-share;
They charmed it with smiles and soap.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good idea
MSG m;
while(GetMessage(&m, NULL, 0, 0)) <-- Break
{
if (!IsDialogMessage(hUserAccount_Index, &m))
{
TranslateMessage(&m);
DispatchMessage(&m);
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Dont post WM_CLOSE message post WM_DESTROY Message
or
Call the PostQuitMessage function under WM_CLOSE case.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting the WM_CLOSE is quite correct.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
I am not saying WM_CLOSE is wrong.
But I think OP did not call that function under WM_CLOSE message.
|
|
|
|
|
The default action for WM_CLOSE[^] will do what's necessary.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree with you. I developed a small program to check the behavior of WM_CLOSE. And It does its job.
Anyway:
If you want to check how many thread is used by your program just open the task manager then click on menu View->Set Column and then choose thread check box, You will get the thread count
|
|
|
|
|
johny10151981 wrote: WM_CLOSE. And It does its job.
As I said.
johny10151981 wrote: If you want to check how many thread is used by your program ...
Agreed, but it's not me who wants to know.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
My Bad It was not for you, It was for The OP.
|
|
|
|
|
I just came to that conclusion, that I did not handle my WndProc Correctly. So I started to remodel it with a better understanding. I must admit that I should check for open threads still running during one of the events.
I do need some help in organization and clarity here.
WM_CLOSE
Gives me a chance to do something before WM_DESTROY is called
WM_DESTROY
That's it, shutting down, I must do something, or it just shuts down
WM_QUIT
I'm suppose to PostQuitMessage(0), 0 means close, 1 means abort?
case IDM_FILE_EXIT:
PostMessage(hWnd, WM_CLOSE, 0, 0);
break;
case WM_CLOSE:
{
msgboxID = MessageBoxEx(g_hWndMainFrame,
L"Are you sure you wish to quite Internet Commerce Engine 5",
L"Question",
MB_OKCANCEL | MB_DEFBUTTON1 | MB_ICONINFORMATION,
LANG_NEUTRAL
);
}
switch ( msgboxID )
{
case IDOK:
PostQuitMessage(0);
DestroyWindow(hWnd);
break;
case IDCANCEL:
PostQuitMessage(1);
break;
}
break;
case WM_DESTROY:
break;
case WM_QUIT:
PostQuitMessage(0);
break;
|
|
|
|
|
jkirkerx wrote: PostQuitMessage(0), 0 means close, 1 means abort?
The parameter is an exit code that you want to return from your program. The numbers do not mean anything unless you, as the programmer, define a meaning for them.
Why is common sense not common?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert.
Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy
Individuality is fine, as long as we do it together - F. Burns
|
|
|
|
|
Yah that didn't work. Think I'm closer now
case WM_CLOSE:
{
msgboxID = MessageBoxEx(g_hWndMainFrame,
L"Are you sure you wish to quite Internet Commerce Engine 5",
L"Question",
MB_OKCANCEL | MB_DEFBUTTON1 | MB_ICONINFORMATION,
LANG_NEUTRAL
);
switch ( msgboxID )
{
case IDOK:
Sleep(1000);
PostQuitMessage(0);
return 0;
break;
case IDCANCEL:
return 1;
break;
}
}
break;
case WM_DESTROY:
break;
case WM_QUIT:
DestroyWindow(hWnd);
break;
|
|
|
|
|
jkirkerx wrote: case WM_QUIT:
DestroyWindow(hWnd);
break;
When the thread retrieves the WM_QUIT message from its message queue, it should exit its message loop and return control to the system.
Why is common sense not common?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert.
Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy
Individuality is fine, as long as we do it together - F. Burns
|
|
|
|
|
I need to fix my child window first. I think I have the main window fixed. I have the same loop in the parent window and child window, so the child window is still running the loop when I try to shutdown the main window.
Now I'm starting to think that I have to call DestroyWindow for each control as well.
