|
Max Santos wrote: The question is , where cant i get more information on this topic?
I don't suspect you'll find much about it from CNN.
Max Santos wrote: The "What to do... and What not to do..." stuff
The brute-force method involves commenting out one #include directive at a time and rebuilding. If it builds successfully, you know that that #include directive is not required.
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
DavidCrow wrote: The brute-force method involves commenting out one #include directive at a time and rebuilding. If it builds successfully, you know that that #include directive is not required.
Yeap, but before i go shooting everyone of the 370 header files, i would like to read something good before trying to aim. 
|
|
|
|
|
The question would seem to be, "How do I minimize dependencies". It's clear enough in the post.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
I always like "Large Scale C++ Software Design" by John Lakos; it has a couple of good chapters that talks about compile and link time dependencies.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for the tip.
i went to amazon.com but the book is temporarily unavailable 
|
|
|
|
|
To be blunt, a book is a giant waste of time. Take a cut of your project and start experimenting. You will learn far more in a week of deliberate tests than in reading all the books you can find. It's a whole lot cheaper too.
(I speak from experience; I have been the build engineer on many projects and have always improved them measurably.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a set of techniques in order of increasing risk and diminishing returns:
Start in StdAfx.h, assuming you're using precompiled headers (and the precompiled header has the default configuration; if you're using a different header for PCH, edit that instead). Leave only #includes in this file which are stable (e.g. dependencies on external libraries) or which really do need to be included in absolutely every file. I often see StdAfx.h used as a dumping ground for all headers in a project, which, since all source files include StdAfx.h, causes every file to be recompiled even if a tiny change to an inconsequential header occurs.
If you're not using precompiled headers, consider doing so. The amount of time taken to parse <windows.h> is huge because it includes most of the files in the Platform SDK Include directory, which as of VS2005 is 46MB. MFC and ATL headers include windows.h.
Once you've edited down StdAfx.h, you'll probably have a load of compilation errors. Just get it to compile for now, by including only those headers you actually need. For class members, in the header, forward-declare those classes which are only referenced by pointer or by reference; #include those which you must.
In each header, look for uses of classes and structs defined outside that header. If a class only appears in pointer and/or reference declarations, it can be forward-declared rather than the corresponding header being #included. The source file that actually implements the functions manipulating the pointer or reference will need to #include the header declaring the class.
Look out for implementation of methods in class declarations. These should be a) trivial and b) stable, and ideally not reference the implementation of other classes. Any that aren't should be stripped out and placed in a source file. Method implementations in class declarations have the additional semantics of being considered for inlining. Generally you can get away with not inlining most of this code with very little performance impact. MFC uses a trick of keeping performance-critical routines in files with a .inl extension: in debug builds, the matching _AFXxxx_INLINE macro expands to nothing and the file is #included in the corresponding .cpp file, while in release builds the macro expands to inline and the file is #included in the corresponding header, which causes the code to be inlined if required.
If an otherwise stable class has a class member which is unstable (the declaration constantly changing), consider changing it from being a contained member to a pointer to that class, then forward-declare that class and remove the #include.
Consider replacing parameters of class or struct type with a const reference. This also saves a call to the copy constructor.
Look for overuse of inheritance. When inheriting, the full declaration of a base class is required at the point of declaration of a derived class. If the base class implementation details change, it will impact all the derived classes. It may be better to declare an abstract class containing only the public interface, and derive concrete classes from the interfaces. Often inheritance is used unnecessarily, and composition - reimplementing the derived class in terms of its former base class - is a better technique.
If you don't want to incur the overhead of virtual functions when trying to hide the implementation details of a class (for example, there would otherwise not be any virtual functions), consider the so-called 'pimpl idiom'. Here you move all members that are unstable into a separate 'implementation' class, then replace all those members in the original class with a single 'pointer-to-implementation' member.
|
|
|
|
|
hi , thanks for you complete reply
I did not reply before because i was allready in war with the compiler.
and i only read the foruns at home
The project suffers from 6 years of "allways on" changes and to many people have passed there...
Is one of those projects that never ends, allways getting new features.
(Realestate business by the way)
After all this time, the project was suffering from to many misplaced headers.
Solved the problem with forward-declares and pimpl.
Complies in half of the time, but the best thing is that changing one file dosent fires rebuild in 100 outher files anymore. 
However, i have missed stdafx.h  , after reding your mail, i whent back and removed 18 MS headers. (no longer needded).
One outher problem is that we are not using DLL, so the linking time is to big.
thanks for your help
|
|
|
|
|
how i can whrite text in testbox on another program form my program
like using sendmessage or something
|
|
|
|
|
shortwave wrote: how i can whrite text in testbox on another program form my program
like using sendmessage...
