|
I wonder, does the exe load comctl32.dll but calls InitCommonControls[^] and not InitCommonControlsEx[^] and would it help if it were to call the Ex version? You could try hooking the InitCommonControls API method and call the Ex version instead, i wonder if that would work.
> The problem with computers is that they do what you tell them to do and not what you want them to do. <
> If it doesn't matter, it's antimatter.<
|
|
|
|
|
I've found it easier to create a .manifest or .xml file in the res folder, and then add the apropriate entry to the .rc file.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"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
"Some people are making such thorough preparation for rainy days that they aren't enjoying today's sunshine." - William Feather
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot do this in a DLL, only in the original executable. The #pragma is meaningless in a DLL because it only gets loaded on demand and is not allowed to conflict with the settings of the main executable. You will either need to get hold of the source or object code of your executable and rebuild it or live with the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
But there is no way of loading Common Controls from DLL ??
Maybe forcing the InitcommonControlsEx to load the 6.0 version like the pragma/manifest does ?
Mithrill
|
|
|
|
|
Not unless the EXE program calls a function in the DLL immediately on startup. You are trying to alter the conditions and environment of an application without the application itself being involved, and I don't think that is viable. As I said before, you need to get the source code of the application and change that.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds to me like you should be looking into "XP Style Hacker"
I've used this program dozens of times to make old programs look more modern. It creates a manifest file in the same folder as the executable. No need to modify the original, as windows loads the manifest file, PROVIDED it has a name in the correct format. I seem to remember this as being "exeFilename.exe.manifest".
The tool's free to download and use, I reckon it's just what you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't change the exe cause of company restrictions, I have only the DLL programming and I don't
Distribute the EXE, I Just write a DLL and deliver it to the other guys abroad.
I work in a big firm, I can't change the EXE 
Mithrill
|
|
|
|
|
I had no idea of the size of the company you work for (& no more interest, to be honest)
I'm not advocating the changing of any exe file.. If you take the time to actually look at the tool "XP Style Hacker", you'll come to understand that so long as you have a copy of the EXE, it will create the manifest file for you. You can then distribute the manifest file with the rest of your code. Provided the manifest file is put into the same folder as the EXE file, it'll just work.
So please, do yourself a favour and actually try the tool...
EDIT: And please re-read my last post. It seems your reading and comprehension skills are a little depleted today. I said in my last post that there was no need to change the exe.... 
|
|
|
|
|
mithrill wrote: I work in a big firm, I can't change the EXE
Then you need to explain to your boss that what you are being asked to do is not technically feasible, and he needs to go back to the people responsible for the EXE and tell them they will have to change their application.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi!
Is it possible to code classes, polymorphism and every other
Object oriented concepts in C also?
|
|
|
|
|
There's an app article for that: Polymorphism in C[^]
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Sir! for the quick reply. Can you tell me what is the difference between C & C++ then?
Why C++ if C could do all things that C++ can do? Please give me some explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
C is NOT an objected oriented programming language. It was never meant to be. Since you asked if it's possible to achieve polymorphism with C, I linked you to an article. C++ on the other hand, was meant to be an object oriented programming language.
pix_programmer wrote: Why C++ if C could do all things that C++ can do?
Why write C code if x86 assembly code can do all the things that C can do? The same logic applies here.
C++ was designed to be a object oriented programming language (like I already said), and that's why you would use it to write object oriented code. I won't write C code, unless may be if I'm writing a device driver or a program that would run in an embedded device with very minimal resources to spare.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: I won't write C code, unless may be if I'm writing a device driver or a program that would run in an embedded device with very minimal resources to spare
Sir! Please don't take it in the other way. I attended one Embedded interview. The interviewer asked the above question. I don't know what is the answer. That's why I asked the genius. What would be the perfect answer to the following question of the interviewer?
What is the difference between C & C++?
|
|
|
|
|
What is the difference between C & C++?
C++ natively supports more programming paradigms than C.
C was made for procedural programming, and C++ supports this just as well, but also supports object-oriented and generic programming.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool Cow Orjan wrote: C++ natively supports more programming paradigms than C.
nice answer.
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
pix_programmer wrote: What is the difference between C & C++?
See here.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"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
"Some people are making such thorough preparation for rainy days that they aren't enjoying today's sunshine." - William Feather
|
|
|
|
|
Very good.
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]
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
|
|
|
|
|
When we say C++ supports OOP, it also means that the C++ compiler understands and compiles the OOP syntax.
Since C does not understand OOP, you have to write all the code yourself.
For example, OOP call the constructor when an object is created.
This is nothing but calling a function just after allocating memory for a data type.
In C++ you simply have to write a constructor according to the rules of a constructor.
But in C, you have to write a function and call that in code.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't need an object-oriented language to do object-oriented programming. Going back to C once after many years of C++, I noticed I was using typedefs more effecively, as a substitute for "class". You can also use static members in C to simulate the private members of a C++ class.
The Decorator design pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorator_pattern ) can be used to add inheritance to languages that don't have it, like C.
The basic idea is that the "virtual" methods of each "class" (typedef'd struct) have a function pointer that can be set to a function in a parent class. If the pointer is non-NULL, it's called to simulate inheritance.
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Balkany wrote: You can also use static members in C to simulate the private members of a C++
class.
Not sure what that statement means.
Static in C is not equivalent to class members. On can use a struct in C to contain member variables.
If one wants to mimic 'private' (which I think is overkill) then one can use a struct whose scope is limited to the C file and which is allocated when a more globally visible struct (different one) is allocated.
|
|
|
|
|
I meant static functions in C aren't visible outside the file they're declared in, which can be used to simulate private functions in C++.
|
|
|
|
|
While you've got plenty of useful responses already I'd like to add the fact that early C++ compilers were in fact pre-compilers that translated C++ code into C code. However, these precompilers had a very hard time when it came to templates, and therefore these early C++ 'front-ends' were not able to support the full template syntax.
In view of your question, since Templates are not a neccessary concept for OOP, C can clearly be used for OOP. It is just, as others have already pointed out, not very well suited to it.
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
how can i implement a dll for connecting the browser through proxy server in vc++
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
