C / C++ / MFC

20-Jul-04 0:42

Hi,
I need a command that will bring my application to the top of the Z order. I'd have thought this task would be fairly simple, but apparantly not: I've tried using

AfxGetMainWnd()->BringWindowToTop()

and also

AfxGetMainWnd()->SetWindowPos(&wndTop, 0, 0, 0, 0, SWP_NOMOVE | SWP_NOSIZE | SWP_NOACTIVATE);

Neither of these techniques seem to work at all. Can anyone advise me as to what I'm doing wrong?

Joel Holdsworth

Ravi Bhavnani20-Jul-04 1:41

Ravi Bhavnani

20-Jul-04 1:41

Joel, SetWindowPos() works for me. It's how I implement the "Always on top" feature in my apps.

/ravi

My new year's resolution: 2048 x 1536
Home | Articles | Freeware | Music
ravib@ravib.com

David Crow20-Jul-04 2:20

20-Jul-04 2:20

Joel Holdsworth wrote:
Neither of these techniques seem to work at all.

So what do they do then?

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

Joel Holdsworth20-Jul-04 6:43

20-Jul-04 6:43

They don't seem to do anything at all!

Joel Holdsworth

David Crow20-Jul-04 7:20

20-Jul-04 7:20

What does SetWindowPos() return? Have you tried stepping into each to see their behavior?

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

Joel Holdsworth20-Jul-04 7:21

20-Jul-04 7:21

Correction: BringWindowToTop seems to work once - the first time i call it in application's session, after that it becomes totally ineffective! WTF | :WTF:

Joel Holdsworth

CDeadManButton

Joel Holdsworth20-Jul-04 0:29

20-Jul-04 0:29

Hi,
I'm in the process of writing a button control that has "dead man" behaviour. The button will be used to control some machinery, and the customer has asked for this button control that will only allow activity to happen while the mouse button is pressed on it.

I'm making a control that intercepts messages WM_LBUTTONDOWN and WM_LBUTTONUP so that it can notify the backend when the user presses/releases the button. My question is this: Is there is any chance (even the slightest most skinny chance) that delivery of the WM_LBUTTONUP message might fail? I'd imagine that there might be a 1 in a million chance. So does anyone have any advice for implementing this safely?

Joel Holdsworth

Trollslayer20-Jul-04 2:00

Trollslayer

20-Jul-04 2:00

Try pressing the mouse button over the control, moving the mouse away and then releasing the button.
I think this can cause problems but I think you might have to put it over a larger conrol and catch the mouse movements on the larger control, thus the larger control acts as a 'guard rail'.
It's many years since I saw this issue so can't give more info off hand.

Elaine Rose | [Rose]

The tigress is here Big Grin | :-D

Alexander Wiseman20-Jul-04 3:16

Alexander Wiseman

20-Jul-04 3:16

Even having a "guard rail" larger control might not work if the user moves the mouse entirely outside of the application window and then releases the button. The best way to deal with that is to use the SetCapture() function so that the necessary window receives mouse events even if they occur outside the window.

Sincerely,
Alexander Wiseman

Est melior esse quam videri
It is better to be than to seem

PJ Arends20-Jul-04 9:44

PJ Arends

20-Jul-04 9:44

A better way to set up the "Guard Rail" would be to restrict the mouse cursor using the ClipCursor function. See ClipCursor and GetClipCursor in MSDN.

"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03

"Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04

Within you lies the power for good - Use it!

Alexander Wiseman20-Jul-04 11:22

Alexander Wiseman

20-Jul-04 11:22

Good point. ClipCursor will prevent the mouse from even going outside the boundary. For allowing the user to bring the mouse outside the boundary and still handling messages you would use SetCapture.

Thanks for the tip.

Sincerely,
Alexander Wiseman

Est melior esse quam videri
It is better to be than to seem

Visual C++ Toolkit: optimizing or not?

Ravi Bhavnani20-Jul-04 2:02

Ravi Bhavnani

20-Jul-04 2:02

Joel Holdsworth wrote:
Is there is any chance (even the slightest most skinny chance) that delivery of the WM_LBUTTONUP message might fail?

It depends what you mean by "fail". The message will be sent (barring a malfunction in Windows), but the time between the user clicking the button and the delivery of the message could be significant. See this[^] article for an alternative way to implement the dead man's feature.

