C / C++ / MFC

Programm3r wrote:

Cause I think you don't understand.

struct record
{        
    char recordType[3];	
    char fieldName[30];	
    char fieldType[2];	
    char fieldLen[3]; // you erroneously had 2
} RecordAttributes[3];
 
char SemiBuffer[1024] = "MA,RECORDTYPE,C,32,MA,DEVID,C,4,MD,RECORDTYPE,C,15";
 
void main( void )
{
    char *strToken;
    int  x = 0,
         nComma = 0;
 
    strToken = strtok(SemiBuffer, ",");
    while (strToken != NULL)
    {
        switch (nComma)
        {
            case 0:
                strcpy(RecordAttributes[x].recordType, strToken);
                break;
 
            case 1:
                strcpy(RecordAttributes[x].fieldName, strToken);
                break;
 
            case 2:
                strcpy(RecordAttributes[x].fieldType, strToken);
                break;
 
            case 3:
                strcpy(RecordAttributes[x].fieldLen, strToken);
                break;
        }
 
        strToken = strtok(NULL, ",");
        
        nComma++;
        if (nComma > 3)
        {
            nComma = 0;
            x++;
        }
    }
}

for (i = 0; i < 9860708750; i++)
{
    if ( (i % 3) == 0 )
    {
       Here goes stuff that will happen when i = 0,3,6,9,....
    }

}

Iain Clarke wrote:

for (i = 0; i < 9860708750; i++)

<br />
// in recorset header file<br />
CByteArray m_MyKey;<br />
<br />
// in recordset cpp file DoFieldExchange()<br />
RFX_Binary(pFX, _T("[MyKey]"), m_MyKey);

wings2 wrote:

From what I understand, this timer should trigger every 1 ms.

wings2 wrote:

I created a timer that looks like:

m_UpdateTimer = SetTimer (1, 1, NULL);

From what I understand, this timer should trigger every 1 ms.

Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

No way Windows can deliver that frequency. SetTimer works reasonably well for ranges over half a second, not milliseconds.

Force Code wrote:

Try it out for yourself. Set an interval of 10 (milliseconds) and every WM_TIMER msg, OutputDebugString(GetCurrentTime()). The millisecond output will increment by 10 for at least fifty iterations before being off by one.

Force Code wrote:

Try it out for yourself. Set an interval of 10 (milliseconds) and every WM_TIMER msg, OutputDebugString(GetCurrentTime()). The millisecond output will increment by 10 for at least fifty iterations before being off by one.

Force Code wrote:

Try it out for yourself. Set an interval of 10 (milliseconds) and every WM_TIMER msg, OutputDebugString(GetCurrentTime()). The millisecond output will increment by 10 for at least fifty iterations before being off by one.

Mark Salsbery wrote:

ummm - are they using the same clock? I think you'd need to compare the values against a real-time clock.

Mark Salsbery wrote:

Some possibly interesting articles...
Time is the Simplest thing...[^]
Precision is not the same as accuracy[^]

Force Code wrote:

I just tried it with QueryPerformanceCounter. It showed the WM_TIMER msgs were only off by an average of .0032%.