|
As far as I can tell this AppSight stuff is quite different from Boundschecker. The idea is that you instrument an application out in the field - essentially provide it with a black box. Then the customer sends a file back to the developers. They open it in an IDE and you can step backwards and forwards through the code to see what's going on. It's geared towards the common scenario of "it works on the developers' machines but not the customers."
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Hi I hope I'm in the right group here.
I am trying to develop an ActiveX control but whenever I compile a debug version of it I am unable to include it in another application. It always gives an error claiming an exception has occurred in ctlnownd.cpp line 443(if I remember correctly). The release version of this control works fine.
I am using VC++ 6 with I think the latest patches although I haven't checked for a while.
Any ideas why this happens and if it can be corrected.
Many thanks
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
Can you post some code around the point where your program crashes ?
It is also very usefull to use your debugger. Watch the callstack to see which of your function causes the crash.
Cédric Moonen
Software developer
Charting control
|
|
|
|
|
My program doesn't really crash. It compiles fine, works fine in the ActiveX Control Test Container but whenever I try place it in another application , be that a Powerpoint slide another VC++ MFC dialog application then it causes an exception in ctlnownd.cpp when you try to place the object in the application.
I have kind of read on the web that this is a known problem but no one seems to say whether there is a solution to it. Without being able to include the debug version is another app it is proving very hard to debug it.
Thanks for any advice you may be able to give.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
hi there
somebody tell me pleease, how to play a wave sound when start some application or after performing some function.
something like start windows sound as example or icq program.
thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
see this article.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week
Zac
|
|
|
|
|
How about sndPlaySound() or PlaySound()?
"The largest fire starts but with the smallest spark." - David Crow
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm going through the source code for the Log4CPlus logging library and found this snippet:
#define LOG4CPLUS_DEBUG(logger, logEvent) \
do { \
if(logger.isEnabledFor(log4cplus::DEBUG_LOG_LEVEL)) { \
log4cplus::tostringstream _log4cplus_buf; \
_log4cplus_buf << logEvent; \
logger.forcedLog(log4cplus::DEBUG_LOG_LEVEL, _log4cplus_buf.str(), __FILE__, __LINE__); \
} \
} while(0);
This of course logs a given string to the active logging class. The question is why have they wrapped all that in a do-while loop?
If you look at the loop, it will only be called once (while(0)). Is this some kind of preventitive measure to ensure that the compiler or optimiser does not strip the macro code out?
I Dream of Absolute Zero
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh! Thanks.
I Dream of Absolute Zero
|
|
|
|
|
The reason given in that article is actually pretty poor. Yes, it forces the programmer to use a trailing semi-colon, but that isn't necessary (mostly, they do that simply for looks). The real reason for enclosing it in a do-while loop is to prevent naming conflicts.
For example, lets say you have the following macro:
#define SWAP_INT(a, b) \<br />
int c = a; \<br />
a = b; \<br />
b = c;
Now, your code looks something like the following:
void main()<br />
{<br />
int a = 1, b = 2, c = 0;<br />
SWAP_INT(a, b);
}
This creates a hard to find compiler-error that will annoy you (and anyone else trying to use that macro with a variable named 'c').
To prevent this, you could use the scoping operator:
#define SWAP_INT(a, b) \<br />
{ \<br />
int c = a; \<br />
a = b; \<br />
b = c; \<br />
}
However, some older C++ compilers do not treat this correctly (or even handle it at all. Thus, you can create a single loop do-while to handle the scoping:
#define SWAP_INT(a, b) \<br />
do { \<br />
int c = a; \<br />
a = b; \<br />
b = c; \<br />
} while (0);
The trailing ; is purely optional. If you leave it off, you force the programmer to place it themselves (thus treating it like a function call). Putting it there doesn't hurt anything though.
As a side note, declaring it the way they did (as a macro) is poor programming practice. It really should have been declared as a function. If the user passes an int as the "logger", they will get some weird compiler error messages dealing with types and unless they search through the code to find the macro defintion, will have no idea why it is happening.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week
Zac
-- modified at 11:53 Thursday 1st June, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Very clearly explained. Thank you.
You got my 5.
I Dream of Absolute Zero
|
|
|
|
|
An excellent explaination! However, I will offer one more use of the do/while(0) block. I have seen it used as a way to provide goto-like functionality without actually using the word goto.
For example, if you needed to jump out of the middle of the block, simply executing a break will take you to the bottom of the block, simulating a goto to a label at the end of the block.
It was a bit confusing the first time I saw code that used the do/while(0) like that...
[Edit: Note, I do not do this myself, and would use (and have used) used a goto in place of something like that...]
Peace!
-=- James
If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Avoid driving a vehicle taller than you and remember that Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
DeleteFXPFiles & CheckFavorites (Please rate this post!)
|
|
|
|
|
And in situations like that, exactly, I favor the goto - at least I know what is going on logically. The do{ }while(0); crap I really have to think about for a minute - to realize they just did not want to use the goto.
People that start writing code immediately are programmers (or hackers), people that ask questions first are Software Engineers - Graham Shanks
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Twine wrote: An excellent explaination! However, I will offer one more use of the do/while(0) block. I have seen it used as a way to provide goto-like functionality without actually using the word goto.
For example, if you needed to jump out of the middle of the block, simply executing a break will take you to the bottom of the block, simulating a goto to a label at the end of the block.
It was a bit confusing the first time I saw code that used the do/while(0) like that...
People that code like that do so for job-security. You should NEVER do that. If you actually look at the assembly code produced by the compiler when you write a do-while(0) with a break instead of just using goto, you'll notice it is exactly the same as when you do write a goto.
Although, your reasoning does offer another good reason for making this a function instead of a macro. Instead of a goto or break, you just return if you get to a state that needs such. Much cleaner, and you won't have someone asking you what the heck you are doing when they have to maintain your code.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week
Zac
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear all,
How to display a SDL screen in MFC appication. Is it possible to display in the dialog ...
Manjunath S
GESL
Bangalore
|
|
|
|
|
Whats SDL screen ?
whitesky
|
|
|
|
|
I saw a thread like that some times ago. Let me see...
Ah ok, I got it. It's here[^] and here[^]
Cédric Moonen
Software developer
Charting control
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Cedric now i see that sdl is previous message!!
whitesky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, so here is what i have to say to you.
you idiot. forget that 
you don't listen what we answered to you. still you are asking the same question exactly the same way (ya, one thing you know is copy/paste).
you definitely lost my support on that topic (even if i didn't really know how to help you), but abusing of our time and patience will never help you nowhere in your life. no one is paid over Codeproject to answer ausive people, so we don't owe you anything!!
if you want an answer, start asking it correctly. then, don't repeat yourself ; everybody here saw that you asked the same question thrice...
man, all you deserve is get flamed 
i repeat myself once again. its seems that i'm not the only one here not to know what SDL is, but still you re ask your sh*t without much explainations.
google yourself, and come back here when you have a true question about a specific problem; not ask people to do a whole job for you 
TOXCCT >>> GEII power
[VisualCalc 3.0 updated ][Flags Beginner's Guide new! ]
-- modified at 13:25 Thursday 1st June, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: you idiot.
That's real professional. If it bothers you so, why not simply ignore him? No one deserves to be called an idiot, regardless of their action(s).
"The largest fire starts but with the smallest spark." - David Crow
|
|
|
|
|
after 2 warnings, i think he searched such a reaction...
btw, i assume the entiere responsibility of my words.
TOXCCT >>> GEII power
[VisualCalc 3.0 updated ][Flags Beginner's Guide new! ]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
