Visual C++ :: Exit Application Using Thread In MFC SDI
Feb 4, 2014
I have a SDI application. I created a method OnClose to handle ON_WM_CLOSE of CMainFrm. This onclose() function calls a method in cmyview.cpp. Here, I created a thread that calls global function and from this function it calls another function in cmyview.cpp. At certain condition my application should close at here, I used postmessgae(WM_CLOSE (or) WM_DESTROY). I am having an error as object reference not set on postmessage(WM_CLOSE) it is going to afxwin2.inl page where exception occurs.
Below is code snippetHere, either j or k will only be true depneds on user input)
I want to define a range of exit codes in my application. These codes will be used as a return value of ExitInstance function. I want to know the exit codes availables (values not used for example by windows to inform about an other error). When I force to crash my application, I get some different error codes: 8148, 10176.
I have written ( using VS2008 c++ ) a windows service which sends information about PC usage to a central database, as part of a PC availability setup. I have been asked to add the following functionality to it:
1) What applications are most used, when and how long for, and
2) What web sites are being accessed, again to find the most popular etc.
My main question is, what functionality is there to trap application start / close events from within my service ( just need the application name ), and secondly I am already using sockets to send information to a PHP script on a server, the best way to see what web pages are being accessed is to build in a packet sniffer, and extract the information from that.
I have a Modeless CMFCPropertySheet created and opened from the main frame. if I open the Modeless CMFCPropertySheet and close it then it's fine all the cleanup is performed through the destructor and the this pointer gets deleted. If I exit the app while the Modeless CMFCPropertySheet is open then the Modeless CMFCPropertySheet gets destroyed but the cleanup is not performed resulting in memory leaks for the pages. How can I make sure the cleanup is performed in that given scenario?
Say I have a dll that performs some mathematical parsing and calculations. The calling function is only a single C -linkage wrapper function in the dll. I can anticipate likely errors and program the dll methods to do several things when an anticipated error is encountered. (For now, let's not worry about unanticipated errors).
1 - send an error message to the user application using WM_COPYDATA 2 - throw an exception (assuming the calling app has used the try catch scenario) 3 - try to gracefully recover from the error within the dll and keep on going (jump to some safe place - but how ??) 4 - don't throw an exception from within the dll but halt the program (not very nice - the user won't know what happened)
Previous discussions on the matter have predominantly expressed the opinion that it is bad to throw exceptions from within a dll.
Long ago there was in use setjmp.h and something like
Code: if(setjmp(e_buf)) return -1;
But I believe this was only for old C applications - I'm not really sure. But at least someone back then recognized the need for getting back to a safe place in a process.
Basically, I'm moving a VC project from my Windows 7 build machine to a new build machine that's running Windows 8.1. One of the pre-build steps (for a particular project) runs a script which needs to call the M4 macro processor (which is installed on my C: drive). I've been pretty careful to set everything up the same on both machines (including my PATH) but when I try to build the project on my Windows 8 box, MSVC's IDE shows me this error output when running the script:-
I have a class which I wrote and one of its object is "SerialPort" .NET class. In my MainWindow I created instance of my class called "SerialPortComm", then I send through some functions of mine, commands to the Serial Port, and I receive answers through "DataReceived" event.
But when I trying to use Dispatcher.BeginInvoke to write my data I have received (successfully), nothing shows on the RichTextBox which I'm trying to write to.
What can caused that, and How I can make it works?
SerialPortComm.cs
public partial class SerialPortComm : UserControl { public SerialPort mySerialPort = new SerialPort(); public void Open_Port(string comNumber, int baudRate) { mySerialPort.PortName = comNumber; mySerialPort.BaudRate = baudRate;
I need using CSemaphore class in MFC C++ application. I have an edit1 box with multil ine and each line has a string. I'm trying to loop through edit1 box and for each string to start a thread that is using the string for specific function. I'm trying to limit the run of only one thread at the same time with semaphores but all treads start at the same time.
So when i click button1 i loop through edit1 box and start threads:
Code: void CMFCApplication1Dlg::onButton1Click() { int i, nLineCount = edit1.GetLineCount(); CString strText, strLine, mesaj; for (i = 0; i < nLineCount; i++) {
[Code] ....
While looping through edit1 box multi line and starting the threads:
Code: UINT CMFCApplication1Dlg::StartThread(LPVOID param) { WaitForSingleObject(semafor, INFINITE); // wait for semafor to signal THREADSTRUCT* ts = (THREADSTRUCT*)param; // here i'm doing some operations with the string from edit1 box ReleaseSemaphore(semafor, 1, NULL); //release the semaphore for next thread to begin }
Instead of running only one thread at a time all threads start. What am i doing wrong ?
How can I implement the paradigm demonstrated by the code below to run on WinXP?
I want to fork a process or create a thread that shares global variables with the parent process/thread.
The child process/thread monitors the progress of the parent process/thread.
I cannot find documentation for a fork function per se, a Unix term. It might be called something different for WinXP.
I would be happy to use threads instead. But I'm rusty even with Unix application threads; and I know nothing of WinXP application threads.
So any turnkey implementation that demonstrates the simplest use of process or thread functions for my purpose demonstrated below.
In either case, do "forked" processes and threads share global address space in WinXP, as they do in Unix?
