I have some 15-year-old C++ code that I am trying to bring up to more modern times. At this stage, I'm trying to get code that compiled with Visual C++ 6.0 to now compile with VS 2003 (Microsoft Visual C++ .NET 69462-335-0000007-18915). If we can get this to compile cleanly & run properly, then we can take another step to get it into a more recent version of VS. But I'm having a number of problems...
Here is a snippet of the (simplified) code:
class toS
{
public:
toS() { buff[0] ='\0'; }
operator LPCTSTR() { return buff; }
protected:
void Append (TCHAR c)
{
LPTSTR p = buff + _tcslen(buff);
*p++ = c;
*p = '\0';
}
TCHAR buff[40];
};
class LtoS : public toS
{
public:
LtoS(LONG n, TCHAR c = '\0')
{
_ltot(n, buff, 10);
Append(c);
}
};
void WriteBool(const CString& Section, const CString& Key, bool Value);
CString Section;
int nLine = 0;
std::vector<bool> *BoolVect;
std::vector<bool>::iterator vi;
...
for (vi = BoolVect->begin(); vi != BoolVect->end(); vi++)
WriteBool(Section, "LineVis " + LtoS(nLine++), *vi);
...
From this I get the following error message:
error C2677: binary '+' : no global operator found which takes type 'LtoS' (or there is no acceptable conversion)
Any idea how this code ever worked? If I can find out what it did in the past, I can begin to define the overloaded operator+ to match the functionality.
Compiler error goes away when I make class tos inherit from CString with:
class tos : public CString { ... }
Hopefully this will not only compile, but will execute correctly...
Deriving from several of the comments, try adding a public conversion operator to class toS as follows:
operator LPCTSTR() const { return &buff[0]; }
You may need to explicitly construct the string in the for loop as well, e.g.:
WriteBool(Section, CString("LineVis ") + static_cast<LPCTSTR>(LtoS(nLine++)), *vi);
(Side note: As you probably know since you just extracted code for an example, there's a problem here:
std::vector<bool> BoolVect;
...
for (vi = BoolVect->begin(); vi != BoolVect->end(); vi++)
The notation you're using to access the BoolVect implies that it is a pointer, but it's not being declared as such in your example.)
Related
C# code:
class Hello{
public void helloWorld(char[] chars){
//do something
}
}
C++ code to call C#:
MyCSDLL::Hello* hello;
//init hello, some calls are ok.
char* myCharPtr;
//init with message
HRESULT result = hello->helloWorld(safeArray, (MyCSDLL::_MyRetVal) _retValPtr);
Adapting from How to create and initialize SAFEARRAY of doubles in C++ to pass to C#
void createSafeArray(SAFEARRAY** saData, char* charPtr)
{
char* iterator = charPtr;
SAFEARRAYBOUND Bound;
Bound.lLbound = 0;
Bound.cElements = 10;
*saData = SafeArrayCreate(VT_R8, 1, &Bound);
char HUGEP *pdFreq;
HRESULT hr = SafeArrayAccessData(*saData, (void HUGEP* FAR*)&pdFreq);
if (SUCCEEDED(hr))
{
do {
*pdFreq++ = *iterator;
} while (*iterator++);
}
}
How to call hello->helloWorld()? it is expecting SAFEARRAY*. The current code gives 80131538 error. How to fix it?
C++ Project is not CLR.
Let's suppose the C# code is this:
namespace ClassLibrary1
{
[ComVisible(true)]
[ClassInterface(ClassInterfaceType.AutoDual)]
public class Hello
{
public void helloWorld(char[] chars)
{
...
}
}
}
Then, you can call it with this C/C++ code, for example:
#import "C:\mycode\ClassLibrary1\bin\Debug\classlibrary1.tlb" raw_interfaces_only
using namespace ClassLibrary1;
HRESULT CallHello(wchar_t* charPtr, int count)
{
CComPtr<_Hello> p;
HRESULT hr = p.CoCreateInstance(__uuidof(Hello));
if (FAILED(hr))
return hr;
SAFEARRAY* psa = SafeArrayCreateVector(VT_UI2, 0, count);
if (!psa)
return E_OUTOFMEMORY;
LPVOID pdata;
hr = SafeArrayAccessData(psa, &pdata);
if (SUCCEEDED(hr))
{
CopyMemory(pdata, charPtr, count * 2); // count is the number of chars
SafeArrayUnaccessData(psa);
hr = p->helloWorld(psa);
}
SafeArrayDestroy(psa);
return hr;
}
.NET's char type is unicode, so the binary size is two bytes, the C equivalent is wchar_t (or unsigned short, etc...). So the safearray element type must match that, that's why I used VT_UI2 (VT_R8 that you used is Real of size 8 bytes, so it's equivalent to .NET's double type).
If you really want to use C's char, then you must do some kind of conversion to a 2-byte character.
Also, you can use the SafeArrayCreateVector function which directly allocates a 1-dimension safe array. Don't forget to call cleanup methods.
I have a question concerning working with classes in c++. I must say I'm a beginner. For example, i have this class:
class student {
private:
char* name;
public:
int nrcrt;
student() {
name = new char[7];
name = "Anonim";
nrcrt = 0;
}
student(char* n, int n) {
this->name = new char[7];
strcpy(name, n);
nrcrt = nr;
}
~student() {
delete [] name;
}
char* get_name() {
return this->name;
}
}
void main() {
student group[3];
group[0] = student("Ana", 1);
group[1] = student("Alex", 2);
group[2] = student("Liam", 5);
for (i=0; i<3; i++) {
if (group.nrcrt[i] != 0)
cout << group[i].get_name() << Endl;
}
}
My question is why is it displaying different characters?
first of all your code is not working.
