|
The buffer is smaller in most cases but maximum is 1024.
I will try it so. Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
It also depends of what the serve epxects. But as the datasize field is after the data, it probably means that the server always expects 1024 bytes because it is impossible for it to know where the data field stops and where the datasize field starts.
|
|
|
|
|
So i´ve tried it as talk about. It doesn´t work too.
Is there yet another way to create this packet with header information and data?
|
|
|
|
|
CrazyDogg wrote: So i´ve tried it as talk about. It doesn´t work too.
What do you mean by doesn't work ?
|
|
|
|
|
I mean it´s the same problem as before.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the server expecting exactly ?
Post also some code of what you are doing now.
|
|
|
|
|
The Server expect a RTP Packet with RTP header information and data of payload type 0 also audio sample in uLaw Format.
All what I do now is that i´ve changed in structure from void* pData to char pData[1024]. Nothing else like before.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't just change the structure size and expect
it to work, especially if you can't alter the server code.
The server is expecting a certain number of bytes.
Also, RTP integer fields are supposed to be in network byte order
AFAIK, unless you're using your own version of RTP.
Besides fixing the pointer problem already discussed,
you need to fix your code so it implements the protocol
the server is expecting.
Mark
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
you´re right with the network byte order. The server expect in BIG ENDIAN and my was for LITTLE ENDIAN.
Now it works correctly. Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
did you put file.c in another directory than the one having your own sources ?
this error message is typical of when the compiler doesn't find the implementation of something (function, class, macro, ...) used elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chesnokov Yuriy wrote: You can not use C functions in non static MFC application functions
nowhere in the original question was mentionned that the C function was static ! 
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I know (I'm not a C expert), if you declare a C function static, its scope will be limited to the file in which it has been defined. So, you can't use it from another file.
Why do you need to have it static ?
Chesnokov Yuriy wrote: static BOOL CSomeDlg::OnInitDialog() //can not be static
{
//...
}
You can't declare OnInitDialog as static: it is implemented from the base CDlg class. A static member function means that the function doesn't not belong to a particular instance of the class (so you can access it using the :: operator: CSomeDlg::MyFunction() ).
|
|
|
|
|
Chesnokov Yuriy wrote: You can not use C functions in non static MFC application functions
That's very much incorrect.
You're basically making a statement saying "it's impossible to call Win32 API functions from non-static MFC class member functions".
The most common mistake when you get this linker error is that you're not compiling the source file with the definition of the function. It may be declared several times, but the linker could not find the implementation of it.
Which brings us back to Naveen's question: did you include the implementation file in the project? Is it the right file? Is it marked to be excluded from the build?
Chesnokov Yuriy wrote:
SomeDlg.h
static void function()
{
somefunction();
}
This doesn't prove anything. The "function" may not be called so the linker won't bother if it cannot find the implementation of it.
When you provide source code, please put your code snippets inside the <pre></pre> tags.
"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you the one who's down-voting everyone on this thread? If yes, that is not at all nice of you. I can almost say that for sure by looking at the vote weightage. These people here are trying to help you and you respond to them by marking their replies as "unhelpful"? 
Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal - Friedrich Nietzsche
.·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·.
[Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, *you* are rubbishing the thread with your ugly votes. Everything looks gray.
If you don't care much about it, what makes you go out of your way to one vote every message on the thread? You have one-voted even those posts where people were discussing among themselves and not talking to you.
Your behavior is very amateurish, and most of all, the thread looks UGLY because of your votes. Not that I care for any low vote where there is no justification or feedback provided on 'why' it was done so.
I need not mention that people providing you with the right answer WILL depend on how well you explain your problem too.
Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal - Friedrich Nietzsche
.·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·.
[Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal
food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: Are you the one who's down-voting everyone on this thread?
Seems like it.
Regarding the thread I rest my case.
He has not been able to explain his problem properly, he's asking basic questions, making statements that are gravely wrong on the most basic level of the C++ language in a way implying that the rest of us doesn't know what we're talking about.
He doesn't know how to format the code snippets properly.
And on top of that he's down voting the answers he get with a weight that is privileged to a very few on CP.
I consider it rude and he will never get another answer from me.
In my opinion he's disgrace to the MVP status and it should be removed by judging from level of questions and behaviour. I can't imagine how it was awarded.
Why did I send this at all?
Because if the behaviour is unintentional it's a signal to shape up.
"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Stoltz wrote: Why did I send this at all?
Because if the behaviour is unintentional it's a signal to shape up.
I replied to him for the same very reason, but he's writing back to me asking if I earn money with votes, quoting Monty Python and all. How rude!
I also totally agree on the other things that you mentioned.
Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal - Friedrich Nietzsche
.·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·.
[Microsoft MVP - Visual C++]
|
|
|
|
|
yup, this guy is a child, and all he won here is that I will probably not ever try to help him anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
