Synchronization and volatile
Hello everyone,
Through myself study and previous discussion here, I share the conclusion
here that,
if some object is synchronized (mutex, critical section, etc.), there is no
need to add volatile keyword.
Here is the reference,
(refer to section volatile, Critical Sections, and Race Conditions)
http://www.ddj.com/cpp/184403766
if my understanding is wrong or you have any other options, please feel free
to add here.
thanks in advance,
George Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285384
reference to local variable
I was reviewing some visual c++ code which appears to suffer from a
reference-to-local bug. However, I didn't see any compiler warning to
that effect. (I don't think that the warning level was the issue.)
In this code, the offending line is of the form return
(*something).somethingelse;
Could it be that the lack of transparency of the variable type is
preventing the warning? Is it the case that warnings can show up with
return x; but not with return (*something).somethingelse;
Thank you for your help,
Paul Epstein Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285379
decimal or hex debug display
In the VC++ 6.0 IDE I can toggle the debug display between hex and decimal
by checking a box under Tools/Options/Debug. Where did they hide that
setting in the Visual Studio 2005 IDE? The Options/Debugging dialog has
about 20 items in it and I don't see anything about hex or decimal display.
Thanks. Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285373
M`I,5.Persec ution . ab use in set-u p situations an d in pu blic
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= abuse in set-up situations and in. public -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Strangers in the street have recognized me on sight many times, and. shown
awareness of the current thread of abuse. To give you one example, in. 1992
I was seriously ill, and a. manager at work somewhat humorously said that
"it wasn't fair" that people were bullying me. A. few days later, I attended
for the first time a clinic in. London as an outpatient, and on my way out
was accosted by someone who asked if "they had paid my fare", with. emphasis
on the. word "fare". He repeated the word several times in this different
context; that they should have. paid my "fare", each time emphasizing the
word.
For two and a half years from the time their harassment started. until
November. 1992 I refused to see a psychiatrist, because I reasoned that I
was not ill of my own action or fault, but through the stress caused. by
harassment, and that a lessening of the illness would have to. be consequent
to a removal of its immediate cause, in other words a cessation. of
harassment.. I also reasoned that since they were taunting me with jokes
about mental illness, if I were to seek treatment then. the abusers would
think. that they had "won" and been proved "right". Remember, the constant
theme of any persecution is,. "we must destroy you because you're X",
whether X is a racial or other. attribute. In this case the X was "we
persecute you because you have brain. disease". The similarity of this logic
to Nazi attitudes. to the mentally ill is striking.
The same manager who'd. said "it wasn't fair" asked me in winter 1992 why I
didn't. seek help from a psychiatrist; was it, he asked, because "they would
think they had won" if I sought treatment? That was. something I'd never
said. at work... again, taken separately it proves nothing, but many such
things over a period. of months proves conclusively that people in the
company knew what was going. on, and in quite a lot of detail.
Usually harassment in public lacks the. level of finesse of "paying your
fare". Most people's imagination does not go. beyond moronic parroting of
the current. term of denigration. That is not surprising given the average
level. of the abusers; if they do not have the intelligence to distinguish
wrong from. right then neither will they have the capacity for anything
other. than mindless repetition of a monosyllabic term calculated to fit
into their. minds.
The first incidents of verbal. assault in public were in again in the summer
of 1990, although they increased in. frequency and venom with time. In July
1990 the first public incident occurred on. a tube train on the Northern
line. Two men and their girlfriends recognised me; the women sprang to. my
defence, saying "He looks perfectly normal, he. doesn't look ill". Their
boyfriends of course knew better, and followed the party line;. one of them
made. reference to an "operation", apparently to work at the tube station
but implicitly to a visit that I had made to hospital a. couple of weeks
previously.
In August 1990 going home from college, soon after getting on a tube. train
at Gloucester. Road I was followed by a group of four youths, who started a
chant of abuse. That they were targeting. me was confirmed by other people
in the carriage, one of whom asked. the other "who are they going on at, is
it the bloke who just got on?". to which the second replied "yes, I think
so". I was tempted to reply, but as in every. other instance the abusers are
enabled. in their cowardice by physically outnumbering the abused; any
confrontation would result in my. being beaten up, followed by a complaint
to the police that "he. attacked us", and of course he's ill, so he must
have been imagining that we were getting. at him. Shitty, aren't they?
But the shittiness of the four youths on. the tube train is as nothing
compared to the episode on the National Express. coach to Dover in the
summer of 1992. While going on holiday to the. Continent I was verbally set
upon by a. couple travelling sitting a few rows behind. The boy did the
talking,. his female companion contributing only a continuous empty giggling
noise. He spoke loudly. to ensure other people on the coach heard, always
about "they" and "this bloke" but never naming either. the abusers or the
person he. was talking about. He said "they" had "found somebody from his
school, and he. was always really stressed at school". They must have dug
deep. to find enemies there; perhaps someone who dropped out of school,
someone who didn't. do too well later, who was jealous and keen to get their
own back? The boy also said "he. was in a bed and breakfast for only one
night. and they got him". By a not unexpected coincidence I had been in a
B&B in Oxford a. week previously, which had been booked from work; other
things. lead me to the conclusion that the company's offices were bugged for
most of the 2 1/2 years that I was there, so "they" would have. known a room
in the B&B had been booked. (But. I'll bet "they" didn't tell the company's
managers their. offices were bugged, did they?).
After a few minutes of this I went back. to where they were sitting and
asked where. they were travelling. The boy named a village in France, and
the girl's giggling suddenly ceased; presumably it permeated to. her brain
cell what the purpose of the boy's abuse. was.
This and other set-up situations are obviously. calculated to provoke a
direct confrontation. which would bring in the police, with the abusers
claiming that they were the ones attacked. Again in. 1992, outside the
house where I was living in Oxford I was physically attacked. by someone -
not punched, just grabbed by the coat, with some verbals thrown in. for good
measure. That was something the people at work. shouldn't have known
about... but soon after a couple of people were talking right in. front of
me about, "I heard he was attacked". The. UK police have a responsibility
for preventing assault occurring, but they do not seem. to take any interest
in meeting that responsibility. I suppose their attitude is that. harassment
does not come within their remit unless it involves physical assault,. and
they will only become involved once that happens.. That is of course quite
the wrong attitude for them to take, but as. I now understand, the police
investigate only the crime they wish to investigate; if they. do not take
your complaints seriously then there is nothing. you can do to make them
take. action.
3263 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285368
M.I 5.Persecutio n - why wo n't the Bri tish poli ce do th eir j ob a nd pu t a sto p to i t?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= why won't. the British police do their job and put a stop to it? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The British police. obviously do know what is taking place. Besides my
interpretations of what individual officers have. said which forces that
conclusion, it would be inconceivable for them. to be unaware of something
on. this scale.
If they know, then they will know that the abusers have broken laws in. the
UK and abroad. Recently the. UK introduced laws against electronic spying
which carry a. penalty of several years jail if caught. If the police know
illegal harassment is taking place,. and do nothing about it, then they are
failing. in their responsibilities.
Last Easter (1995). I went into the local police station in London and spoke
to an officer about the harassment against me. But. I couldn't provide
tangible evidence; what people said,. in many cases years ago, is beyond
proof, and without something to support my statements I cannot expect. a
police. officer to take the complaint seriously.
The current situation with regard to the police is not one which allows. a
breakthrough in dealing with the. problem. On the one hand, most individual
officers at a local police station may not know about. the ongoing assaults,
so. a complaint at that level will not yield results. Yet the police as an
organisation do know of the harassment, and they must be aware that. a
complaint has been made at a police station. So. it is clearly their duty to
take preventative action against the continuing. molestation, but because
the criminals are operating on behalf of a state agency, the police are. not
carrying out. their duty.
833 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285366
M,I.5,Pers ecution wh y won 't th e Briti sh pol ice do their jo b a nd put a st op to i t?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= why won't the British police do their job and put a stop. to it? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The. British police obviously do know what is taking place. Besides my
interpretations of what individual officers have. said which forces that
conclusion, it would be inconceivable for them to. be unaware of something
on this. scale.
If they know, then they will know that the abusers have broken laws. in the
UK and abroad. Recently the UK. introduced laws against electronic spying
which carry a penalty of several years jail if caught. If the police. know
illegal harassment is taking. place, and do nothing about it, then they are
failing in their. responsibilities.
Last Easter (1995) I went into the local. police station in London and spoke
to an officer about the harassment against me. But I. couldn't provide
tangible evidence; what people said, in many cases. years ago, is beyond
proof, and without something to support my statements. I cannot expect a
police officer. to take the complaint seriously.
The current situation with regard. to the police is not one which allows a
breakthrough. in dealing with the problem. On the one hand, most individual
officers at a local police. station may not know about the ongoing assaults,
so a complaint at that level will not. yield results. Yet the police as an
organisation do know. of the harassment, and they must be aware that a
complaint has been made at a police station. So it is clearly. their duty to
take. preventative action against the continuing molestation, but because
the criminals are operating on behalf of. a state agency, the police are not
carrying out their. duty.
833 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285365
M,I-5,Perse cution , Berna rd Levi n ex presses hi s view s
The article of which part is reproduced below. was penned by Bernard Levin
for the Features section of. the Times on 21 September 1991. To my mind, it
described the situation at the time and in particular a. recent meeting with
a friend, during which I for the first. time admitted to someone other than
my GP that I had been subjected to. a conspiracy of harassment over the
previous. year and a half.
>There is a madman running loose. about London, called David Campbell; I have
>no reason to. believe that he is violent, but he should certainly be
>approached with caution. You may know him by the curious glitter in. his
>eyes and. a persistent trembling of his hands; if that does not suffice, you
>will find him attempting to thrust no fewer than 48. books into your arms,
>all hardbacks, with a promise that, if you should return to. the same
>meeting-place next year,. he will heave another 80 at you.
>
>If, by now, the police. have arrived and are keeping a close watch on him,
>you may feel sufficiently. emboldened to examine the books. The jackets are
>a model of uncluttered typography, elegantly and simply. laid out; there is
>an unobtrusive colophon of. a rising sun, probably not picked at random.
>Gaining confidence - the lunatic is smiling by now,. and the policemen, who
>know about such things, have significantly removed their helmets -. you
>could do worse than take the jacket. off the first book in the pile. The
>only word possible to describe the binding is sumptuous; real cloth in. a
>glorious shade of dark green, with the title and author. in black and gold
>on the. spine.
>
>Look at it more closely; your eyes do not deceive you - it truly. does have
>real top-bands and tail-bands, in yellow, and, for good measure,. a silk
>marker ribbon in a lighter green.. The paper is cream-wove and acid-free,
>and the. book is sewn, not glued.
>
>Throughout. the encounter, I should have mentioned, our loony has been
>chattering away, although what he is trying to. say is almost impossible to
>understand; after a time, however,. he becomes sufficiently coherent to make
>clear that he is trying to sell the books to you. Well,. now, such quality
>in bookmaking today can only. be for collectors' limited editions at a
>fearsome price -. #30, #40, #50?
>
>No, no, he says, the glitter more powerful. than ever and the trembling of
>his hands. rapidly spreading throughout his entire body; no, no - the books
>are priced variously at #7, #8 or. #9, with the top price #12.
>
>At this, the policemen understandably put. their helmets back on; one of
>them draws his. truncheon and the other can be heard summoning
>reinforcements on his. walkie-talkie. The madman bursts into tears, and
>swears it is. all true.
>
>And it. is.
>
>David Campbell has acquired the entire rights to. the whole of the
>Everyman's Library,. which died a lingering and shameful death a decade or
>so ago, and he proposes. to start it all over again - 48 volumes this
>September and 80 more. next year, in editions I have described, at the
>prices. specified. He proposes to launch his amazing venture simultaneously
>in Britain and the United States,. with the massive firepower of Random
>Century at his back in this country, and the dashing cavalry. of Knopf
>across the water, and. no one who loves literature and courage will forbear
>to. cheer.
At the time this article was written I had believed for some time. that
columnists in. the Times and other journalists had been making references to
my. situation. Nothing unusual about this you may think, plenty of people
have the same sort of. ideas and obviously the papers aren't writing about
them, so why. should my beliefs not be as false as those of others?
