|
Hi,
IS there any other product like
boundschecker which can be integrated
with vc++
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which company? Web site? and can i run it on Windows 98
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Rational...
I use BoundsChecker myself...
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that i don't own BoundsChecker and neither
can i afford it right now.. so i was looking out for
an evaluation copy.. but i didn't get it newhere
|
|
|
|
|
I have BoundsChecker with crack. If you want, mail me ;0)
kourov@newmail.ru
|
|
|
|
|
Boundschecker is a very good product and deserves its price tag.
People who use cracks are only undermining the software industry. You should not be advocating it here or anywhere else.
Roger Allen
Sonork 100.10016
If I had a quote, it would be a very good one.
|
|
|
|
|
Boundschecker is a very good product and deserves its price tag.
Perhaps it does nowadays, but rewinding 5-6 years I'd say that Pure Atria Purify kicked ass with whatever was available, and still I use it for memory-related bug-hunting. After Rational bought them (IMO) all went to h*ll though.
I also think that "deserves its price tag" is up to the consumer of it, and if you just want to use it for some personal project it's probably way to expensive.
BoundsChecker still have some merits though:
1 - Old versions can be used to debug Win16 stuff (I've heard of the poor souls forced to do this).
2 - It can keep a "log" of windows (Win32) calls made, and what arguments was given/returned (or have they removed that also in the last years?).
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Can neone tell me where can i get the evaluation
copy of numega Boundschecker.. the website www.numega.com
does not provide link to d/l
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you need to contact a sales rep. That's how we got it anyway. Yeah, not very friendly of them not providing a downloadable demo.  /
--------
all the modern things
have always existed
they've just been waiting
to come out
and multiply
and take over Björk, The Modern Things
|
|
|
|
|
But yesturday, i somehow found a link to downlaod a 14
day evaluation and the file it was d/ling
was dpp70.exe (was around 10MB)..
Ne idea..from where i can get it
|
|
|
|
|
Sameer Maggon wrote:
But yesturday, i somehow found a link to downlaod a 14
day evaluation and the file it was d/ling
was dpp70.exe (was around 10MB)..
Hey, why didn't you download it then?
Nish
Check out last week's Code Project posting stats presentation from :-
http://www.busterboy.org/codeproject/
Feel free to make your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno how - I had the same experience, and I had to convince the sales rep we were a big enough company that we could afford and justify the expense before they would let us download it.
Christian
The tragedy of cyberspace - that so much can travel so far, and yet mean so little.
And you don't spend much time with the opposite sex working day and night, unless the pizza delivery person happens to be young, cute, single and female. I can assure you, I've consumed more than a programmer's allotment of pizza, and these conditions have never aligned. - Christopher Duncan - 18/04/2002
|
|
|
|
|
I plan to use Control+ <right mouse click> for global hotkey.
I use
registerhotkey(hwnd,1234,MOD_CONTROL,0x02)
but it doesn't work.
What's should I do ?
Thank you so much
|
|
|
|
|
meta wrote:
registerhotkey(hwnd,1234,MOD_CONTROL,0x02)
The 4th parameter is the keyboard virtual key code. By 0x02 are you expecting that to catch right-mouse clicks? If so, that wont work.
Nish
Check out last week's Code Project posting stats presentation from :-
http://www.busterboy.org/codeproject/
Feel free to make your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
registerhotkey(hwnd,1234,MOD_CONTROL,0x02)
It doesn't work when I press Control + <right mouse click > its application will open its context menu instead of send WM_HOTKEY to my application
What should I do ?
thank a lot
|
|
|
|
|
So VC7 includes hash_map support, but it doesn't apppear to support strings as keys without you specifying your own hashing function. This means I have to do something like:
typedef std::string sstring;
struct string_hash_compare : public std::hash_compare<sstring, std::less<sstring> >
{
size_t operator( )( const sstring& Key ) const
{
// hash Key and return it
}
bool operator( )(const sstring& _Key1, const sstring& _Key2) const
{
return _Key1 < _Key2;
}
};
std::hash_map<sstring, int, string_hash_compare> MyHashMap;
I suppose this isn't *that* bad, but I am suprised they didn't add a size_t operator overload to std::string that hashed the string so this wouldn't be necessary. They could have at least provided a sensible string hashing function. I believe STLPort does this the right way. <sigh> Someone please tell me I overlooked something!
Chris Hafey
|
|
|
|
|
What would a plain string return when you want it converted to a size_t? It's size, the moon phase, or just plain old 42 or 4711?
Of course you have to provide your own hash key, no one but you would know what you'd want to hash on! If you just want a map with a string key, use std::map.
|
|
|
|
|
I think my post was clear that I would have liked for hash_map and string to work seemlessly together. I admit that returning the hash as a size_t conversion is not the right thing, a better idea would be to have hash_map call the hash() method on the key that is being used and add a hash() method to std::string. std::map has nothing to do with this discussion, it already works seemlessly with strings. Microsoft clearly could have put more effort into this, especially since >90% of hash tables use strings as keys. In fact, I have personally never used a non string key in a hash.
