|
the following work arounds are tried.
1. Format and reinstalling OS
2. Reinstalling driver for the hardware
3. Removing the old copies of mfc42.dll
4. Copying mfc42.dll from working machine.
5. Disabling mcaffee anti virus, removing network cable etc.
Any help would be appreciated.
SYAMLAL
|
|
|
|
|
What is ModVersion-6.2.4131.0?
"Old age is like a bank account. You withdraw later in life what you have deposited along the way." - Unknown
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
|
|
|
|
|
that is the version of the dll shown in the windows error message
SYAMLAL
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but what is ModVersion?
"Old age is like a bank account. You withdraw later in life what you have deposited along the way." - Unknown
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
|
|
|
|
|
Module Version.
Excerpts from the error dialog is : "ModVer 6.2.4131.0"
SYAMLAL
|
|
|
|
|
SyamlalS wrote: error application crash
What application?
If it's your own application...here's your response:
So, the first thing you suspect is a problem with MFC or the configuration of your machine?
Nah - it's going to be a bug. In your code. Really. Break out the debugger and look for it.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
When I export a class in a DLL, I'm not actually dealing with dllmain or those DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH , DETACH thing. I just simply export it as a class. Then how things work without implementing these?
|
|
|
|
|
grassrootkit wrote: Then how things work without implementing these?
That depends. If, for example, your DLL was using COM and your host wasn't, it wouldn't work if you didn't handle the thread attach event and initialize COM. All the COM calls would fail because that's how COM works. So it depends on what you are doing in your DLL. In other words all DLL's are not equal.
|
|
|
|
|
So it should concern us only if we are dealing with COM?
|
|
|
|
|
Really? That's your interpretation of my post?
good luck
|
|
|
|
|
your DLL was using COM and your host wasn't, it wouldn't work if you didn't handle the thread attach event and initialize COM.
You mean "if my DLL is a COM dll" and the hosting application not using COM? I'm really not able to follow you. Can you explain a bit more without taking out the stick?
|
|
|
|
|
grassrootkit wrote: Can you explain a bit more
Um I already did explain more, maybe you missed those parts?
led mike wrote: That depends.
led mike wrote: If, for example, your DLL was using COM
led mike wrote: because that's how COM works.
led mike wrote: So it depends on what you are doing in your DLL.
led mike wrote: In other words all DLL's are not equal.
By the way, that's not a stick, that's just quoting what I already posted.
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: In other words all DLL's are not equal.
I just asked I should take care of dllmain when I'm writing a simple C++ exported class. And you replied with reference to COM! That was little vague or may be I couldn't follow your language. That's why I asked the question again but anyway Cedric moonen got it quite right.
|
|
|
|
|
grassrootkit wrote: Cedric moonen got it quite right.
Cedric Moonen wrote: But for a plain dll (not COM), you don't have to do anything in them
No, that is not correct.
In a "not COM" DLL you don't have to initialize COM, but you may need to do something else, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE FRACK YOU ARE DOING IN YOUR DLL!!!!
There is no way to make that point more clear. If you can't understand it, you should change careers.
BTW, I find your refusal to read what I post in reply to your question, very rude. Therefore I don't give a rats ass what you think is rude. Get it? Got it? Good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was I talking to you? Well now I am so f*** off a**hole
|
|
|
|
|
Actually he was pretty nice today. Never heard about 'Terrible Led Mike' before?
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]
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: No, that is not correct.
In a "not COM" DLL you don't have to initialize COM, but you may need to do something else, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE FRACK YOU ARE DOING IN YOUR DLL!!!!
That's what I was saying in my second sentence: you might want to initialize stuff depending on what your dll is doing
|
|
|
|
|
I know that but the monkey can't seem to understand it.
Changing subjects, the voting in this thread is a perfect example of how off it can be, my actual (and correct) answer to the question get's no votes but my post flaming someone else get's a '5' 
|
|
|
|
|
led mike wrote: Really? That's your interpretation of my post?
Wonderful. 
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]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: Wonderful.
Q:When I export a class in a DLL, I'm not actually dealing with dllmain or those DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH , DETACH thing. I just simply export it as a class. Then how things work without implementing these?
A:That depends. If, for example, your DLL was using COM and your host wasn't, it wouldn't work if you didn't handle the thread attach event and initialize COM. All the COM calls would fail because that's how COM works. So it depends on what you are doing in your DLL. In other words all DLL's are not equal.
Q:So it should concern us only if we are dealing with COM?
*:Really? That's your interpretation of my post?
What's there for you to wonder so much? Don't expect everybody to know everything. I haven't worked with COM. That's why I asked the question that way. I found his reply a bit rude. Now yours is a bit worse. If Cedric Moonen can get question my right why can't you?
|
|
|
|
|
He made an example, you didn't understand it was just an example.
For a better understanding see [^].
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]
|
|
|
|
|
So it should concern us only if we are dealing with COM?
May be I should have rephrased that as:
"We don't need to worry if we are just exporting a class."
|
|
|
|
|
The functions are always called. But for a plain dll (not COM), you don't have to do anything in them. However, you could do some initialization and clean-up stuff but that's up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! This is what I asked. Excellent. Straight forward & a neat reply.
modified on Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:36 PM
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