What makes this. article so extraordinary is that three or four days
immediately preceding its publication, I had a meeting with a. friend,
during the course of which we. discussed the media persecution, and in
particular that by Times. columnists. It seemed to me, reading the article
by Levin in Saturday?s paper, that he was describing in some. detail his
"artist?s impression" of that meeting. Most telling. are the final
sentences, when he writes, "The. madman bursts into tears, and swears it is
all true. And it is." Although I did not "burst into tears" (he seems to. be
using. a bit of poetic licence and exaggerating) I did try hard to convince
my friend that it was all. true; and I am able to concur with Mr Levin,
because,. of course, it is.
At the beginning of the piece Levin reveals a fear. of being attacked by the
"irrational" subject of his story, saying "I have no reason to. believe that
he is violent, but he should certainly be approached with caution".. This
goes. back to the xenophobic propaganda of "defence" against a "threat"
which was seen at the very beginning. of the harassment. The impression of a
"madman running loose" who needs. to be controlled through an agency which
assigns to itself the mantle of. the "police" is also one which had been
expressed. elsewhere.
In the final paragraph of. this extract, his reference to Everyman?s Library
as having "died a lingering. and shameful death a decade or so ago" shows
clearly what sort of conclusion they wish to their campaign. They want. a
permanent solution, and as they are prevented. from achieving that solution
directly, they waste significant resources on. methods which have been
repeatedly shown to. be ineffective for such a purpose.
833 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285364
M'I.5 Persecuti on , Berna rd L evin express es h is vi ews
The article of which part is reproduced below was penned by Bernard. Levin
for the Features section of the Times. on 21 September 1991. To my mind, it
described the. situation at the time and in particular a recent meeting with
a friend, during which. I for the first time admitted to someone other than
my GP. that I had been subjected to a conspiracy of harassment over the
previous. year and a half.
>There is a madman running loose. about London, called David Campbell; I have
>no reason to believe that he is. violent, but he should certainly be
>approached with caution. You. may know him by the curious glitter in his
>eyes and a persistent. trembling of his hands; if that does not suffice, you
>will find him attempting to thrust no. fewer than 48 books into your arms,
>all hardbacks, with. a promise that, if you should return to the same
>meeting-place next year, he will heave another 80. at you.
>
>If,. by now, the police have arrived and are keeping a close watch on him,
>you may feel sufficiently emboldened to examine. the books. The jackets are
>a. model of uncluttered typography, elegantly and simply laid out; there is
>an unobtrusive. colophon of a rising sun, probably not picked at random.
>Gaining. confidence - the lunatic is smiling by now, and the policemen, who
>know about such things, have significantly removed their helmets -. you
>could do worse than take the jacket. off the first book in the pile. The
>only word possible to describe the binding is. sumptuous; real cloth in a
>glorious shade of dark green, with the title and author in black and. gold
>on the. spine.
>
>Look at it more closely; your eyes do not deceive you -. it truly does have
>real top-bands and tail-bands, in yellow, and, for. good measure, a silk
>marker ribbon in a lighter green. The paper is cream-wove and. acid-free,
>and the book is sewn, not. glued.
>
>Throughout. the encounter, I should have mentioned, our loony has been
>chattering away, although what he is trying to. say is almost impossible to
>understand; after a time, however, he becomes sufficiently coherent. to make
>clear that. he is trying to sell the books to you. Well, now, such quality
>in bookmaking today can only be for collectors' limited editions at. a
>fearsome. price - #30, #40, #50?
>
>No, no, he says, the glitter more powerful than ever and. the trembling of
>his hands. rapidly spreading throughout his entire body; no, no - the books
>are priced variously. at #7, #8 or #9, with the top price #12.
>
>At this, the policemen understandably put their helmets. back on; one of
>them draws his. truncheon and the other can be heard summoning
>reinforcements on his walkie-talkie. The madman bursts into. tears, and
>swears it is. all true.
>
>And it. is.
>
>David Campbell. has acquired the entire rights to the whole of the
>Everyman's Library, which died a lingering and shameful death a decade. or
>so ago, and he proposes to start. it all over again - 48 volumes this
>September and 80 more next year, in editions. I have described, at the
>prices specified. He proposes. to launch his amazing venture simultaneously
>in Britain and the United. States, with the massive firepower of Random
>Century at his. back in this country, and the dashing cavalry of Knopf
>across the water, and no one who loves. literature and courage will forbear
>to. cheer.
At. the time this article was written I had believed for some time that
columnists. in the Times and other journalists had been making references to
my situation. Nothing unusual. about this you may think, plenty of people
have. the same sort of ideas and obviously the papers aren't writing about
them, so why should my beliefs not be as. false as those of others?
What makes this article. so extraordinary is that three or four days
immediately preceding its publication, I had a meeting. with a friend,
during the course of. which we discussed the media persecution, and in
particular that by Times columnists. It seemed to. me, reading the article
by Levin in Saturday?s paper, that he was describing in some. detail his
"artist?s. impression" of that meeting. Most telling are the final
sentences, when he writes, "The madman bursts into tears,. and swears it is
all true. And. it is." Although I did not "burst into tears" (he seems to be
using a bit of poetic licence and exaggerating) I did try hard. to convince
my friend that it was all. true; and I am able to concur with Mr Levin,
because,. of course, it is.
At the beginning of the piece. Levin reveals a fear of being attacked by the
"irrational" subject of his story, saying "I. have no reason to believe that
he is violent, but he should certainly be approached with. caution". This
goes back to the xenophobic propaganda of "defence" against. a "threat"
which was seen at the very beginning of. the harassment. The impression of a
"madman running loose" who needs to be controlled through an. agency which
assigns to itself the. mantle of the "police" is also one which had been
expressed. elsewhere.
In the. final paragraph of this extract, his reference to Everyman?s Library
as having "died a lingering and shameful. death a decade or so ago" shows
clearly what sort of conclusion they wish to. their campaign. They want a
permanent solution, and. as they are prevented from achieving that solution
directly, they waste significant resources on methods which. have been
repeatedly shown to. be ineffective for such a purpose.
5693 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285363
M`I,5`Pe rsecution . w ho kn ows abou t i t?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= who knows. about it? =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Many people know, both in the. establishment and media, and among the
general. public. Despite an absence of its target from the UK for more than
two years, the echoes of paranoia can still be. heard loud and clear from
across. the water. When it started in 1990, the only people who knew were
those in BBC television who. were spying on my home, and a few radio
broadcasters. There were a few cases of public harassment, but. very little
compared to the situation that developed a couple of. years later.
The list today includes BBC. TV staff (newsreaders such as Martyn Lewis,
Michael. Buerk, Nicholas Witchell), people from radio stations such as
Chris Tarrant of Capital and Radio 1 DJs, people in. the print media, but
also. many people in the general public. All united in a conspiracy which
breaks the laws which. the UK does have regarding harassment, and all
completely uncaring for any. semblance of decency or elementary respect
for individual. rights.
The British police (obviously) do. know the nature of the harassment and in
all probability the identity of those behind it. Some. time ago I made a
complaint to my local police station in London, without. positive result.
The UK police are failing in their duty to see. the law enforced in not
checking. the abuse.
3263 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285362
M,I.5,Persecut ion ' h ow and w hy d id it start ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= how. and why did it start? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The harassment didn't. start by itself, so someone must have been there at
the outset to give it. a firm push and set the "animals" after me. It looks
as if I was set up in June 1990, and the. timing indicates someone from
university was. responsible.
>One thing which has been missing from this discussion. is this simple
>prognosis: that maybe he is right and that,. despite his admitted
>mental condition, there. really is a campaign against him organised by
>now-influential ex-students. of his university.
In May or June 1990, Alan Freeman on Radio 1 read out a. letter from someone
who had known me for a few years, who wrote of the one who "wore out. his
welcome. with random precision" (from the Pink Floyd song). Freeman went on
to say to the writer "that's a hell of a. letter you wrote there". The
indication is strongly. that people I had parted from soon before nursed a
grudge against me and were trying to cause. trouble for me.
The suggestion is that Freeman might have shown the. letter to other people,
and things could have snowballed from. there. Right from the start the real
source (security services presumed) didn't announce themselves. as the
origin, but let the. "talkers", the radio DJs, believe that they were the
originators. Think about it; if. you announce, "we're MI5 and we have a
campaign against this bloke" then people might not go. along with it; but if
you say, "everyone else is getting at this bloke because he. 'deserves' it"
then people will join in with. fewer qualms.
>Why would "they" wish. to assassinate your character?
It's the classic case of hitting. a cripple to prove you're stronger. Why
would the security services expend hundreds of thousands of pounds. and more
than six years of manpower to try to. kill a British citizen? Because they
are motivated by. people who knew me at university and feel personal
animosity; because they knew me to be emotionally weak, and it. is in the
nature of bullies to prey on those known to be weak; and because. they can
rely on the complicity of the establishment, which. the security services
manipulate and derive. funding from. This is England's biggest humiliation
today, and the British security services. are intent on preventing their
humiliation becoming reality by continuing their campaign. of attempted
murder to suppress the truth from. becoming public.
833 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285360
M-I'5`Persecutio n . h ow an d wh y d id it star t?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=. how and why did it start? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The harassment didn't start by itself, so someone. must have been there at
the outset to give it a firm push and set the "animals". after me. It looks
as if I was set up in June 1990, and. the timing indicates someone from
university. was responsible.
>One thing which has been missing from this discussion is. this simple
>prognosis: that maybe he is. right and that, despite his admitted
>mental condition, there really is a campaign against. him organised by
>now-influential ex-students of. his university.
In. May or June 1990, Alan Freeman on Radio 1 read out a letter from someone
who had known me for a few years, who. wrote of the one who "wore out his
welcome. with random precision" (from the Pink Floyd song). Freeman went on
to say to the writer "that's a. hell of a letter you wrote there". The
indication is strongly that people I had parted from soon before nursed. a
grudge against me and were trying to cause trouble. for me.
The suggestion is that Freeman might. have shown the letter to other people,
and things could have snowballed from there.. Right from the start the real
source (security services presumed). didn't announce themselves as the
origin,. but let the "talkers", the radio DJs, believe that they were the
originators. Think about it; if you announce, "we're MI5 and. we have a
campaign against. this bloke" then people might not go along with it; but if
you say, "everyone else is getting at this. bloke because he 'deserves' it"
then people will join in with. fewer qualms.
>Why would "they" wish to assassinate. your character?
It's the classic. case of hitting a cripple to prove you're stronger. Why
would the security services expend hundreds of thousands of. pounds and more
than six years of manpower to try to kill a British. citizen? Because they
are motivated by people who knew me at. university and feel personal
animosity; because they knew me to be. emotionally weak, and it is in the
nature of bullies to prey on those known to be weak; and. because they can
rely on the. complicity of the establishment, which the security services
manipulate and. derive funding from. This is England's biggest humiliation
today, and the British security services are. intent on preventing their
humiliation becoming reality by. continuing their campaign of attempted
murder to suppress the. truth from becoming public.
10553 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285359
Problem with porting from 2003
I have a very strange problem with an application that I have been
porting from VS 2003 to VS 2005. I started this with Visual C++ 6.0,
so it's all nmake based, so it's not the IDE I am having problems with
- it's the compiler.
I have a system with a fairly large number of libraries. I build each
of these libraries as a DLL for development purposes. When I ship the
application, I do a static link. I change a directive call PUBLIC from
dllimport to dllexport appropriately as a either use a library, or
build a library. When I do a static link, PUBLIC is defined to be
blank. The approach works well as it reduces the cycle time for the
compile link. It also forces cleaner partitioning of the system. The
configuration can build libraries with circular dependency, but I
usually avoid this.
Anyway, all this worked sweetly with VS 2003. Now, with VS 2005, for
some of the libraries, I receive the following cryptic error:
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\ATLMFC\INCLUDE
\afxcoll.h(689) : error C2248: 'CObject::CObject' : cannot access
private member declared in class 'CObject'
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\ATLMFC\INCLUDE
\afx.h(551) : see declaration of 'CObject::CObject'
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\ATLMFC\INCLUDE
\afx.h(522) : see declaration of 'CObject'
This diagnostic occurred in the compiler generated function
'CPtrList::CPtrList(const CPtrList &)'
This occurs near the end of the compile and does not tell me the line
in my code that has initiated the problem.
I did some reverse engineering of this and found the class that seemed
to be causing this. It was a derivative of a Rogue Wave Stingray class
(call it class DERIVED). I was compiling a file in one directory,
including the header for DERIVED located in another directory. The
class DERIVED was prefixed with dllimport and all the classes in the
library being built are prefixed with dllexport. The reason I am
mentioning this is that I think its the import/export mechanism that
is failing.