Chris Hafey
PS - If you look at the header file for hash_map, you can see some code commented out where someone tried to do a "best guess" hash of the key. At least they put some effort into it, unfortunately not enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hafey wrote:
and add a hash() method to std::string
Here we go again. You don't think this issue has been beaten to death by C++ experts? 
Exactly WHAT would your hash aglorithm be for a string? Not everyone wants the same, and you better watch your back before introducing suggestions about introducing virtual member functions into std::basic_string to be able to overload on your personal notion of what a hash value should be. :->
Microsoft clearly could have put more effort into this, especially since >90% of hash tables use strings as keys.
Microsoft has basically NOTHING to do with this. The standard C++ (with emphasis on C++) library provided by MSVC is the Dinkumware library. Microsoft couldn't create such a work of art even if they wanted to.
But since you now have made a statement that more than 90% of the hash_table uses use a string as the key, I urge you (nay, I challange you) to prove this. I'd say you're speaking out of the south end of a north going 'ru.
In fact, I have personally never used a non string key in a hash.
And you think you should in some way be in authority when speaking about using C++ here, especially with statements like "Well I have surely never seen anything else"? Get real! You are in a forum where many use MFC and actually think it's good!!!
I urge you to read up on compl.lang.c++.moderated, and please read it a while before posting your ideas to not make a fool out of yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure this issue has been discussed in depth, in fact I bet this issue is exactly why hash_map didn't make it into the original standard. I am very well aware that different hash algorithms have different characteristics. I am also very aware that there are some which are considered very good for general purpose use. Just because there is no one algorithm that meets everyones needs doesn't mean there shouldn't be one selected as the default for strings. Besides, if someone has a need to use a different algorithm, it is just a matter of specifying it at as the third parameter.
Challenging me to proove that 90% of hash tables use strings makes you look like a fool. Can you honestly say that this is not a reasonable estimation? I never claimed to be an authority in C++, but I am a user with a very strong background in C++. This whole thread is about usability, something you seem to feel takes a backseat to design purity. Don't take me wrong, I am all for design purity, but sometimes a bit more usability for the majority is worth the expense of some purity.
Finally I urge you to think about how you responded to this thread. Your attitude was uncalled for and did nothing to help the discussion. If you think acting like an ass hole earns you respect, you have a lot to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Hafey wrote:
Just because there is no one algorithm that meets everyones needs doesn't mean there shouldn't be one selected as the default for strings.
True. But it also doesn't mean any algorithm should be selected. It would in a sense be like providing some "black box" less<T> for any type imaginable. Not a pretty sight, especially since less<t> for a hash-value for a string is with almost certainty not the same as its case-sensitive string comparison strcmp().
Besides, if someone has a need to use a different algorithm, it is just a matter of specifying it at as the third parameter.
A third parameter to ... what?
I'm sure you are aware that predicates are by convention types, and they are given as template arguments at compile time to the class template using them. I've got a "prototype" hash_map implementation from Dinkumware here (the revision before VC7 release I believe). It has got four template parameters. There is also the problem that many implementations (of whatever standard template it might be) are given (or have taken) the freedom to append (default) template parameters to the template parameter list.
I understand the point that for usability there should possibly be a default string-hashing std function, but I also see that this is such a controversial subject that the standard perhaps is better off by not providing a "demo" implementation (remember that many of the std:: techniques are really "demonstrations" of how to do stuff).
Challenging me to proove that 90% of hash tables use strings makes you look like a fool.
It does? 
You who stated "especially since >90% of hash tables use strings as keys". Are you really surprised that someone challanged that statement and asked you to back it up? Either you have proof and your statement holds, or you don't have proof.
It might be that I'm a fool sometimes, but I leave it up to you to figure out who can and who can't back their statements up in this case...
Can you honestly say that this is not a reasonable estimation?
Yes. I could also say No and it would possibly be equally true. I just don't know, and neither do you - that's my point.
From my experience it's not true. From your experience it apparently is true, but without some figures to back it up I'd still say "south end of north going 'ru".
Finally I urge you to think about how you responded to this thread.
You're right. I was having a bad day and unfortunately that showed up in my post. It was uncalled for and I apologize.
(Thanks for having a cooler head and not creating a flame-fest of it.)
|
|
|
|
|
I need the code on how to turn my computer off in C++ base programming which the can run on any DOS base system.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot turn it off, but you can reboot.
From a 16 bit DOS program you can do this :-
void (far* reboot)() = (void (far*)())0xFFFF0000;
(*reboot)();
Hope that helped
Nish
Check out last week's Code Project posting stats presentation from :-
http://www.busterboy.org/codeproject/
Feel free to make your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
You're obviously using new "PC"'s. You'll have to look deeper into ACPI AFAIK.
Best of luck. I don't envy your quest. Should you however find out something useful I hope you'll post a small CP article about it (even that it's not Win32 per se).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