That would be one way.
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
You want to send your text into your program or an external program
|
|
|
|
|
i want to send it to external program
|
|
|
|
|
well for this purpose you need to detaily from program for example if we have a program like notepad.exe that is run now we want to insert a item to File menu(test) and if
you click this item its working i hope its helpful for you if you have a problem if i can i help to you
<br />
HWND hWnd = ::FindWindow("Notepad", NULL);
<br />
HMENU h=::GetSystemMenu(hWnd,FALSE);<br />
<br />
HMENU h1=::GetMenu(hWnd);<br />
HMENU h2=GetSubMenu(h1,0);<br />
<br />
AppendMenu(h2,MF_STRING,22,"Test");<br />
<br />
|
|
|
|
|
i use list view that have control in this page
http://www.codeproject.com/cs/miscctrl/ListViewEmbeddedControls.asp
* if i have database with 3 recode ex:
------
field 1
------
5
7
8
-----
i want to add 3 row in the listView with first colum must be button(ClickMe)
the problem new
-----------------
1 - how i make my app when i click in the fisrt (ClickMe) button -> open new Form with 5 as parameter - > new Form(5);
and second button new Form(7);
Palestine
|
|
|
|
|
How can a dialog be centred? Please explain it with example and appropriate function call and also how can a combo box and radio button be added to the toolbar and what is the function for this.
|
|
|
|
|
blue i wrote: How can a dialog be centred?
By using CenterWindow().
"Money talks. When my money starts to talk, I get a bill to shut it up." - Frank
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello im trying to print memory dump to console output stream.
<br />
for (UINT z = 0; z < 32; z++)<br />
printf("0x%0.2x ", (BYTE)(((PDWORD)((PVOID)exp->ContextRecord->Eip))[z]));<br />
Warning I get:
<br />
warning C4312: 'type cast' : conversion from 'DWORD' to 'PVOID' of greater size
exp->ContextRecord->Eip is DWORD type. Any ideas how to cast this wihout CL warning?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
|
For one, you aren't taking the address of exp->ContextRecord->Eip.
Beyond that, your code makes no sense. On the one hand, it looks like you are attempting to pull one bit at a time from the value, yet it also looks like you are trying to display each byte that makes up the DWORD value.
I'm thinking you want something more like this:
DWORD val = exp->ContextRecord->Eip;
for (int z = 0; z < 4; z++)
{
printf("0x%0.2x ", (BYTE)(val & 0xff));
val >>= 8;
}
Or just unroll the loop for a small optimization:
DWORD val = exp->ContextRecord->Eip;
printf("0x%0.2x ", (BYTE)(val & 0xff));
val >>= 8;
printf("0x%0.2x ", (BYTE)(val & 0xff));
val >>= 8;
printf("0x%0.2x ", (BYTE)(val & 0xff));
val >>= 8;
printf("0x%0.2x ", (BYTE)(val & 0xff));
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
To output a pointer value using the printf family of functions, use %p in the format string. To print a DWORD, use %lx. To get a zero-filled DWORD, use %08lx.
|
|
|
|
|
This doesnt solved my problem.
Best regards
|
|
|
|
|
I can only guess at what you were trying to do. Were you trying to dump the code at the location of an exception?
The warning itself is telling you that, if you were to recompile this code with one of the 64-bit compilers, that this line would potentially behave differently. The compiler doesn't really know that the CONTEXT type would be different on a 64-bit processor anyway and that this line therefore wouldn't compile. If you want to turn off the warning, use #pragma warning( disable: 4312 ), or disable the /Wp64 compiler switch.
I recently saw a recommendation from someone at Microsoft that you should now just use the 64-bit compiler to check compatibility and not rely on /Wp64 anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks you, disabling /Wp64 switch worked for me
|
|
|
|
|
I have a very simple question.I speficy the source files for a program in makefile as follows
PROGRAM = sq.exe
all: $(PROGRAM)
########### list of C++ source files
CPPSRCS = \
main.cpp
.......
........
########### build a list of all .obj files
OBJS = $(CPPSRCS:.cpp=.obj) $(CSRCS:.c=.obj)
########### how to link .obj files to create an executable
$(PROGRAM): $(OBJS)
$(link32) -out:$@ $(OBJS) $(LIBS) $(linkflags)
Now in case i have a large number of source files - how can i specify at directory level - viz. all cpp files under directory 'source'?
|
|
|
|
|
I want to be able to automatically install some driver files for use by my application. I have looked high and low and cant find any API documentation to help me out. Does anyone know of a way?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