When I move the file that failed compilation to the same directory as
DERIVED, the file compiles! It seems to me that this must be a bug.
Another point to note is that I am make very extensive usage of
templates in my own code.
Has anyone seen something like this?
Thanks,
Stan
ps I tried the same code with VS 2008 and receievd the same failure. Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285358
M`I,5.Persecuti on . co st of th e operation
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= MI5: cost. of the operation -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Here's what a couple of other people on Usenet (uk.misc). had to say
regarding. the cost of running such an operation...
PO: >Have some sense, grow up and smell. reality. What you are talking about
PO: >would take loads of planning, tens of thousands of pounds. and lots of
PO: >people involved in the planning, execution and maintenance. of it. You
PO: >must have. a very high opinion of yourself to think you are worth it.
PM: >But why? And why you?. Do you realize how much it would cost to keep
PM: >one person under continuous surveillance for five years?. Think about
PM: >all the man/hours. Say. they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
PM:. >supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say, #30,000 a year. Two men,
PM: >#20,000 a year each. But they'd need to work in shifts --. so it would
PM:. >be six men at #20,000 (which with on-costs would work out at more like
PM: >#30,000. to the employer.)
PM:. >
PM:. >So, we're talking #30,000 x 6. #180,000. plus say, #40,000 for the
PM: >supervisor. #220,000.. Then you've got the hardware involved. And
PM: >any transcription that needs doing. You don't think. the 'Big Boss'
PM: >would listen to hours and hours. of tapes, do you.
PM:. >
PM: >So, all in all,. you couldn't actually do the job for much less than
PM: >a quarter million a year. Over five years. What are you doing that. makes
PM: >it worth the while of the. state to spend over one and a quarter million
PM: >on. you?
Those are pretty much the sort of calculations that. went through my head
once. I stopped to consider what it must be costing them to run this
operation. The partial answer is, there have. been periods when the
intensity has been greater,. and times when little has happened. In fact,
for much of 1993 and the first half of 1994, very little happened.. Although
I don't. think that was for reasons of money - if they can tap into the
taxpayer they're not going to. be short of resources, are they?
The more complete answer. is in the enormity of what they're doing. Relative
to the cost to British. pride of seeing their country humiliated for the
persecution of their own citizens,. isn't is worth the cost of four or five
people to try to bring things to a close in the manner they. would wish? To
the government a million or two is quite honestly nothing - if. they can
convince themselves of the necessity of what. they're doing, resources will
not be. the limiting factor.
8123 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285357
M-I,5.P ersecution - Ca pital Radio - C hris T arrant
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=
-= Capital. Radio - Chris Tarrant -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=
Capital Radio DJs have been "in on it" from the start.. One of the first
things I heard in the summer of 1990 was from a Capital DJ who said,. "If
he. listens to Capital then he can't be all bad" (supportive, you see. We're
not bastards). Much of what came over the radio. in 1990 is now so far away
the precise details have been obliterated by time. No diary. was kept of the
details, and although archives. if they exist may give pointers, the
ambiguity of what broadcasters. said would leave that open to
re-interpretation.
In spring 1994, Chris Tarrant on his Capital morning show made an. aside to
someone. else in the studio, about a person he didn't identify. He said,
"You know. this bloke? He says we're trying to kill him. We should be done
for. attempted manslaughter".
That mirrored. something I had said a day or two before. What Tarrant said
was understood by the staff member in the studio. he was saying it to; they
said,. "Oh no, don't say that" to Tarrant. If any archives exist of the
morning show (probably. unlikely) then it could be found there; what he said
was so out of context that he would be very hard. put to find an explanation.
A couple of days later, someone at. the site where I was working repeated the
remark although in a different. way; they said there had been people in a
computer room when automatic fire. extinguishers went off and those people
were "thinking. of suing for attempted manslaughter".
Finally,. this isn't confined to the established radio stations. In 1990
after I had listened to a pirate radio. station in South London for about
half an hour, there was an audible phone call in the. background, followed
by total silence for a few moments, then shrieks. of laughter. "So what are
we supposed to say now? Deadly torture? He's going. to talk to us now, isn't
he?", which meant that they could hear what. I would say in my room.
5693 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285356
M I.5'Perse cution ' b ugging an d c ounter-surveillance
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= MI5: bugging. and counter-surveillance -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PO: >Did you ever look for the bugs. in your house ? If not, why not ? I mean if
PO: >I thought that was happening to. me, I'd search the place from top to bottom,
PO:. >I mean I live there I would know if anything was out of place. If I was
PO: >really. suspicious, I would call in one of those bug detection teams which
PO: >have those machines that. pick up the transmitted radio waves. This
PO: >reminds me of. BUGS, that new programme on BBC1 on
That's exactly what we did.. We went to a competent, professional detective
agency in London, paid them over 400 quid. to debug our house. They used
scanner devices which go to over 1 GHz and would. pick up any nearby
transmitter in that range,. they also checked the phones and found
nothing... but if the tap was at the exchange,. then they wouldn't find
anything, would. they?
CS: >Doesn't this suggest to you that there are, in fact, no bugs. to be found?
You can assume that they've done this sort of thing to other people in. more
"serious". cases, where they would know the targets would suspect the
presence. of electronic surveillance. So they will have developed techniques
and devices which are not readily detectable either by. visual inspection or
by electronic means. What those techniques. might be, I couldn't guess.
In this case, the existence of bugging. devices was clear from the
beginning, and they "rubbed it in". with what was said by the boy on the
coach. It was almost. as if they wanted counter-surveillance people to be
called in, who they knew would fail to. detect the bugging devices, causing
loss of credibility to the other things I would have to say relating. to the
harassment.
I did all the. things someone in my situation would do to try to find the
bugs. In addition to calling in. professional help using electronic
counter-surveillance, I made a. close visual inspection of electrical
equipment, plus any points where audio or. video surveillance devices might
have been. concealed. Of course, I found nothing. Normal surveillance
"mini-cameras" are quite. noticeable and require visible supporting
circuitry. It seems to me the. best place to put a small video surveillance
device would be additional to a. piece of electronic equipment such as a TV
or video. It would. be necessary to physically break in to a property to fit
such. a device.
3263 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285355
M I`5 Persecutio n ' t he BBC, t elevision a nd radi o
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=
-= the BBC, television and radio. -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=
The first incident in June 1990. was when a BBC newsreader made what seemed
to be a reaction. to something which had happened in my home, and out of
context. of what they were reading. My first reaction was disbelief; nothing
of the sort had ever happened before,. the idea that such a thing could
occur had not crossed my mind, yet there was no doubt. of what had just
taken place. My disbelief eroded as this recurred time after. time. Besides
the. news, offenders included shows such as Crimewatch (!), Newsnight, and
"entertainment" shows. There seems to be very little. moral understanding
among the people who make these programmes; they just assume. they will
never be caught,. so they carry on without a thought for the illegality or
amorality. of what they do. The only time I ever heard a word raised in
doubt was by Paxman being interviewed by someone else (I think by. Clive
Anderson) back in 1990; referring to the. "watching" he said it troubled
him, and when asked by the host what. you could do about it, replied "Well,
you. could just switch it off" (meaning the surveillance monitor in the
studio). He clearly didn't. let his doubts stand in the way of continued
surreptitious spying from his own or other people's shows,. though.
Now you're convinced this is a troll,. aren't you? This story has been the
subject of much debate on. the uk.* Usenet newsgroups for over a year, and
some readers believe it to be an invention (it has even been suggested. that
a group of psychology students are responsible!), others think. it
symptomatic of. a derangement of the author, and a few give it credence.
Quite a few people do know. part or all of the story already, so this text
will fill in the gaps in their knowledge.. For the rest, what may persuade
you. of the third possibility is that some of the incidents detailed are
checkable against any archives of radio and TV programmes. that exist; that
the incidents involve named people (even. if those hiding in the shadows
have not made their identity or affiliations evident),. and those people
may be persuaded to come out with. the truth; and that the campaign of
harassment is. continuing today both in the UK and on the American
continent,. in a none-too-secret fashion; by its nature the significant risk
of exposure increases with. time.
On several occasions people said to my face. that harassment from the TV was
happening. On the first day I worked in. Oxford, I spent the evening in the
local pub with. the company's technical director Ian, and Phil, another
employee. Ian made a few references to me and said to. Phil, as if in an
aside,. "Is he the bloke who's been on TV?" to which Phil replied, "Yes, I
think. so".
I made a number of efforts to find the bugs, without. success; last year we
employed professional counter-surveillance people to scan for bugs. (see
later) again without result. In autumn 1990 I disposed of. my TV and watched
virtually. no television for the next three years. But harassment from TV
stations has gone. on for over six years and continues to this day. This is
something that many people obviously know is happening; yet. the TV staff
have the. morality of paedophiles, that because they're getting away with it
they. feel no wrong.
Other people who were involved in the abuse in 1990 were DJs on. BBC radio
stations, notably disc. jockeys from Radio 1 and other stations (see the
following section). Again, since they don't have sense in. the first place
they can't be expect to have the moral. sense not to be part of criminal
harassment.
833 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285354
toolbars
Does anyone know how the toolbars are done in Internet Explorer? I'm
trying to figure out the easiest way to add similar functionality to
my application. Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285353
fan-shaped purple icons appearing next to files
I have just installed Visual Studio service pack 1. Suppose I work on
a vc++ solution, and then open files outside a solution. I then use a
pull-down menu on the right-hand side of the screen to view the names
of the open files. I have noticed that _some_ of the non-solution
files are labelled with a prominent fan-shaped purple icon and some
aren't. Two questions. The purple icon seems potentially a useful
diagnostic feature if I could only understand it. 1) What is the rule
which says when this icon appears? 2) I only noticed this icon after
installing Visual Studio service pack 1. Is the feature from SP1 or
is it just that I never noticed it before?
Thanks a lot for your help,
Paul Epstein Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285352
ATOM
Why does the RegisterClass function return an ATOM? What do window
classes have to do with atoms? Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285349
Using TLSAlloc to read data into a DLL
I am very new to Windows programming, and wanted to learn more about
the use of the function TlsAlloc. My specific application is that I
would like to read data into a file when the DLL is first loaded, and
store that data in a memory block that is untouched until the DLL is
unloaded. For my particular problem, use of the STATIC keyword is
insufficient. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285323
VS2005, x86/x64 build questions
Hi...
I'm trying to get our company's solutions up to x64-compatibility, and I'm
seeing a couple of things that have me scratching my head a little.
I created a solution with Win32 and x64 platforms and an empty C++ console
project. From what I can see, the only changes to the compiler flags are to
the destination directories. The compiler must be inferring the target
architecture from the platform name, right?
I've got an x86 Windows XP system and an x64 Windows Server 2003 system, and
I ran both builds on both systems, and this produced a couple of odd results
1) on both systems, the x64 .exe came out ~25% *smaller* than the x86 .exe.
I would have expected the reverse given the wider datapath/variable sizes
between the architectures.
2) I can run the result of the x86 build from the 2003 x64 box on the XP x86
box, but I can't run either the x86 or x64 build product from the XP x86 box
on the 2003 x64 box. On the 2003 box I get "The system cannot execute the
specified program." for both .exes. Not sure why that would be
3) When I do dumpbin /headers an all the exes in question, I see that
there's base addr differences between those built on the XP x86 box and the
2003 x64 box, and there is also some difference of a small number of bytes
in both the code and data sections. Could any of these explain why the 2003
x64 box won't run output produced from an XP x86 box?
Thanks
Mark Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285321
Sharing a structure between processes with memory mapped files
Hi:
Sorry if thisis th wrong group, but I hope somebody can help:
I am currently working on a project within wich I need to shae a structure
between processes.
The structure is defined in a namespace as follows:
struct SATreeviewInfo {
IAccessible* TreeviewAccessible;
VARIANT VarObject;
VARIANT VarObjectState;
HWND TreeviewWindow;
TV_ITEM CurrentItem;
LPWSTR Text[1024];
};
Late in the namespace declaration I define a variable of this type:
extern SATreeviewInfo TreeviewInfo;
In the main code module after creatin the memory mapped file and
initializing this to th size of the structure, the following code maps the
structure in to the process:
TreeviewInfo =(SATreeviewInfo)MapViewOfFile(HTreeviewMSAAMapFile, NULL, 0,
0, 0);
The error I obtain when compiling is:
1>c:\work\serotek\libserotek\treeview.cpp(26) : error C2440: 'type cast' :
cannot convert from 'LPVOID' to 'Treeview::SATreeviewInfo'
1> No constructor could take the source type, or constructor overload
resolution was ambiguous
As far as I know I'm not using a class. Can somebody point me to the
probjel? What is the fix. if it maters is visual studio 2005.