Main Window
case WM_CLOSE:
{
msgboxID = MessageBoxEx(g_hWndMainFrame,
L"Are you sure you wish to quit Internet Commerce Engine 5",
L"Question",
MB_OKCANCEL | MB_DEFBUTTON1 | MB_ICONINFORMATION,
LANG_NEUTRAL
);
switch ( msgboxID )
{
case IDOK:
Sleep(1000);
PostQuitMessage(0);
break;
case IDCANCEL:
return 1;
break;
}
}
break;
case WM_DESTROY:
DestroyWindow(hWnd);
break;
case WM_QUIT:
break;
Child Window
case WM_CLOSE:
{
HMENU hMenu;
HMENU hManagementMenu;
hMenu = GetMenu( gUserAccount_Index_GAC );
EnableMenuItem(hMenu, 1, MF_BYPOSITION | MF_ENABLED);
hManagementMenu = GetSubMenu(hMenu, 1);
EnableMenuItem(hManagementMenu, IDM_MANAGEMENT, MF_BYCOMMAND | MF_ENABLED);
DrawMenuBar( gUserAccount_Index_GAC );
}
return 0;
break;
case WM_DESTROY:
{
if ( hUserAccount_Index )
hUserAccount_Index = NULL;
DestroyWindow(lbl_UserAccount_Index_Label);
DestroyWindow(lb_UserAccount_Index_Listbox_Field);
DestroyWindow(bt_UserAccount_Index_Add);
DestroyWindow(bt_UserAccount_Index_Edit);
DestroyWindow(bt_UserAccount_Index_Delete);
DestroyWindow(bt_UserAccount_Index_Exit);
DestroyWindow(cWnd);
}
return 0;
break;
case WM_QUIT:
break;
|
|
|
|
|
If I take this out of the mdi child main, the main parent window and process shuts down fine.
But I want to have access to the tab key, so I'm not quite sure how to proceed. This is the thread that is running from the mdi child window.
MSG msg;
int bReturn;
while ((bReturn = GetMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0)) !=0) {
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
}
ReleaseDC(NULL, hdc);
return (int) msg.wParam;
|
|
|
|
|
jkirkerx wrote: I'm suppose to PostQuitMessage(0), 0 means close, 1 means abort?
This just created the visual of a dialog box in my mind:
+-----------------------------+
| |
| Do you want to abort? |
| |
| [ Yes ] [Abort] |
| |
+-----------------------------+
|
|
|
|
|
That's funny, but pretty much what it is.
I narrowed it down to the message loop in my child window. guess I need to test for the WM_DESTROY message manually to kill the loop.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am trying to compile a .cpp program which contains RichOle.h I get compiler error which make no sense to me
typedef struct _reobject
line 18 {
line 19 DWORD cbStruct;
LONG cp;
CLSID clsid;
LPOLEOBJECT poleobj;
LPSTORAGE pstg;
LPOLECLIENTSITE polesite;
SIZEL sizel;
DWORD dvaspect;
DWORD dwFlags;
DWORD dwUser;
} REOBJECT;
compiler errors
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform SDK\Include\RichOle.h(18) : error C2146: syntax error : missing ; before identifier ;once;
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform SDK\Include\RichOle.h(18) : error C4430: missing type specifier - int assumed. Note: C++ does not support default-int
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform SDK\Include\RichOle.h(19) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ; before ;class-head;
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform SDK\Include\RichOle.h(19) : error C4430: missing type specifier - int assumed. Note: C++ does not support default-int
;progdialog.cpp
I think I need some pragma directive to to compile the above structure as a "C" type progam
any help would
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with that line, it's a C-style structure definition, which is also valid in C++. You probably have a problem somewhere before that header is loaded and it's just causing the compiler to think there's a problem with that definition. Look for missing ';' characters in the file where you included this header.
|
|
|
|
|
look at the lines in your cpp code before the include of richole.h, there might be a syntax error there that is manifesting itself in the h file. Don't forget, "include" is the equivalent of "paste the file here" so you should think of the cpp file as one continuous piece.
|
|
|
|
|
ForNow wrote: I get compiler error which make no sense to me
It is telling you there's a syntax error in the included RichOle.h header file, at line 18.
Pardon the silly question: "Did you include windows.h, before it?"
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]
modified 10-Jan-12 16:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing silly about that question. IMHO.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Richard. I was downvoted for the previous sentence (though my sarcasm was completely switched OFF while writing it).
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
