C / C++ / MFC

thelonesquirrely wrote:

then we were thinking if it was safe to create a lock like this:

...
Lock l (Mutex m);
... // never using m

correct me if I am wrong, but then m is scoped with l. This works if I only want m to exist for l.

#include <iostream>

class Mutex
{
public:
   Mutex() { std::cout << "Mutex::Mutex\n"; }
   ~Mutex() { std::cout << "Mutex::~Mutex\n"; }
};

class Lock
{
public:
   Lock(Mutex& m) : m_(m) { std::cout << "Lock::Lock\n"; }
   ~Lock() { std::cout << "Lock::~Lock\n"; }
private:
   Mutex& m_;
};

int main()
{
   Lock l(Mutex m);
}

thelonesquirrely wrote:

Is there any taboo no-nos to doing the prior method? Some pitfalls I am not seeing?

jiabin_007_love wrote:

However,how many _connection objects and _recordset objects should I use?

DavidCrow wrote:

One of each should suffice.

Largo65 wrote:

_NoAddRefReleaseOnCComPtr<T>* operator->() const throw()
	{
		ATLASSERT(p!=NULL);
		return (_NoAddRefReleaseOnCComPtr<T>*)p;
	}

Can anyone tell me what this function does? and if I'm using this ISpGrammarBuilder pointer correctly?

call DWORD PTR printf

call  printf //did not work
call DWORD PTR  printf //works

invader82 wrote:

now I just have to figure out why it works

call dword ptr [esi+printf]

mov     esi,printf
call    esi

Gajendra Sharma wrote:

Is it true also for Unix Sockets

Gajendra Sharma wrote:

Is it true also for Unix Sockets?

Gajendra Sharma wrote:

Is it true also for Unix Sockets?