Sean. Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285318
Using a structure as shared memory
Hi:
Firstly, I apologise if thi is the wrong group, but I'm hoping someone can
help:
I am currently working on a project that needs to use a structure as a
shared memory block between processes. The structure is defined as follows:
struct SATreeviewInfo {
IAccessible* TreeviewAccessible;
VARIANT VarObject;
VARIANT VarObjectState;
HWND TreeviewWindow;
TV_ITEM CurrentItem;
LPWSTR Text[1024];
};
I have then declared a variable in a namespace (the structure is declared
inside this namespace also:
extern SATreeviewInfo TreeviewInfo;
The code for mapping this structure in to the process is as follows:
//Create the file mapping and event objects for treeviews.
HTreeviewMSAAMapFile =CreateFileMapping( INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE, NULL,
PAGE_READWRITE, 0, sizeof(SATreeviewInfo), TEXT("TreviewMapFile"));
The code tomap the structure is:
TreeviewInfo =(SATreeviewInfo)MapViewOfFile(HTreeviewMSAAMapFile, NULL, 0,
0, 0);
The error I obtain when trying to compile is:
1>c:\work\serotek\libserotek\treeview.cpp(26) : error C2440: 'type cast' :
cannot convert from 'LPVOID' to 'Treeview::SATreeviewInfo'
1> No constructor could take the source type, or constructor overload
resolution was ambiguous
Could someone tell me why the problem lies within this code, as I don't
think I am using a class--it's defined as a structure. What if any is the
fix.
Help gratefully apreciated.
Sean. Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285315
Using VC6 code in VS 2005
I'm trying to reuse a database class module that I created with VC 6.0 in
Visual Studio 2005 and I'm getting a whole bunch of errors and warnings.
Most of them refer to data types being different than the current
definitions of functions that I'm using.
Examples:
If I cursor over SqlDriverConnect(..) the Intellisense says "#define
SqlDriverConnect SqlDriverConnectW" and the compiler balks at my connect
string being a char array. How do I "undefine" that?
Same with MessageBox now being #defined as MessageBoxW, and the compiler
won't accept literal strings or char arrays as parameters.
Some functions give errors like "cannot convert from 'char[80]' to 'LPTSTR'.
Both are char strings, no?
This one blows my mind:
// convert CString to number
int NumRecords = atoi(num_records.GetBuffer(3));
Compiler says atoi cannot convert parameter 1 from 'w_char_t' to 'const
char*'. Huh? CString::GetBuffer() dosn't return char any more?
I also get a slew of warnings about "depreciated" functions like strcpy and
strcat. I don't care, I use them.
Is there any way to set the compiler to use the old definitions, so I don't
have to rewrite my class module?
Thanks. Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285306
SetForegroundWindow from Remote Desktop Connection
Hello,
Sorry for the repost on microsoft.public.win32.programmer.ui - I meant to
crosspost this to a few other groups as well.
I have a strange situation here where I have an application which calls
SetForegroundWindow on a window that it spawns. Now I initiate this
application while sitting in front of the computer, it sets the spawned
window like it should. However, when I initiate the application while
connected to the computer via Remote Desktop, it fails to set the spawned
window to the foreground (i.e. SetForegroundWindow returns 0). The funny
thing is that GetLastError also returns 0.
Anyone have any idea what might be going on here? Is this expected
behaviour? Is there a way round it?
Thanks in advance,
Akin
--
akyak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285285
MFC: A subclass of a subclass of CDialog
I am building an app with two MFC classes descended from CDialog.
Probably by the end of it, I am going to have 5 or 6 CDialogs (in a
tabbed window). I have spent quite some time adding custom painting
to the first of them. All of them, in the end, are going to have this
same custom painting going on.
The thing to do then would be to make an intermediate class, MyDialog,
descended from CDialog, with the custom painting in the OnPaint()
method, then derive the 5 or 6 dialogs from that, so I am not
repeating and maintaining the custom painting code in all of my
dialogs.
Theoretically this is very simple ... I create a class MyDialog, then
change the parent class of my dialogs from CDialog to MyDialog, then
transfer the custom OnPaint() method from the dialogs to MyDialog, so
the children all inherit it.
But this doesn't seem to work in a project built on MFC. I tried
creating MyDialog by hand. I've been programming in C++ for years,
this part is simple enough. The CDialog constructor stymies me a
little ... the auto-generated version calls the parent with
CDialog(AppDialog1::IDD, pParent), where IDD is an enum generated with
the resource ID of the dialog. If I'm doing it by hand, I don't have
this, so I try the alternate constructor, CDialog(). This compiles,
but I don't know if this is going to be a problem.
Then I try to change AppDialog1 to subclass from MyDialog. So the
only change is I change the superclass from CDialog to MyDialog.
Now it doesn't compile, I get "error C2143: syntax error : missing ';'
before 'constant'", the error is in the header file at this line:
"class AppDialog1.1 : public MyDialog". I renamed AppDialog1 to
AppDialog1.1 so I could work on it without messing up AppDialog1,
which works ... is an x.x naming convention a problem?
So I have no idea what that means.
So I try creating MyDialog in the visual builder. It gives me a
warning because I am not building it from a visually-created class, so
it won't have an ID. Well I can't see a way around that, so OK.
When I try to compile it, I get an error (more or less predictably)
because in the enum, IDD is defined as "UNKNOWN ID" or something, so
again I change the constructor from CDialog(MyDialog::IDD, pParent) to
CDialog().
Now it compiles OK. So I try to create a subclass, AppDialog1.1,
which descends from MyDialog
Again I get the same error:
"error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before 'constant'"
And again I have no idea what exactly that is supposed to mean.
Is this just impossible? Can I not mix my own classes with MFC
classes this way?
I am wondering if anybody has done something similar. The errors are,
as far as I can guess, happening in macros or something that are
generated by MFC. It is basically impossible to debug these.
Maybe if I build AppDialog1.1 in the visual builder ... but then it
won't allow me to choose a base class of my own, only from the MFC
classes. Another dead end.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both incisive and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing rabbits singing about toilet paper.
- Rod Serling
:: Currently listening to Poor Poor Pitiful Me, 1978, by Warren Zevon, from "Warren Zevon" Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285281
Double-Checked Locking pattern issue
Hello gurus,
For the wellknown Double-Checked Locking pattern,
http://www.ddj.com/184405726?pgno=1
Step 1: Allocate memory to hold a Singleton object.
Step 2: Construct a Singleton object in the allocated memory.
Step 3: Make pInstance point to the allocated memory.
After reading for a couple of times, I still do not understand why some
compiler will exchange step 2 and step 3 code? If there are any exception in
step 2, the swap code will make pInstance point to an invalid memory address.
Any ideas why compiler do the swap?
[Code]
Singleton* Singleton::instance() {
if (pInstance == 0) {
Lock lock;
if (pInstance == 0) {
pInstance = // Step 3
operator new(sizeof(Singleton)); // Step 1
new (pInstance) Singleton; // Step 2
}
}
return pInstance;
}
[/Code]
thanks in advance,
George Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285268
Problems registering and using ATL com library
First off, I must apologize for the cross posting, and also, if this is
not the appropriate ng. I have searched, but could not find any ACTIVE
ng that specifically deal with ATL ActiveX libraries.
If you know of an ACTIVE (i.e. new posts within the last week) ng that
you feel may be more appropriate, please let me know, so I may
(re)direct my query there.
Having (hopefully) cleared the air - here is the problem I am facing :
Problem:
I have written an ATL COM library using VS2005. I import several
functions from about 10 dlls to use in my COM library.
The library builds (i.e. compiles and links) succesfully, but fails in
the post build task when registering the library. I get the error
PRJ0050: "Failed to register Output. Please ensure you have appropriate
permissions to modify the registry". This is incorrect, as I DO have
Admin Rights on my machine. I've googled for a solution and believe
there are no missing dependencies (using dependency walker), - after
fixing my path so that all required libraries (used by my COM library)
were on the path - I was still getting the same error (contrary to what
other users had reported - when I googled problems re the PRJ0050 error).
I tried to reference the library in VB6 (which automatically registers
the library), and the VB6 application crashed completely. Not to be put
off, I tried to manually register it using regsvr32. This time, I get
the following error message when trying to register the library (dll) :
"Load Library failed - Recursion too deep; the stack overflowed".
I'm at a loss on how to proceed. Any suggestions? Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285265
Including text file contents as string literal
Is there any preprocessor trickery available to include the contents of a
text file as a string literal at compile time in C++? I only need this under
VC++, so Microsoft-specific extensions would be OK. Everything I've tried
either falls foul of the rule that string literals mustn't contain newlines,
or just embeds the #include directive itself as the string.
The one workaround I've found is to add a simple .rc file embedding the file
as a user-defined Win32 resource, then use FindResource -> LoadResource ->
LockResource at run time to access the contents.
However there's a problem with that approach - VC++ doesn't correctly
determine that the .rc file depends on the text file, so doesn't recompile
it if the text file changes. You can't specify additional dependencies for
.rc files, so you have to change the extension and create a custom build
rule that just calls rc.exe and either specify the dependency in the rule or
the file properties.
That's quite a hassle, especially when managing multiple projects, so is
there something simple I've missed?
Cheers,
Andy Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285264
Korean Language Pack icon
My folks are on IE7, XP Home. We have installed Korean Global IME and the
language bar floats on top. They would like to have an icon on their
desktop. Any suggestions?
HJR Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285247
Please help: Converting g++ to VC++
Dear all:
Please advise on the following:
I am converting a g++ cpp file so that it can be compiled and run and
modified in Visual Studio .NET 2003 VC++.
Where do I put the g++ header files?
Also, can g++ files compile in VC++, without requiring too many
chanegs?
Thanks,
CCDSJ Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285237
Non-inline template specialization of member function okay?
Is it okay to put the implementation of a template specialization of a
member function in a CPP file, hoping to have it externally linked? I
tried to build the following program, trying both VC++ 2003 and VC++
2008, but it got me a linker error.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Factory.h
#ifndef FACTORY_H_INCLUDED
#define FACTORY_H_INCLUDED
class Factory
{
public:
template <typename T> T Create() const;
// Specialization, implemented in its CPP file:
template <> int Create<int>() const;
};
template <typename T>
T Factory::Create() const
{
return T();
}
#endif
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Factory.cpp
#include "Factory.h"
template <>
int Factory::Create<int>() const
{
return 1;
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Main.cpp
#include "Factory.h"
int main()
{
Factory fac;
return fac.Create<int>(); // Link error!!!
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
VC++ 2008 got me the following: "error LNK2019: unresolved external
symbol "public: int __thiscall Factory::Create<int>(void)const "
(??$Create@H@Factory@@QBEHXZ) referenced in function _main"
Interestingly the program *does* compile (and link), when the class is
declared as "__declspec(dllexport)". Is it really necessary to use
__declspec, in this case?
Kind regards,
--
Niels Dekker
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nd/dekkerware
Scientific programmer at LKEB, Leiden University Medical Center Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285226
Malloc code
Hello,
To the ones that are familliar with my previous post entitled ("Simple
question about headers and malloc") ( hummm not as simple as *I* thought!) ,
here are a few things to keep in mind.
You have most probably noticed that I was using an array called "xxx[3]" and
was assigning it contents of my structure like so:
xxx[0]= px[0].A0;
xxx[1]= px[0].A1;
xxx[2]= px[0].A2;
This was because the watch window in my compiler is not able to read the
contents of "px[0].ItemName". This is a known issue to them and are currently
working on it. Therefore any strucutre that I allocate in memory, I must
assign its contents to an array for me to be able to view the data !
Also as stated by David:
>Whatever is happening is probably more to do with the fact that you're
>declaring pointers in header files.
I still left the pointers in the header files for this example, but rest
assure I will change this and do it as David said. For now I would just like
to see if there is something else that causes the problem.
Okay! here it goes. I was very reluctant in posting such a lenghty sample
but I don't know how else to get everyone to see the full picture so that I
get help that will specifically solve the problem. So here it is.
