Comments by Guyverthree (Top 61 by date)

Indeed in Normal English I need is not a question.

Also see the lack of question mark....

Yes this will solve the problem. + 5

Please note that a Thread is not a process. A Processes contain threads which all run in the same memory space.

Thanks. If the terms are wrong I will improve the answer.

NO.

I believe the problem is that you are overloading the unary * operator, hence the too many parameters error that you get when this compiles. I think you want to overload the binary one however I don't know how to make it do this. Sorry that I cannot help you.

however i did find this on the wiki page i was reading

Multiplication a * b Yes Yes T T::operator *(const T& b) const; T operator *(const T &a, const T& b);

it might help you.

this is correct my 5.

As far as I know the new operator is not valid in plain C it's a C++ only keyword.

Be careful not to over run the buffers that you are using :)

good explanation my 5

+5 this is correct

I like simple and exact.

Check your header files are in order and then check that you have the required libarays in the additional include directories in the properties.

Linker errors are caused because the linker cannot find either a function definition or the symbol is unknown.

I agree indentation is good practice.

I would put the code above into Visual studio and use a debugger to step through the code so you can see what is going on at each step.
Something is obviously doing something you don't expect but since i don't know what you are trying to do I can't say what is wrong. A debugger with watch and step though abilities will be most useful in this endeavour.

I agree that regular expressions are most likely the way to solve this problem.

Glad we agree.

LPVOID does not have a size on Linux so + 1 will move it a single byte. Windows for instance it is 4 bytes.
and ++ will not compile.

Indeed Emilio is correct, vectors are just like any base type of data type and NOT thread safe.

don#'t forget that ++ is an operator and + 1 is not.

therefore if i is a pointer + 1 might only move the pointer a single byte.
where as ++i or i++ will move it the size of the data that the pointer points to :)

I'm not 100% sure which is why this is not an answer, I believe that you cannot define code without it being inside a function definition.

i had made that assumption based on the #include of windows.h, I have updated my solution accordingly. Safar.

That's correct. 5+

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682425%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

this will also help

5 from me.

Agree 5

I didn't know about design patterns but they are obviously very very useful.

Agree 5 :)

I didn't know about design patterns but they are obviously very very useful.

Yes that is a fair point. The gobal queue is a must.

I was assuming that he must have thought about timeouts, parallel tasks and dead locking if he is creating 11K worth of threads already and wants the task to be completed successfully.

Indeed I agree.

I second this.

If you need to keep a copy of this Information then put it in a file and only display the it every second to the user.

Seconded.

Full code of something like that would be highly prized I think.

thanks I tired to offer an approach rather than code for him to copy.

thanks :)

try dumping the memory at local_member_buffer_1 and see if the image that you are copying is empty.

GetLastError(); can be your best friend in this case :)

move what type of buttons ?
how do you know it's solved ? would a message box be enough.

comment more on the method you want to use and the exact problem that you are having.

Sorry it was a badly written comment.

It should have said: I like changing the function, warning suppression is rarely a good idea.

I agree that changing the function is the right thing to do, rather than just suppressing the warning like the other solutions. I voted 5. :)

like changing the function warning removal is rarely a good idea.

J

this does fix the issue +5

Aamir Butt is correct I should have used the macro instead of the L parameter.
I have changed the solution to improve it.

indeed and seconded.

J

Sorry i use mobile programming alot and that defaults to Wide string.

Remove the L from the front of the path

can you just remove the lib and the system("cls"); functions and compile and run the code then ???

i think the problem was conio.h not having clrscr() ni it.

I ahve changed it for antoher function that does the same thing from cstdlib

Sorry I miss read the wording of your post of poorly as purely.

I apologize.

do you mean a stocastic Search pattern ????

I disagree that overloading was purely idiotic, you load a functions with parameters, and in it's first instance (very old I might add) overloading was used to increase the variables which were passed to a function, hence the terms overloading.

But I agree that the terms are mixed on occasion. And need to be understood completely.

I agree, that is the simplest way to do what you want to do.

I have a similar problem on Vista, Olivier correctly states that you need to use the application Data. It might well be a hidden directory called app data under the user which is signed in however.

I like this good answer

Indeed you are right and readability of code is important.

This is correct, they changed the standard so you must specific the return type from a function.

Have you tried creating three events, one for there is some work and the other two for a quit.
Then wait on all three and if you have work do some, but if you need to quit clean up the thread and then set the exit event so you know the thread has completed and cleaned up.

This structure would also be the same sort of thing if you message based the thread instead of event based it.

Is the thread message or event based ?

Or is it just going till the program quits ???

it might be that you are not handling the redraw of the window properly. Just a suggestion.

Indeed they are the same for assignment purposes.