I would prefer to avoid the overhead of IPC mechanisms. The "overhead" includes my own relearning curve.
The GUI screwed up my indentation. I would try to correct it. But the proper indentation appears when I edit the posting. I suppose I need to insert real tabs. Haven't figured out how (yet).
Not even real tabs work; and I cannot get the "paste as text" button to behave as I expect. What is the trick for posting indented text in this GUI?
#include "stdafx.h" #include <stdlib.h> #include <Windows.h> long curCount; int isRunning; int _tmain(int argc, char* argv[]) { curCount = 0; isRunning = 1;
I am having a strange problem trying to display a dialog from a UI thread. The dialog simply fails to display. I have a function DisplayFlashBox(), which creates the UI thread:
CUIThread* CIMUIHelper:: DisplayFlashBox(const CString &sMessage, const int nInstrumentUID) { CUIThread *pThread = new CUIThread(); pThread->SetString(sMessage); pThread->SetInstrumentUID(nInstrumentUID); pThread->CreateThread();
[Code] .....
The dialog doesn't display. When I tried debugging, I found the OnInitDialog() method of CIMFlashBox class doesn't actually return. Very strange. I tried calling the DoModal() method instead of Create, but doesn't display the dialog either.
I have main thread that creates an WebBrowser2 COM object. and i want to invoke JScript functions on it from another thread. i try to use GIT but still doesn't work for me.. there is a problem with marshal WebBrowser2 for JScript?
Can local variable be passed as the parameter for a new created thread procedure? Here is the example code:
Code: void CDLG::some_function() { CString strFileName="abc.doc"; //local variable, can it be valid for being passed into the following new thread??? //Can strFileName still be accessed from within the stack of thread procedure? ::AfxBeginThread(ProcessContentThread,(LPVOID)&strFileName); }
[Code]...
There is another method using variable on the heap,
I test these code, both methods work as expected, but I doubt whether the first method is a good way. OR if only the second method is the correct way to pass a parameter to a thread.
I have a thread with a while(1) loop in it. When the user push the stop button I would like that thread to end.
I thought about creating a bool and checking its value periodically in the thread and when I push the stop button I change the value of the bool for that the thread breaks out of the loop and finishes.
I'm the author of a realtime MIDI software called ChordEase which makes use of the MIDI aspects of the multimedia API, specifically MIDI input callbacks. In XP and before, these callbacks originated in the kernel and therefore had realtime priority by definition, but from Vista on, they originate in thread pool threads, and have a priority of zero. This is a problem because at priority zero they can be blocked by the GUI thread, causing serious latency, and I have proved that such blocking occurs.
I have experimented with raising the callback thread priority, using either of the following methods: 1) calling SetThreadPriority within the MIDI input callback function, and then setting a flag so that it isn't done repeatedly, or 2) creating a DLL that catches thread creation via DLL_ATTACH_THREAD in DllMain, and calling SetThreadPriority there. The first method is slightly wasteful since the flag has to be tested for every MIDI input event, but it also has the advantage of only affecting the MIDI input threads, whereas the second method affects all threads in the pool regardless of what they're used for. Neither method appears to cause any harmful effects but they make me nervous*. Other possible methods would include 3) using the thread pool API to raise the priority of the pool (assuming I could gain access to the pool handle somehow), or 4) permanently lowering the priority of the GUI thread, which I'm very reluctant to do because of the risk of unintended consequences.
I'm assuming the MIDI input callbacks are using threads in the default thread pool though I haven't actually proved this. Assuming that's so, are these threads private to my application, or is my application sharing them with other applications? Is there a safer way to achieve the result of increasing the priority of MIDI input callbacks? It's incredibly frustrating that MS would change the behavior of MIDI input callbacks so drastically without even telling anyone, but that's how it goes!
[URL] ....
*See for example theses warnings about changing thread pool priorities : [URL] ....
error C3867: 'WordParsor::Form1::PutUpfrmIO': function call missing argument list; use '&WordParsor::Form1::PutUpfrmIO' to create a pointer to memberc:userskingc++wordparsorwordparsorForm1.h... and the suggestion fix generate another error.
One person suggested the gcroot<> object wrapper... but I do not know how to modify/declair the function or its argument type.
I have a question about to run an MFC dialog based C++ application from console: if I run my application from console, I see the application start and the console immediately back to prompt. I need that console wait the application exit before show me the prompt again. I tried on Visual Studio 6, 2005 and 2010 but the behavior is the same.
I passed the CStringArray to dll & wrote the String in a file.
The error File: array_s.cpp, Line No: 420 was occured when i close the .exe file.
For your reference:
Code: Function Declaration in DLL : DECLDIR void SetParName(CStringArray& ParName); Function Definition in DLL : DECLDIR void SetParName(CStringArray& ParName){
ParName.Add("X1"); ParName.Add("X2");
[Vode] .....
My doubt is, CStringArray items are allocated in the DLL. So, when i release the CStringArray object in the application. Is it can release memory that are allocated in the DLL ?
I have a Win32 C++ application which works pretty well, but I don't like the GUI and I want to replace it with one designed graphically, a la Windows Forms. What is the best strategy to port my code? I tried creating a new Windows Forms C++ application and got pretty far with it, but was stymied when trying to call my unmanaged functions on a button press. If I can't use Forms to add a GUI without completely rewriting the program, what's my best bet?