First and for most, in main, I call the TCP_CONFIG_GMM function which will
set up some data in a strucuture called GMM (Graphics message mask). This
structure will hold very little information for 3 out of the dozens of
messages stored in external flash! So therefore if GMM contains the following:
//GRAPHICS MESSAGE MASK
struct GMM{
int MSG; //MESSAGE #. ( 0= no message required at
this location)
int VPIX_START; //VERTICAL MESSAGE START PIXEL
int HPIX_START; //HORIZONTAL MESSAGE START PIXEL
}
aGMM[]= //Array of Graphics message masks:
{1, 10, 10, //1st MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
5, 50, 30, //2nd MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
44, 100, 0}; //3rd MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
Then, this means that message #1 will be displayed starting at pixel (10,10)
, and message #5 will be displayed starting at pixel (50,30) and message #44
will be displayed starting at pixel (100,0). As you will see later in the
sample code, innitially the GMM structure is reset with default values like
so:
//GRAPHICS MESSAGE MASK
struct GMM{
int MSG; //MESSAGE #. ( 0= no message required at
this location)
int VPIX_START; //VERTICAL MESSAGE START PIXEL
int HPIX_START; //HORIZONTAL MESSAGE START PIXEL
}
aGMM[]= //Array of Graphics message masks:
{0, 255, 255, //1st MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
0, 255, 255, //2nd MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
0, 255, 255}; //3rd MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
The GMM structure is filled with informations via the TCP_CONFIG_GMM function
prior to any screen displaying activity or when new messages are regiquired
for any subsequent screens. The Graphics Message Mask contains all the
messages required for the next screens that will be painted. For now, the GMM
can contain a maximum of 3 messages each with their respective
vertical/horizontal start pixels coordinates. The VPIX_START and HPIX_START
values depict the start pixel locations X/Y for every message.
In the sample code below, when I call the TCP_CONFIG_GMM function, it will
fill in new values in the GMM and create the neccessary arrays of structures
by calling the TCP_LOAD_MCB_X function.
In TCP_LOAD_MCB_X function, you will notice I fill in the items of the
arrays of structures with bogus data such as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12.
These values are sequentially assigned to the xxx[12] array so I can view the
contents of every item! Up to here I have no problems, everything gets
assigned correctly!
Now, I exit the TCP_CONFIG_GMM function and I am back in main. The next
function I call is the LCD_PAINTSCREEN function which resides in a file
called LCD.c. In this function, I call the Fetch() function which will scan
every pixel location with the ones stored in the GMM. More precicely, the
actual verification is done in the GET_MSG_MSK_REC_FROM_PIXLOC() function. If
255 is returned, then the pixel where any of the messages would start is not
reached. If there is a match, then I return the message # so I know which
pMCB I have to read. Once I return from the GET_MSG_MSK_REC_FROM_PIXLOC()
function I create a memory allocation with the following line:
pCL_B = malloc(15*(sizeof(struct CL_B)));
if(pCL_B==NULL)
{BAD_POINTER=1;}
And up to here everything is fine.
Then I assign the correct pMCB pointer to a general MCB pointer called px.
Now I go on and read the items in the MCB structure that I assigned the
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 by doing:
for(i=0;i<11;i++)
{
xxx[0]= px[i].ENDOFCHAR;
xxx[1]= px[i].A2;
xxx[2]= px[i].A1;
xxx[3]= px[i].A0;
xxx[4]= px[i].LEADING_PIX;
xxx[5]= px[i].TRAILING_PIX;
xxx[6]= px[i].CHARSPACING;
xxx[7]= px[i].CHAR_TRSP;
xxx[8]= px[i].mCHAR_BCOLOR;
xxx[9]= px[i].lCHAR_BCOLOR;
xxx[10]= px[i].mTEXT_COLOR;
xxx[11]= px[i].lTEXT_COLOR;
}
And when i = 0, I read, (error,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) and when i = 1, I
read, (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) and when i = 2, I read,
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) up to when i = 5. So when i = 5, I read
(1,2,3,4,30,128,195,0,9,10,11).
WHen i = 6,7, I read (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12). When i = 8, I read,
(1,5,227,4,7,8,7,8,9,10,11,12) and this is where I pretty much become
confused!
Given my code sample below, I would appreciate to know if I require to pass
back my malloc pointer from TCP_CONFIG_GMM() and pass it back into FETCH()
function?
Here is the full sample code and does compile without errors!
============================================ACM152.c
#include <DeviceSettings_M.h> //DEVICE INNITIALIZATIONS
#include <stdlib.h> //STANDARD LIBRARY
#include <stdlibm.h> //FOR MALLOC
#include <TCP.h> //TCP HEADER
#include <LCD.c> //LCD FUNCTIONS
#include <TCP.c> //TEXT CODE PAGE
void main()
{
//Just assign one message starting at 10,10 !
TCP_CONFIG_GMM(
1, 10, 10,
0, 255, 255,
0, 255, 255);
//PAINTS THE LCD SCREEN
LCD_PAINTSCREEN(
176, //SETS RIGHT HORZ WINDOW EXTENT
0, //SETS LEFT HORZ WINDOW EXTENT
132, //SETS LOWEST VERT WINDOW EXTENT
0, //SETS HIGHER VERT WINDOW EXTENT
24, //MOST SIGNIFICANT START ADDRESS BYTE IN FLASH
0, //MID SIGNIFICANT START ADDRESS BYTE IN FLASH
0); //LEAST SIGNIFICANT START ADDRESS BYTE IN FLASH
}
==================================================
===============================================LCD.c
//PAINTS THE LCD SCREEN
void LCD_PAINTSCREEN (
int SETWINEXTHORZ_MSB,
int SETWINEXTHORZ_LSB,
int SETWINEXTVERT_MSB,
int SETWINEXTVERT_LSB,
int A2,
int A1,
int A0)
{
int i,k;
//Call fetch() at every pixel!
for(i=SETWINEXTVERT_LSB;i<SETWINEXTVERT_MSB;i++)
{
for(k=SETWINEXTHORZ_LSB;k<SETWINEXTHORZ_MSB;k++)
{
FETCH(
&A2, //MSB OF CURRENT MESSAGE ADDRESS TO PAR FLASH
&A1, //MIDSB OF CURRENT MESSAGE ADDRESS TO PAR FLASH
&A0, //LSB OF CURRENT MESSAGE ADDRESS TO PAR FLASH
&i, //CURRENT VERTICAL LOCATIONS
&k); //CURRENT HORIZONTAL LOCATIONS
}
}
}
====================================================
============================================== TCP.h
//defines the pixel color depht (16 bits per pixel)
#define RGB_COLORDEPTH 16
//Defines bytes per pixel
#define BYTESPERPIXEL 2
//Defines number of pixels per horizontal line
#define PIXELSPERHORZLINE 176
//Defines the size of the message indexes in the aGMM array. Please note that
//the aGMM array contains an array of Graphics message mask structures!
//ex: size of GMM structure = 3 items, size of array holding 3 structures =
9 items
//Therefore, 9/3 = 3 messages
#define GMM_BLOCK (sizeof(aGMM)/sizeof(struct GMM))
//Number of bytes per MCB line
#define B_P_MCB_L 16
//GRAPHICS MESSAGE MASK
struct GMM{
int MSG; //MESSAGE #. ( 0= no message required at this
location)
int VPIX_START; //VERTICAL MESSAGE START PIXEL
int HPIX_START; //HORIZONTAL MESSAGE START PIXEL
}
aGMM[]= //Array of Graphics message masks:
{0, 255, 255, //1st MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
0, 255, 255, //2nd MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
0, 255, 255}; //3rd MESSAGE NUMBER / VERTICAL PIX / HORIZONTAL PIX
struct MCB{
int ENDOFCHAR; //:TRUE:=End of char / :FALSE:=Valid char
int A0; //LSB OF MESSAGE ADDRESS IN PAR FLASH
int A1; //MIDSB OF MESSAGE ADDRESS IN PAR FLASH
int A2; //MSB OF MESSAGE ADDRESS IN PAR FLASH
int LEADING_PIX; //LEADING SPACES, BEFORE CHARACTER
int TRAILING_PIX; //TRAILLING SPACES, AFTER CHARACTER
int CHARSPACING; //SPACES BETWEEN CHARACTERS
int CHAR_TRSP; //CHARACTER TRANSPARENCY
int mCHAR_BCOLOR; //MSB OF BACK COLOR
int lCHAR_BCOLOR; //LSB OF BACK COLOR
int mTEXT_COLOR; //MSB OF TEXT COLOR
int lTEXT_COLOR; //LSB OF TEXT COLOR
};
//Declare a pointer of type "struct MCB"
struct MCB* pMCB1;
struct MCB* pMCB2;
struct MCB* pMCB3;
struct CL_B{
int BYTE1;
int BYTE2;
};
//Declare a pointer of type "struct CL_B"
struct CL_B* pCL_B;
void TCP_CONFIG_GMM(
int MSG1, int VPX1, int HPX1, //1st MSG WITH VERT/HORIZ START LOCATIONS
int MSG2, int VPX2, int HPX2, //2nd MSG "
int MSG3, int VPX3, int HPX3); //3rd MSG "
void TCP_LOAD_MCB_X(int j);
void FETCH(
int *A2, //MSB OF CURRENT MESSAGE ADDRESS TO PAR FLASH
int *A1, //MIDSB OF CURRENT MESSAGE ADDRESS TO PAR FLASH
int *A0, //LSB OF CURRENT MESSAGE ADDRESS TO PAR FLASH
int *VPX1, //CURRENT VERTICAL START LOCATIONS
int *HPX1); //CURRENT HORIZONTAL START LOCATIONS
void *SizeMCB_X(int m);
int GET_MSG_MSK_REC_FROM_PIXLOC(
int *VPX1, //VERTICAL START LOCATIONS
int *HPX1); //HORIZONTAL START LOCATIONS
====================================================
==============================================TCP.c
void TCP_CONFIG_GMM(
int MSG1, int VPX1, int HPX1,
int MSG2, int VPX2, int HPX2,
int MSG3, int VPX3, int HPX3)
{
int a; //Counter
//LOAD THE GMM STRUCTURE WITH THE CURRENT MASK INFORMATION
//1st Message index
aGMM[0].MSG=MSG1;
aGMM[0].VPIX_START=VPX1;
aGMM[0].HPIX_START=HPX1;
//2nd Message index
aGMM[1].MSG=MSG2;
aGMM[1].VPIX_START=VPX2;
aGMM[1].HPIX_START=HPX2;
//3rd Message index
aGMM[2].MSG=MSG3;
aGMM[2].VPIX_START=VPX3;
aGMM[2].HPIX_START=HPX3;
//Scroll through the GMM structure
for(a=0;a<GMM_BLOCK;a++)
{
if(aGMM[a].MSG > 0) //If no message, then exit loop!