/ravi

My new year's resolution: 2048 x 1536
Home | Articles | Freeware | Music
ravib@ravib.com

LiquidEyes19-Jul-04 23:48

LiquidEyes

19-Jul-04 23:48

I understand that Microsoft are now giving their Visual C++ Toolkit away for free. Cool | :cool:

Some websites claim that the compiler is equivalent to the Standard C++ compiler (i.e. not optimizing). On the other hand, Microsoft claim the compiler is the same as their Professional compiler. This seems too good to be true! OMG | :OMG:

Surely one of the main incentives for purchasing .NET Professional is that you get an optimizing compiler? Confused | :confused:

In other words, what's to stop me just buying C++ .NET Standard (which comes pretty cheap) and, when I've finished developing my app, using the free toolkit to build the final, optimized, distributable exe?

In a nutshell: what's the catch? Unsure | :~

Kevin McFarlane20-Jul-04 1:59

Kevin McFarlane

20-Jul-04 1:59

As I understand it, it is the full optimizing compiler.

LiquidEyes wrote:
Surely one of the main incentives for purchasing .NET Professional is that you get an optimizing compiler?

Well, you also get the other three languages if that's of any use to you.

LiquidEyes wrote:
In other words, what's to stop me just buying C++ .NET Standard (which comes pretty cheap) and, when I've finished developing my app, using the free toolkit to build the final, optimized, distributable exe?

As far as I can see - nothing.

Kevin

LiquidEyes20-Jul-04 4:00

LiquidEyes

20-Jul-04 4:00

Kewl. Thanks for the info.

Given that I'm not interested in the other languages, is there anything else about .NET Professional I should be particularly interested in?

MS seem to imply that it has superior debugging facilities compared with the Standard edition, but if we're just talking fancy-pants stuff like remote debugging and such-like, then I'm not too fussed.

I just want to write Visual C++ apps on my home PC (ultimately, with a view to distributing my apps). I use .NET Pro at work, so I'm wondering whether, when I buy C++ .NET Standard for home use, I'm suddenly going to realise there are a load of missing features that I badly want! Smile | :)

bneacetp20-Jul-04 2:52

bneacetp

20-Jul-04 2:52

You can also copy and replace the standard edition's compiler/linker files for the toolkit's compiler/linker files. It has been working for me without problems.

Happy Programming and may God Bless!

"Your coding practices might be buggy, but your code is always right."

Internet::WWW::CodeProject::bneacetp
N-Tech Productions
http://www.n-tp.com/

The Bowman20-Jul-04 6:53

The Bowman

20-Jul-04 6:53

But can you set the compiler's "Optimize" switches? The Standard IDE won't let you select any optimization, and I wonder if it removes any that you manually add...

Any experience with optimized output from Standard Edition with replaced compiler/linker files?

bneacetp20-Jul-04 10:27

bneacetp

20-Jul-04 10:27

Unfortunately, it appears that the optimization switches are still disabled with or without the compiler files in place.

I don't really have any experience with optimized output in the Standard Edition. After looking through one of my Visual C++.NET project files, it looks like Optimization through the Standard IDE is a no-show. Sorry to deliver the bad news.

Happy Programming and may God Bless!

"Your coding practices might be buggy, but your code is always right."

Internet::WWW::CodeProject::bneacetp
N-Tech Productions
http://www.n-tp.com/

decompiler for DLL

pubududilena19-Jul-04 23:43

pubududilena

19-Jul-04 23:43

hi,
I have a "first.dll" ..Now I want to generate C++ code from that DLL.Can I do that?.if possible, pleae send me reply where I can find that..

Thanks.....

David Crow20-Jul-04 2:21

20-Jul-04 2:21

pubba wrote:
Now I want to generate C++ code from that DLL.Can I do that?.

No.

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

V.20-Jul-04 2:46

20-Jul-04 2:46

I thought you could back-engineer programs? (mostly not legal)
I wouldn't know how or what though.

Maybe you know what backwards engineering is, because I thought it was creating code from dll's/exe's...?

(and we're learning every day Big Grin | :-D

)

tnx.

"If I don't see you in this world, I'll see you in the next one... and don't be late." ~ Jimi Hendrix

David Crow20-Jul-04 2:58

20-Jul-04 2:58

V. wrote:
I thought you could back-engineer programs?

Reverse-engineering is possible, but you cannot get C++ code from an EXE or DLL. The best you could hope for is barely-legible assembly.

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

Tim Smith20-Jul-04 4:11

Tim Smith

20-Jul-04 4:11

There are products that can generate high level code from machine code.

Tim Smith

I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.

David Crow20-Jul-04 4:26