|
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your reply.
You mean, extracting BitMap from CImageList and adding it to the Master Image List..
But will it make any overhead ?
Or Can we achieve the merging of ImageLists using some other methods like Copy..
Thanks
George K Jolly
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't really be "extracting" the bitmaps from the imagelist since
bitmap(s) are part of an image list already. What I described is more of a
copy and add.
Sure there's overhead - there's overhead doing anything. Whether it's
detrimental to the performance of your app or not depends on how often you do it.
e.g. Thousands of times a second...You could do better managing bitmap memory yourself 
The most overhead probably involves creating a new bitmap, copying the original bitmap,
then the copy from the second imagelist bitmap. It's still more efficient than adding one
image at a time, which is what imagelists are best suited for (in their available functionality).
I don't know of a copy operation that copies one imagelist to another.
Mark
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Is anybody knows how to run MS ACCESS from dialog?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you just want to run MS Access or you want to do interact with an MS Access database? Have a look at ShellExecute() API to run MS Access and CDatabase class to interact with a datbase (if you're using MFC).
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
.·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·.
Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. ShellExecute() API to run MS Access is quite enough for me. Now I need to understand how to send password into MS Access with help of ShellExecute().
|
|
|
|
|
It will only work if Access accepts command-line arguments.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say I have the following:
---- Start .lib ----
class A
{
...
};
class B
{
public:
B();
int Func3();
static int Func1();
static int Func2();
};
class C
{
public:
static int Func1();
};
---- End .lib ----
---- Start .exe ----
...
int main()
{
C::Func1();
}
---- End .exe ----
This is the simplest example of the problem. C::Func1() calls B::Func1(). B::Func1() executes code but DOES NOT instantiate class A, call B::Func2(), or instantiate any instance of B(). B::Func2() instantiates an instance of A and B. I have all Visual Studio 2008 compiler optimizations turned on that I can find (/GL, /Ox, /GF, /OPT:REF, /OPT:ICF, /ltcg).
Yet, when using a static disassembler, I can clearly see that just because I reference one static function in a class (B::Func1()), even though the other static functions in the class are not used (B::Func2()), that code is included, which in turn makes any classes they use get included (e.g. class A), and then those functions include classes they use.... The end result is an unnecessarily _huge_ executable. As I said, this is just a simple example.
As far as I can tell, this is a "bug" that has been in VS since VS.NET. The only thing I can think of to possibly solve this is to create a class for each and every static function in the code...but that will likely take weeks to complete. Any better suggestions other than that?
And it would be really nice if anyone here could confirm that this is actually a bug in VS.
modified on Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
What do you want to achieve? For calling the static functions inside a class, it need not "instantiate" an object.
----------------------------
286? WOWW!
|
|
|
|
|
What I want to achieve is a smaller executable. And my point is that static functions I'm not referencing ANYWHERE are being included in the final executable for no good reason other than they have the 'static' keyword.
I've noticed that not all functions are being included - some are getting optimized away - but not all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hearing this for the first time!? My guess is that no matter you make a function static or not, it will be included in the exe. If you want to avoid those functions, group all those functions and put them into a dll. If anything's need , you may load the dll at run time and call the functions. That's the only way! If you are damn sure about your concept, provide me a link here.
----------------------------
286? WOWW!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm "damn sure". And don't "guess" - know. And I can't make it a DLL (if I did, the DLL and the EXE would both be huge, which is the opposite of my main goal). It is a static library linked against the final EXE as demonstrated by my original post.
Only people who have experienced the problem I've got should be replying - really large libraries used across multiple solutions and projects that are including 'static' functions that are never referenced. You apparently don't fall into that category.
Also, I just discovered a set of static functions in the final EXE that are in a class that is completely unrelated to the program itself (NT Service related functions - and the program is not a NT Service nor makes any calls into the class that has those support functions).
|
|
|
|
|
What about a static library?
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
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? Notice the .lib and .exe split of the original post. The .lib file IS a static library linked against the final .exe.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you are right. I made also a test and the result, on Debug built, confirm your original post. On the other hand, on a Release build, the result, as far as I can understand, appears different.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Well, of course. Debug builds include everything (even unused code). In order to see what I'm talking about, it has to be a Release build with program database generation (/Zi, adds about 32 extra bytes to the final EXE but necessary for various things) and you need to be using a static code disassembler (e.g. IDA Pro). In other words, you need to set up your dev. environment so you can reverse-engineer the EXE (binary file) to see what I'm talking about.
BTW, I compiled the simplest EXE possible (console program, displays "Hello") in Release mode and it generates a 160K file with the library, a 56K file without. It should be about 60K. There is 100K of unnecessary code being included.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you try with a pure C library?
Anyway the linker behaviour you discovered is, IMHO, really disappointing.
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
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't a bug. This is physical coupling. The library modules are mixing the different classes together. In this case, the module that contains the static class function C::Func1() also contains the definition of B::Func2(). That function will drag in all of classes A and B.
If you want the library to generate a small footprint, you need to minimize the physical coupling. Separate the classes into distinct modules. In this case you can simply create a separate file to hold C::Func1(). Have the linker generate the map file and check the symbols and modules being included. You can get incremental improvements here so you don't have to do everything at once.
|
|
|
|
|
I look for code with dilog applicaton in vc6 help plz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
you could try looking at books like "Learn microsoft visual c++ in 21 days"
this one is excellent
|
|
|
|
|
I have two different dialog based VC++ project called Main and sub.
When a OK button of Main project is clicked I want Dialogbox of Sub to be executed.
I have inserted sub.dsp into MAIN workspace. Made Sub dependent of Main.
Included "sub.h" & "subDlg.h" into "MainDlg.h"
Declared CSubDlg into CMainDlg.
When compiled I am getting an LNK 2001 Unresolved External Symbols Error.
Help to resolve.
Thanks,
Bala.
bala_potty
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you need to learn the basics of build systems and the entities project and workspace. adding a project to workspace containing the main project and setting the dependency doesnot include the definition of functions or variables to the main project whose symbols are still considered unresolved at the linking stage of main project. If you are looking Main and Sub to be combined as single application you can make the sub as library project and link the sublibrary statically or dynamically yo the main project. Or add all the source files to the main project making it a single project. Or Main and sub as separate app and use IPC to interface each other.
In your case i think you just add all the source files to main project and build it.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Raj, But when I tried add all the source files of SUB to main project and buid it the .rc file of SUB is not getting Compiled.
Is there anyway this can be resolved?
Infact both MAIN & SUB are MFC AppWizard build .EXE projects. Pl. let me Know how to Convert SUB into DLL. so that Main and Sub to be combined as single application. Your suggestion will be of great help to me.
bala_potty
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got it Thanks.
bala_potty
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