{
TCP_LOAD_MCB_X(a); //CURRENT GMM STRUCTURE
}
}
}
void TCP_LOAD_MCB_X(int j)
{
int i,k;
struct MCB* px;
int xxx[12];
px = (struct MCB *)SizeMCB_X(j); //Size & create array of MCB structures
for(i=0;i<11;i++)
{
k=0;
px[i].ENDOFCHAR = 1; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].ENDOFCHAR;
px[i].A2 = 2; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].A2;
px[i].A1 = 3; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].A1;
px[i].A0 = 4; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].A0;
px[i].LEADING_PIX = 5; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].LEADING_PIX;
px[i].TRAILING_PIX = 6; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].TRAILING_PIX;
px[i].CHARSPACING = 7; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].CHARSPACING;
px[i].CHAR_TRSP = 8; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].CHAR_TRSP;
px[i].mCHAR_BCOLOR = 9; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].mCHAR_BCOLOR;
px[i].lCHAR_BCOLOR = 10; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].lCHAR_BCOLOR;
px[i].mTEXT_COLOR = 11; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].mTEXT_COLOR;
px[i].lTEXT_COLOR = 12; k++;
xxx[k-1]= px[i].lTEXT_COLOR;
}
}
void FETCH(
int *A2, //MSB OF MESSAGE ADDRESS IN PAR FLASH
int *A1, //MIDSB OF MESSAGE ADDRESS IN PAR FLASH
int *A0, //LSB OF MESSAGE ADDRESS IN PAR FLASH
int *VPX1, //CURRENT VERTICAL START LOCATIONS
int *HPX1) //CURRENT HORIZONTAL START LOCATIONS
{
int c,i,BAD_POINTER;
int xxx[16];
struct MCB *px; //Local variant pointer of type MCB
c = GET_MSG_MSK_REC_FROM_PIXLOC(
VPX1, //VERTICAL START LOCATIONS
HPX1); //HORIZONTAL START LOCATIONS
//If pixel reached then display text!
if(c!=255)
{
//Allocate memory for containerLineBuffer. containerLineBuffer is
//used for special storing of data in other code in this function
//which is not shown and not relevant to this issue !
pCL_B = malloc(15*(sizeof(struct CL_B)));
if(pCL_B==NULL)
{BAD_POINTER=1;}
switch(c)
{
case 0:
px = pMCB1;
break;
case 1:
px = pMCB2;
break;
case 2:
px = pMCB3;
break;
default:
break;
}
//JUNK DISPLAYED HERE!!!!
for(i=0;i<11;i++)
{
xxx[0]= px[i].ENDOFCHAR;
xxx[1]= px[i].A2;
xxx[2]= px[i].A1;
xxx[3]= px[i].A0;
xxx[4]= px[i].LEADING_PIX;
xxx[5]= px[i].TRAILING_PIX;
xxx[6]= px[i].CHARSPACING;
xxx[7]= px[i].CHAR_TRSP;
xxx[8]= px[i].mCHAR_BCOLOR;
xxx[9]= px[i].lCHAR_BCOLOR;
xxx[10]= px[i].mTEXT_COLOR;
xxx[11]= px[i].lTEXT_COLOR;
}
free(pMCB1);
free(pMCB2);
free(pMCB3);
free(pCL_B);
}
}
void *SizeMCB_X(int m)
{
#define __CTNRSIZE_X (11*B_P_MCB_L)
switch (m)
{
case 0:
//Assign the address of an array of n structres created in heap to
a pointer !
pMCB1 = malloc(__CTNRSIZE_X*(sizeof(struct MCB)));
return pMCB1;
break;
case 1:
//Assign the address of an array of n structres created in heap to
a pointer !
pMCB2 = malloc(__CTNRSIZE_X*(sizeof(struct MCB)));
return pMCB2;
break;
case 2:
//Assign the address of an array of n structres created in heap to
a pointer !
pMCB3 = malloc(__CTNRSIZE_X*(sizeof(struct MCB)));
return pMCB3;
break;
default:
break;
}
}
int GET_MSG_MSK_REC_FROM_PIXLOC(
int *C_VPX1, //VERTICAL START LOCATIONS
int *C_HPX1) //HORIZONTAL START LOCATIONS
{
int i;
int rvCMMR=255;
//Do as many times as there are graphics message mask records!
for(i=0;i<GMM_BLOCK;i++)
{
//Continue only if any of the graphics message mask
//start pixels equals current LCD pixel location
if(aGMM[i].VPIX_START == *C_VPX1)
{
if(aGMM[i].HPIX_START == *C_HPX1)
{
//Check if the message is required (>0)!
if(aGMM[i].MSG==0) //No message exists.
continue; //Skip the rest of logic and continue
for loop!
rvCMMR = i; //Assign current message mask
break; //Leave this function!
}
}
}
return rvCMMR;
}
===================================================
I hope I have made my problem clearer than my previous posts and I am
*absolutely* open to any suggestions such as no variable declarations in
header files, better emplacements of mallocs or returning of malloc pointers
and so forth. This is because now I finally have a small peice of code sample
where I can actually try all your suggestions!
Again, sorry for the long post and all the details but I fugured I would
explain it the best I could once and for all.
Thankyou all in advance!
--
Sincere and appreciative Regards
Robert Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285201
MSDN volatile sample
Hello everyone,
In the MSDN volatile sample,
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/12a04hfd(VS.80).aspx
I do not understand what is the purpose of the sample. I have tried to
remove the keyword volatile, and the result is the same. :-)
Any ideas?
thanks in advance,
George Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285160
Service / User Process Option
I've written a service that does everything its supposed to do. Now
I'd like to offer my users the option to run it as a background
process. My naive approach would be to simply bypass all the service-
specific API commands using some simple logic. And instead, the
application would create a slightly different main loop, but
essentially keep the same funcitonality.
Anybody else have a better approach? Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285150
Getting rid of the C RTL
I'm working on a little DLL that doesn't use (per se) the C RTL. So I gave it a
custom entry point and (with VC8) wound up with a .CRT section and couple of
warnings (LNK4210). To track it down, I ignored LIBCMT and discovered that this
line
WCHAR szString[24] = L"";
was somehow involving _memset() (which of course wasn't found). When I changed
that to
WCHAR szString[24];
szString[0] = 0;
the .CRT section and the warnings went away. It's not a problem but I'd like to
understand what's going on. Thanks!
--
- Vince Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285147
why visual studio does not optimize constructor in this case
Hello everyone,
Why visual studio does not optimize constructor in this case? I do not
understand what the MSDN mentioned,
if use different named object, compiler can not optimize. Why?
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms364057(vs.80).aspx
[Code]
#include <stdio.h>
class RVO
{
public:
RVO(){printf("I am in constructor\n");}
RVO (const RVO& c_RVO) {printf ("I am in copy constructor\n");}
int mem_var;
};
RVO MyMethod (int i)
{
RVO rvo;
rvo.mem_var = i;
if (rvo.mem_var == 10)
return (RVO());
return (rvo);
}
int main()
{
RVO rvo;
rvo=MyMethod(5);
}
[/Code]
Output is,
I am in constructor
I am in constructor
I am in copy constructor
My expected output is,
I am in constructor
I am in constructor
thanks in advance,
George Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285124
Challenging GotW 66's moral
Hello everyone,
In GotW #66, one of the moral is the exception handler of constructor should
not do any like resource free task. I do not agree. Here is the quoated moral
and my code to prove this moral will have memory leak.
Anything wrong with my analysis?
http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/066.htm
Moral #1: Constructor function-try-block handlers have only one purpose --
to translate an exception. (And maybe to do logging or some other side
effects.) They are not useful for any other purpose.
[Code]
class A
{
private:
int* p;
public:
A()
try
{
p = new int[10];
// there are some other exceptions here
}
catch (bad_alloc)
{
// do not delete since bad_alloc means memory pointed by p is not
allocated
}
catch (...)
{
// if we do not delete p, there will be memory leak
// at this point, we are conflicting with Gotw 66's moral 1
if (p) delete[] p;
}
}
[/Code]
thanks in advance,
George Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285103
Simple question about headers and malloc!
Hello,
This is a C question or if I may call it a situation! Thanking all fellows
in advance for their help.
I find myself in a bind where I *must* specifically include the yyy header
file (see code sample below) in main even though all its declarations are
specifically used for yyy.c. Therefore I am making all of its declarations
global to the whole program! and I don't like it !
The reason for this is because when I am in yyy.c file I am allocating
memory (using malloc) and then exit back to main. I later call again
functions in yyy.c and allocate another block of memory (using malloc) and
further continue some logic in yyy.c. As I I read data from first memory
allocation, I get data strored from the second allocation... even though I
didn't free the first malloc allocation! I don't free it because I need to
use both data in the memory allocated by both mallocs. But each allocation is
done at different times!!!!!
Therefore, I think that when you exit a function where you used malloc, its
pointer is lost right?, but the allocation of the memory and its data is not.
And since it is not freed, the data in this memory should still stay intact
after leaving the function that allocated, right?
At a later instance if I go back in yyy.c and do another malloc , since the
pointer to the previous memory allocation is lost, I think that the previous
memory block is up for grabs by the next malloc command and this is where
data gets mixed up. So this is why I am including the yyy.h file in main so
all pointers returned from mallocs always stay valid and all allocations are
reserved at all times.
There are other files between xxx.c and yyy.c and would be quite lenghty to
explain it all, but I hope its clear enough to get a general idea. Making all
pointer declarations that will be used with malloc commands in a global
header file is the only way I see that preserves memory allocations when
mallocs are done at different times since the pointers returned by malloc are
never lost. I don't really think I would like to return pointers returned by
malloc back to main in order to preserve them.
I could be wrong about all this, and if I am, I would appreciate your help.
I just keep testing and get the same results... data overlapping!
So as I was saying, basically if you have a .c file with its header file, we
typically include the header file from within the .c file. But this is not
what I am doing.... please view the sample below. This obviously compiles but
not sure if this is a good C programming practice. Any feedback appreciated.
#include <yyy.h> //Is this okay?
#include <xxx.c>
int main()
{
//...some code !
//Calls functions in xxx.c
}
===========xxx.h
...some declarations
==============
===========xxx.c
#include <xxx.h>
#include <yyy.c>
...some code
//Calls functions in yyy.c
==============
===========yyy.h
...some declarations
==============
===========yyy.c
//Should yyy.h be included here instead?
...some code
==============
--
Best regards
Robert Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285100
Efficient code maintenance
I face some code maintenance issues I need advice on.
A scientific collaborator of mine is interested in using my code (VC+
+.NET) for her experiments. I continuously improve and modify my code,
and I intend to provide updated versions of the code to her team in
the future.
The problem is that my code does much more than my collaborator needs
and can work with. To be specific, my code controls two data
aquisition cameras and 6 sets of nanopositioning and micropositioning
motors. My collaborator only needs to control one camera and does not
need the rest.
So I spend about an hour commenting out all the unnecessary stuff
(like, 75% of my code), saved the solution under another name and gave
her the code. The problem is - when she needs the updated code (and
she will, since she will come across some bugs I haven't seen/haven't
bothered to fix)) I don't want to go through each line one by one to
see what has changed and what has not, or spend another hour
commenting out stuff from the updated code. The code is ~5,000 lines
with ~10 classes. She only needs 3 classes out of 10. Removing
unnecessary stuff is not just a matter of commenting out #includes,
since there are gloval variables, instances of classes, communication
between classes, etc.
Is there an efficient way of doing this? Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285083
Buy viagra where order Viagra online Buy Generic Viagra
Buy viagra where order Viagra online Buy Generic Viagra
http://www.buy-viagra-where.info/
http://www.buy-viagra-where.info/
http://www.buy-viagra-where.info/
VIAGRA for only $1.50 per pill, free shipping and visa accepted
CIALIS for only $2.07 per pill, free shipping and visa accepted
LEVITRA for only $2.54 per pill, free shipping and visa accepted
ACOMPLIA for only $1.79[/b] per pill, free shipping and visa accepted
http://www.buy-viagra-where.info -- Buy viagra where and Buy where
Viagra and order Viagra online from www.buy-viagra-where.info. Buy
Viagra from leading online pharmacy and we provide cheap Viagra by
online order at affordable cost. Buy best quality cheap Viagra, buy
online Viagra and order Viagra from us Order Generic Viagra
(Sildenafil) Generic Viagra 50 mg (Viagra(R) equivalent) Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285071
Why it is not good code for constructor
Hello everyone,
Here is a sample from Dr. Dobb C++. In the analysis, the code is bad below.
But I do not think the code is bad,
1. if bad_alloc is thrown in new int[], we just catch it and write some log;
2. if there are any exception in B's constructor, we will also be in catch
block and we could also write some log.
Why it is bad code? Any comments?
(I do not agree that there is resource leak, since if we met with bad_alloc
in new int[], there is no memory allocated at all, so no root of
memory/resource leak).
http://www.ddj.com/cpp/184401297
[Code]
C::C(int)
try
: B(new int[n]) // horrible!
{
...
}
catch(Error &e)
{
}
[/Code]
thanks in advance,
George Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285060
bad_alloc
Hello everyone,
Please help to comment whether my following understanding is correct,
1. whether or not we are using auto_ptr to allocate new object on heap
(using new), there may be bad_alloc exceptions;
2. when we met with such exceptions, we catch it (bad_alloc) and try to
mininize the operation in catch handler block (since when bad_alloc occurs,
it means memory is running out, we can not do anything complex in handler).
Both are correct? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
thanks in advance,
George Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285058
Retrive Physical Media details associated with Logical Drive
Hi,
I want to use Logical Drive Letter to get physical media detail.
For example:
if there is drive letter D:
then i want to get detail of physical media associated with drive D:
How can i achieve this using drive letter D:
Thanks
Regards,
Devang Vyas Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285056
M`I,5.Pers ecution . B BC Newscast ers L ie & Den y Th eyre Watch ing Me
MI5 Persecution: BBC Newscasters Lie & Deny. They're Watching Me
Central to the persecution campaign waged against me for. some nine years
now by the Security Service is their use of the. media, and in particular
the broadcast media, to make clear to me that I. am under surveillance and
being watched. within my own home, even by BBC newscasters while they read
the news. This is really an act of arrogance;. MI5 and their tools in the
television and radio are so sure that they can. never be caught, that they
have many times made. explicity clear on broadcast programmes that they are
as capable of seeing me as I am of seeing the broadcast pictures.. Even
when they have known I am. taping the programmes they still carry on this
practice; for examples of. TVand radio presenters caught "in action", see
the. Evidence area of my website.
If you wish to reply to. this article......
then please include your name and fax number! I provide the. means for
recipients to send me their thoughts on the. topics discussed, but ask that
you provide me. with your fax number or email address if you require a
response. Also would you please send not more than one. or two pages, if by
fax.. Thank-you!
It started with a. Newscaster, and it continues with Newscasters today
The very first incident in the story started. with a reaction by an ITN
newscaster, Sue Carpenter, in June of. 1990, almost nine years ago now. She
reacted to what she saw in my living room at home as she read the. news. My
mother had brought an apple for me into the room, whereupon the. newsreader
smirked and. giggled, apparently finding this funny. I couldn't believe
what I was. seeing. I carried on watching news and other television
programmes to see if presenters would show. signs of "interactive
watching"; to my surprise, this happened again and. again. Unfortunately, I
did not have my wits sufficiently about me to videotape these. programmes,
and it is now almost impossible. to obtain recordings dating back to 1990.
However, I have. been busy recording everything Ive watched the last couple
of years, and the taping has yielded some nuggets, which. you will find if
you point your. Web browser at the "evidence" area of my website, whose URL
address is given above. Strangely it is not particularly the. BBC who are
"after me". at the moment (with the exception of occasional fire from
Nicholas Witchell), but that supposed paragon. of virtue and decency Jon
Snow of Channel Four TV News (he actually works for ITN),. who once claimed
hed turned down MI5s offer of a tax-free. salary. I will cover Snows recent
actions in a. future article.
BBCs Hidden. Shame
The first ever Usenet post (internet newsgroup article) on the. subject of
the MI5 bugging / BBC watching. occurred, as stated in a previous article,
in early. May 1995. It is reproduced here;
Date: Thu. May 4 18:27:24 1995
Newsgroups:. alt.conspiracy
Subject: BBC's Hidden. Shame
Remember the two-way. televisions in George Orwell's 1984? The ones which
watched you. back? Which you could never get rid of, only the sound could
be. turned down?
Well the country which brought Orwell into. the world has made his
nightmare follow into the. world after him. Since 1990 the British have
been waging war against one of their own. citizens using surveillance to
invade privacy and a campaign. of abuse in the transmitted media in their
efforts to. humiliate their "victim".
I suppose "BBCs Hidden Shame" is more of a wish than a fact.. It may be
hidden, but the BBC and other media and. security organisations seem to
have no shame whatever in their anti-social, not to. say criminal,
actions. Nor do the general public,. who seem quite happy to parrot the
vilest obscenities without much hesitation. or apparently thought.
Martyn Lewis, Nicholas Witchell. and the rest
Most of. the harassment occurred in 1990-92, when I wasnt making any
recordings, and the BBC wont release copies of. current affairs programmes
from that period.... so although I can remember. there were many incidents
in that time, even many specifics, I cant dig up. the actual programmes to
flesh. out the bones.
This year, there has been at least one incident with. Nicholas Witchell as
newsreader, which I have successfully. recorded and digitized,
i.e.. converted into a computer Quicktime movie file. This has not yet
found its way onto my website (Im a busy man, dontcha know). but you can be
sure I will let the readership of these. articles know when that clip makes
it onto the web. The Witchell. clip was recorded on Saturday 10 April 1999
at 7pm, and. shows Witchell trying to restrain his features from collapsing
into a smirk. First his. upper lip quivers for several minutes, then with
the non-excuse of a non-joke. his entire face twists into a grin. It looks
as if he finds me so funny, that he allows himself. to submerge any
pretence at professionalism in a sea of MI5-inspired. sarcasm and
harassment.
The two BBC newscasters whose. reactions to me I can remember most vividly
over the years are Martyn Lewis and. Nicholas Witchell. I can remember
thinking years. ago that Michael Buerk was also seeing me at home; and if
the other. two are watching then there would be no reason why he wouldnt be
doing the same; but in all honesty I cannot. remember a single clear
instance of his reacting through facial or verbal. expression to me.
I can remember several instances of Martyn. Lewis reacting to what he saw
of me, however. In early 1992 I was watching the BBC news with Lewis. on a
small. black-and-white portable TV at my then home in Oxford. I threw a
term of abuse at Lewis; he flinched, then gave a grin and made a. comment
from which I understood that he had. been on my side, but might have
changed his mind as. a result of what Id just said to him.
And in spring 1991. I remember Martyn Lewis clearly reacting to what he saw
of me. at my then accommodation in Woking, Surrey, by continuing to stare
at some fixed point near the camera after the news had. finished -
presumably this is where the monitor interactively showing. pictures of my
room. was located.
Why would BBC and other Newscasters Watch. and Harass Me, Watching Them?
This is a very difficult question,. and I dont actually know the answer. It
is a. matter of record that the Secret Services are very much part of the
Establishment. The recent exposure of. the "MI6 Agent List" on the
internet, and its coverage in the. newspapers, reveals how much MI5 and MI6
are recruited from. the ranks of the Establishment. Obviously the
relationship is bi-directional;. the Establishment influences MI5/MI6, but
the secret services (well, perhaps not so secret now we know. who works for
MI6!!!) also. influence the machinery of power and information
dissemination i.e. media in this country. So. they must have a lot of
covert leverage with the BBC and. ITN.
Some of this leverage is obviously through bribery. It. is a matter of
record that. MI5 tried some years ago to "buy" Jon Snow of Channel Four
TV. He turned. them down - obviously they must have approached other media
people as well, and from the lack of other reports of people. turning them
down, it may be presumed that some. other journalists will have accepted
the sugared carrots put before them. Ironically, Jon Snow has been. taking
part in the recent "watching" actions against me -. but why he has allowed
himself to be used by the secret. services is something which I do not
know.
Perhaps the Security. Service uses blackmail to twist arms of journalists
into co-operating with them?. I have always thought there was something
slightly odd about Martyn Lewiss demeanour. At the time of the. Ron Davies
"rough trade" scandal it was reported that MI5. had known all about Davies
predilections and the. sham of his pretence to be a happily married
man. Perhaps. MI5 have been able to dig something up from Martyn Lewiss
private life to blackmail him into acting. on their behalf? And if there
wasnt anything before the "newscaster watching" started then. there most
certainly is something now.... once. theyve started watching, the
newscasters will surely wish their activities to. remain covered-up, and
co-operate with the. security service.
"Newscaster Watching" Deliberately Constructed. to Mimic Schizophrenia
Presumably. this is the first case in history of television journalists
actually taking. part in acts of real-time, live spying and reacting
against one of. their viewers. What you have to understand, though, is that
I was quite mentally healthy in. June 1990, certainly relative to November
1992, when after two and a half years of. harassment I was finally admitted
to hospital as an out-patient. MI5 decided from the outset. that they would
make me. mad; they constructed the media harassment to resemble what would
be reported by a person with mental illness; and then they carried. on
years of abuse to inflict on me. the condition which they wished to use as
an excuse. to cover up their abuses.
I sold my portable TV in autumn 1990. and stopped watching television
regularly. I realise now that this may have been a mistake. What. I should
have done was to watch. TV and listen to the radio, but tape-record
everything and make a note of what each. excerpt meant to me. I would then
be in a much stronger position as. regards to evidence that I am now. That
is what I am trying to do now,. but unsurprisingly the TV/radio presenters
have stopped getting at me, now they know. they are being recorded.
When I. started publicising my case on internet newsgroups in 1995, I was
met with the disbelief. one might expect to be accorded to a mentally ill
person. who talks about "newscaster watching" and media persecution. Some
newsgroup participants thought I had. started a "troll", an invention made
to obtain a reaction; one bright spark even. suggested a group of
psychology students were behind the. articles. But most people thought the
articles were symptomatic of derangement - and that is exactly what. MI5
want people. to think. MI5 chose me as a target because I was mildly
mentally ill at the outset in 1990, although I stress my. illness then was
very mild in comparison with. November 1992, and because they knew that
enough abuse would (a) make me much more seriously ill, and (b) once I. was
more ill, they. would "get away" with a harassment deliberately constructed
to look like the symptoms of. paranoid schizophrenia.
Martyn Lewis Denies. & Lies, But Wont in Writing
In February 1997 I wrote to BBC Viewer & Listener Correspondence and. asked
them. to investigate the claim that their newscasters had engaged in
"real-time spying" on. me. They replied that they had asked Martyn Lewis
and Michael Buerk whether they had engaged in such practices, and. that
they had both made verbal denials. to VLC, but were refusing to put their
denials. in writing.
To me it looks as if Lewis and Buerk are happy to lie verbally. but not in
writing, because written falsehoods. would place them unambiguously in the
wrong, whereas they can. try to talk their way out of verbal lies if they
are ever caught, or perhaps even deny the verbal. lies completely? If they
lie without. shame, then why would they have any shame about future lies
about. lying?
BBC-VLC also said that the BBC "would never engage in any form. of
surveillance activity" such as that described. Clearly. Martyn Lewis and
the rest. have lied to their own organisations personnel about their
criminal actions. So much for the "objective", "truthful" BBC, a. nest of
shabby. liars.
Summons against the BBC, for Nuisance caused by Newscaster. Spying
In March 1997 I issued a. civil summons against the BBC, seeking injunction
against further "newscaster. spying", and token damages for what the BBC
had done to me until that date. The purpose of the summons was to try. to
"smoke out" the BBC, since. obviously I did not have good evidence which
would be necessary for either a civil. or criminal case to be made against
them. My summons was worded. as follows;
1. The plaintiff is and was at all material times residing at. [home
address].. At some time prior to or during June 1990, persons of unknown
identity entered Plaintiff's premises and installed. concealed television
equipment in said. premises.
2. A campaign of harassment was launched against the. Plaintiff by the
persons of unknown identity, which in part took the form. of instigating
harassment by. BBC TV newscasters (including specifically Michael Buerk and
Martyn Lewis) as they read. news bulletins, by making direct and personal
comments to. Plaintiff.
3. The. campaigns purpose was to subject Plaintiff to great mental stress
and induce mental breakdown. As a. result of it Plaintiff did indeed suffer
from. severe mental strain in 1990-97.
4. In order to. avoid the mental strain being caused to him the Plaintiff
has been compelled to stop watching BBC TV news.. Defendant therefore
committed the tort of private nuisance, since. normal use of home was
interfered. with.
5. Plaintiff claims a. permanent injunction prohibiting further nuisance,
and damages. for nuisance suffered limited to 5,000.
Naturally, my attempt to smoke-out the BBC and its lying. newscasters
failed. The BBCs litigation department sought to have my. summons struck
out; and they succeeded in doing so, on. the grounds of my action
"disclosing no reasonable. cause of action". I was also prevented from
issuing further civil claims against the BBC without leave of. the
Court.. Apparently litigants-in-person frequently / usually have their
claims struck out with this wording, regardless. of the merit of their
claims.
BBC Suppresses my Claims of "Watching. by Newscasters"
BBCs staff magazine Ariel. ran my advert "BBC Newsreaders Spying on my
home" for one. issue in the Personal category on 8/July/1997 before it was
spotted and axed by editor Robin Reynolds; please. see
webpage;. http://www.pair.com/spook/evidence/plaint/ariel.htm
Clearly the BBC will not allow claims. of its wrongdoing to be made public
in the media channels it. controls.
On several occasions people said to my face that harassment from the. TV
was happening. On the first day I worked in. Oxford, I spent the evening in
the local pub the Rose and. Crown with the company's technical director
Ian, and. Phil, another employee. Ian made a few references to me and said
to Phil, as if in an aside, "Is he the bloke who's been on TV?" to. which
Phil replied, "Yes, I. think so".
The reader might think that mere "watching" by newscasters etc. might be a
relatively benign happening. But it is not;. it is part of MI5s framework
of harassment and lies. On many occasions the reactions of the. BBCs
newscasters. to me has been in the nature of sarcasm, implicit contempt and
abuse. This is visible in Witchells news programme. mentioned above, where
he engages in abuse by laughing at me during his newsreading.. It was
particularly visible in the early period of 1990-92, and as late as. Autumn
1993, when during. a Newsnight broadcast Jeremy Paxman interviewed a
football person about soccer hooliganism, and the interviewee. gave vent to
an unsubtle rant. about "theyre idiots, theyre just idiots, keep up the
surveillance". Paxman started grinning,. showing he understood and was
taking part in the abuse being perpetrated on. that programme.
Conclusion
The MI5 Persecution started. with harassment by television newscasters, and
today harassment by TV and radio presenters still forms a. key part of MI5s
activities against me. When this business started in. June 1990 I was in
relatively good health of mind. Years of persecution by the. secret police
and their mouthpieces in the state-run BBC. and other media eroded my
health until MI5. achieved their aim of seeing me rendered mentally ill in
November 1992. The diagnosis which was forced on me unfortunately. and
ironically meant that my. reports of the harassment are disregarded,
because the mentally ill. are second-class citizens in todays Britain.
Yet TV and radio harassment. continues, albeit in a reduced form, despite
my taping all the programmes I watch, resulting in my being able to. obtain
and demonstrate objectively on. the website instances of media presenters
attacking me. Unfortunately these recorded instances are. quite tenuous; I
might understand them,. the presenters understand what it is theyre doing,
but despite many thousands. of people knowing the truth of the "newscaster
watching", the omerta continues. and they continue to refuse to admit the
truth of. the matter. It is a terrible indictment of British society that
there is. not even one decent person willing to speak out. I look forward
to the day when the truth does finally. emerge, and the mass corruption
which. has allowed the MI5 persecution to take place is finally purged and
the Establishment criminals caught and appropriately. punished.
5403 Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285052
Question : Differentiate "CD Partition in USB Flash Drive" and "USB
Hi,
I have working code that detects the Device arrival events.
Now, I want to differentiate "CD Partition of USB Flash Drive" and
"USB CD Drive".
What details i can check to differentiate these.
Thanks
Regards,
Devang Vyas Tag: COM interface function calling problem using different thread Tag: 285051
M'I-5,Persecut ion F our Years of M I5 Perse cution Pos ts on Intern et Newsgroup s
Four Years of "MI5. Persecution" Posts on Internet Newsgroups
For approximately. the first three years of the MI5 persecution, from June
1990 until late 1992, I kept as quiet as possible, in the. hope that by not
reacting, MI5s interest in me would decrease and they would simply. go away
of their own accord. This is the sort. of behaviour some people employ
against bullies; if the bullies. arent getting a reaction, then they might
simply go away and. victimize someone else.
Unfortunately, this tactic. didnt work. The quieter I became, the more
shrill and. hysterical the noise from the Security Service operatives. For
about two years I didnt watch TV news at. all. Yet this only heightened
their obsessed fixation; they continued to follow. me wherever I went, they
continued to induce harassment at work by managers and fellow. workers, and
they continued to encourage. me to commit suicide. They seemed to regard my
refusal to react as a crime which they would have to. "put right" by ever
more extreme. forms of abuse.
Finally, in 1995,. I changed tactics radically. Since late 1994 I had had
accounts with internet providers in Ontario, Canada.. I discovered the
cornucopia. of internet newsgroups, on every topic from consumer
electronics,. to politics and legal topics, and I discovered online
services such as Compuserve and. AOL. In May 1995, I made the first posting
to the conspiracy newsgroup, on the subject of "BBCs Hidden. Shame".
BBC's. Hidden Shame
The internet newsgroup discussion, which has now reached its. fourth
anniversary, started with an article in alt.conspiracy, which I. reproduce
here.
Date: Thu. May 4 18:27:24 1995
Newsgroups:. alt.conspiracy
Subject: BBC's. Hidden Shame
Remember the two-way. televisions in George Orwell's 1984? The ones which watched you
back? Which you could. never get rid of, only the sound could be turned down?
Well the country which brought Orwell into the world. has made his nightmare follow into
the world after him. Since 1990 the British have been waging. war against one of their
own citizens using surveillance to invade privacy and a campaign of abuse in. the
transmitted media in their. efforts to humiliate their "victim".
And the most remarkable thing about it is. that what they do is not even illegal - the
UK has no laws to protect. the privacy of its citizens, nor does it proscribe harassment
or abuse except in the case of. racial abuse.
A lot of people in. England know this to be going on, yet so far they have maintained
perfect "omerta"; not a sound, not a squeak. has escaped into the English press, and for
all the covert harassment absolutely nothing has come out into. the public domain.
Have the British gone mad? I think we should. be told
At this point, I did not. name MI5 as my persecutors. I was still unsure
that they were the ones responsible for the "psychological. terrorism". In
followup posts however I did name them; and the persecutors. have never
denied the claim; so I think my. guess is valid. (The Security Service
Tribunal in 1997 have said "no determination in. your favour was made", but
it is a well established. fact that MI5 lies routinely to the Tribunal
which has never found in favour of a plaintiff, so no conclusions. can be
drawn. from this.)
This first post was made to alt.conspiracy, but. further posts were made to
the UK-local newsgroups, in particular. uk.misc but also uk.legal and
uk.politics (which is now. called uk.politics.misc). Some time ago I tried
to take the battle to the Compuserve forums, UKPOLITICS (which. is now
called UKCURRENT - current affairs), but. my articles were censored by the
forum operators. Such censorship is impossible on. the internet newsgroups.
Police. Refuse to Act
I have complained several times to the Metropolitan. Police, who have each
time refused. to help.
From:. Green <Green@guidion.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups:. uk.misc,uk.politics,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.british
Subject:. Re: MI5 Persecution: Why Aren't the British Police Doing Their
Job?
Reply-To:. Green@guidion.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun Apr 7. 21:13:30 1996
In article. <DpIE0r.736.0.bloor@torfree.net>
. bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:
>Last Easter (1995) I went into the local police station in London. and spoke to
>an officer about the harassment. against me. But I couldn't provide tangible
>evidence; what. people said, in many cases years ago, is beyond proof, and
>without something to. support my statements I cannot expect a police officer to
>take the. complaint seriously.
This in itself dos not. suggest that the police have it in for you. The old bill
operates on extremely tight spending limits. forced on them by that pillock Michael
Howard, and without evidence,. they often have higher priorities than chasing something
that cannot go to. court.
I doubt that the police are. actually being leant on, but they probably realise that if
they looked into this, they would be leant. on hard. The met always stays away from
anything that looks like it has Defence,. Security or secret service interest already,
because they realise that they are below these. government agencies in the general
pecking. order.
If I walked into my local. nick and complained that MI5 were snooping on me, they would
show me the door without. even looking at my evidence, because that bored desk seargant
with only five years to go before he retires doesn't want. to start fucking about with
somebody who has incurred the wrath of Stella Rimington. He would rather. deal with the
lost dogs and driving licence producers, eat his cheese and pickle sandwiches and. piss
off home at the end of his shift than have some high ranking spook having. a go at his
boss and getting him a. bollocking.
In short, you have earned much sympathy. but little surprise. Just remember that saying
about the enemy of. your enemies.
Most recently, I wrote in March. 1999 to Charing Cross Police Station
CID. They. did not acknowledge or reply to my letter. When I phoned them
up, the detective Id written to treated me to a. sadly not unusual display
of police bigotry, with. an uneducated rant about "your paranoid rubbish".
It would be nice to think. that such uneducated bigotry is something other
than wholly typical of police behaviour,. but unfortunately that is an
illusion. that is rapidly dispelled.
Uncorruptible Jon Snow of. Channel Four News
From previous articles the reader will know. what I think Jon Snow has
recently been watching me. while he reads Channel Four News in the
evening. Recently I digitized a few moments of one such. broadcast, where
his face twists into a smile,. without there being anything in the news
broadcast. to cause merriment. Here is a usenet post from some time ago on
MI5s "bought and paid for" tools in the so-called "free". press.
Peter Harding (harding@ermine.ox.ac.uk). wrote:
: I was at speakers' corner. on Sunday. There was one chap who was bellowing
: about something or other, I don't know what, but one thing he. said to
: someone caught my. ear:
:. "BBC, MI5, same thing."
Can't disagree. with that sentiment.
Wasn't it documented that MI5 sometimes "bought" journalists and. broadcasters?
I remember reading a report. by some jouralist who had been offered an extra
tax-free income by MI5. to become their covert mouthpiece, and had refused.
.............................................................................
> :. >mouthpiece, and had refused.
>. :
> : It was. Jon Snow of Channel 4.
>
>. Was it reported in any of the papers?
It has. been reported several times. The most recent was in Private Eye,
a few months. back. As I recall they also wanted information from him;
journalists would be a natural choice. for members of the Security Service
and the Secret. Intelligence Service for information sources.
> It might be. interesting to see what he had to say regarding their
> attempt to. recruit him.
He was most concerned that many others would. have accepted such an
offer.. However, we can probably make an educated guess as to some of
those who accepted: Nigel West (Rupert. Allason, MP) and Chapman Pincher
would come near to the top of. the list.
--
\/ David Boothroyd. Socialist. and election analyst. Omne ignotum pro
magnifico.
British. Elections and Politics at
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General Election. must be before 22nd May '97
The House of. Commons now : C 324, Lab 272, L Dem 25, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, Ind 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4.. Government majority = 1. Telephone Tate 6125.
Corrupt Security Service agents. steal millions from taxpayers
Money is of course a. factor in the grand equation which is the MI5
persecution. It costs money for. the Security Service to "buy" people in
the media etc. But that is only a small part. of their expenditure of
taxpayers resources. Most. of the expenditure is directly on the salaries
if the agents involved; and in this post I put forward the. theory that MI5
are trying to draw out their involvement. for as long as possible, very
cynically, to. maximise their income and line their own pockets.
At each stage they have. tried to pretend that I am something out of the ordinary.
Either I was very stupid ("he's an idiot"). or very clever ("he's like a genius").
Either I was a threat to. Western civilization (Levin once referred to me as the next
Hitler) or I was completely defenceless ("a soft. toy").
Now, it should be obvious to any person with common-sense that I am. not out of the
ordinary in any way. I have an IQ which is. average for the Web, I am racially white
European, and there are. plenty of other people with schizophrenia or epilepsy out there
who haven't. been targeted for MI5 attention, so why me?
I think the. answer is that the MI5 agents who harass me have cynically exploited the
situation by painting me as extraordinary in order to assure. themselves of well-paid
employment funded by the ordinary British taxpayer. To put it bluntly,. they are
stealing millions of pounds from the taxpayer to feed their. own pockets.
This assertion is supported by the observation that it's. the same agents who are doing
the harassment. Six months ago in a local hospital I. was harassed by someone whose face
I had seen. (he had stared straight at me aggressively, at the time I just thought it
was some nutter but. it turns out he was one of "them") aboard a KLM flight a couple of
years ago. It's presumably been. the same people most of the time. I've seen the way
contractors act when they don't. want their positions terminated. Would these agents
really want to. lose their well-paid employment harassing me? Presumably they are
promising their bosses a. "breakthrough" (ie my demise) real-soon-now and have been for
the last seven years, while all the while these. MI5 agents skim millions
off the. taxpayer.
I wouldn't mind a job like that. Perhaps if I persecute. myself a little bit, like
standing in front of a mirror and shouting mindless obscenities, do you reckon I'd. get
a slice of the caky Service Tribunal. This year. Nick Brooks, current
Tribunal Secretary, confirmed to me that he could not think. of a single
case where the Tribunal had found in favour of a complainant. Here is. my
usenet post from two. years ago.
Subject:. MI5: "It wasn't us"
Newsgroups:. uk.misc,uk.legal
Organization:. Toronto Free-Net
"The Security Service Tribunal have now investigated your complaint and. have
asked me to inform you that no determination in. your favour has been made on
your. complaint."
Signed ER Wilson,. Tribunal Secretary
Well that's a relief then. All that spamming. for nothing eh. Gaw blimey, if
they say they're not doing it then it can't. be them, can it?
In a. recent letter to Mr Brooks I expressed the opinion that the Tribunal
were unable to fulfil their responsibilities in the face. of MI5
falsehoods. Nevertheless,. I do intend to make another complaint to the
Tribunal in the. near future, despite the Tribunal appearing to be a
toothless. watchdog.
Discrimination against a. Unit Minority
MI5 have been very clear in their instructions as to what I. should
do. They have openly shouted at me the word "suicide", and also from. the
other abuse it is clear that they want. my existence terminated.
This point is covered