3.cpp:40:18: error: request for member ‘nrcrt’ in ‘group’, which is of non-class type ‘student [3]’
if(group.nrcrt[i]!=0)
i is also not declared.please make proper changes.
group.nrcrt[i]
should be changed to:
group[i].nrcrt
When the array is created, your default constructor is used.
When you assign to the elements, your destructor is called, deleting name.
The default constructor is assigning a literal to name, and deleting that memory has undefined behaviour.
In your default constructor, replace
name = "Anonim";
with
strcpy(name, "Anonim");
Your compiler should have warned you about the assignment.
If it didn't, increase the warning level of your compiler.
If it did, start listening to your compiler's warnings.
do not worry. C++ could look a bit scary as first but it is ok when you get into it. First, let's say that all classes it is good to start with upper case letters. Secondly, you have two constructors (default without parameters and one or more with, in our case one). Default consructor you need to declare an array of objects:
Student group[3];
The next important thing is that you then do not need the rest of the constructors in that case.
group[0]=student("Ana",1);
group[1]=student("Alex",2);
group[2]=student("Liam",5);
Remember to include ; at the end of class declaration. To put all the statements and expression throughout your interation within the same loop. Here is what I found as an errors anf fix them. Could probably have more.
class Student
{
private:
char* name;
public:
int nrcrt;
Student()
{
name=new char[7];
strcpy(name, "Anonim");
nrcrt=0;
}
Student( char* n, int n)
{
this->name=new char[7];
strcpy(name, n);
nrcrt=nr;
}
~Student()
{
delete [] name;
}
char* get_name()
{
return this->name;
}
};
int main()
{
Student group[3];
for(int i=0;i<3;i++)
{
if(group.nrcrt[i]!=0)
cout<<group[i].get_name()<<endl;
}
return 0;
}
In this code snippet, the Init() function acts as a on-demand initializer that fills in all member variables of the structure. This is done to avoid calling default constructors all members of a large array on the stack:
struct Foo {
int m_Member;
void Init(int i);
};
void Foo::Init(int i) {
m_Member = i;
// Many other members initialized here.
}
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
assert(n <= 64);
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
buffer[i].Init(i * 3);
}
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
This triggers a static analysis error in VS2012 with /analyze:
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer'.: Lines: 17, 19, 20
I'm looking for a way to annotate Foo::Init() so that this warning doesn't occur. There are plenty of other ways to make the warning go away, including:
Adding an empty constructor
Moving Init() to the constructor and calling placement new in the loop
But I'd like to avoid changing the structure of the code.
I've tried the following annotation without success:
void _At_(this, _Out_) Init();
This syntax is accepted, but only changes the warning to be:
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer'.: Lines: 18, 20, 21
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer[BYTE:0]'.: Lines: 18, 20, 21
Does anyone know how I can declare the intent of this Init() function to the static analysis engine?
Your question is somewhat elusive. You have shown SomeFunction taking int, but want annotation for method Init or constructor.
The warning shown is absolutely correct, assert won't hide the warning. You need to put if to check if n is greateer than 64 and reset n (or do something else, but not to loop when n>=64).
For annotation you need to use __in_bcount or similar alternative. An example:
bool SetBuffer(__in_bcount(8) const char* sBuffer);
Whichs says sBuffer is of 8 bytes (not elements).
You can read this this article for more information.
Too ugly to add an extra helper?
struct Foo {
int m_Member;
void Init(int i);
};
void Foo::Init(int i) {
m_Member = i;
// Many other members initialized here.
}
void Initialize(__in_bcount(sizeof(Foo) * n) Foo* buffer, int n) {
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
buffer[i].Init(i * 3);
}
}
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
assert(n <= 64);
Initialize(buffer, n);
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
I found a work around by implementing a function to index the array. I flagged the return value as invalid so that this new function only escapes the uninitialized value check in the specific case where the return value is only used to initialize. I've only tested this in VS2017.
#define _Ret_invalid_ _SAL2_Source_(_Ret_invalid_, (), _Ret1_impl_(__notvalid_impl))
template <typename T>
_Ret_invalid_ T& UninitialzedIndex(T* pt, int index)
{
return pt[index];
}
Then, where the value is indexed, I call UninitialzedIndex instead of operator[]
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
if (n <= 64)
return;
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
UninitialzedIndex(buffer, i).Init(i * 3);
}
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
Just add a default constructor (that calls Init()). What is wrong with that?
[Edit] The root problem is not how to lie to the static analyzer or your compiler. It is how to enforce that you don't leave foo in an uninitialized state. There is nothing wrong with adding a default constructor. I'd say the desire to NOT do it imposes risk.
Perhaps some client will use that poorly constructed foo class (Long after you wrote it and long after you are gone) and perhaps they will forget to call .Init() ?? What then? They will be left with data that is uninitialized.
If you are looking to enforce that rule, no amount of static analysis will help you there.
Take care of the foundation before you put on the roof.
//Block.h
#pragma once
class Block
{
public:
CRect pos;
int num;
public:
Block(void);
~Block(void);
};
//view class
public:
Block currentState[5]; // stores the current state of the blocks
void CpuzzleView::OnDraw(CDC* pDC)
{
CpuzzleDoc* pDoc = GetDocument();
ASSERT_VALID(pDoc);
if (!pDoc)
return;
//draw the 4 blocks and put text into them
for(int i=0;i<4;i++)
{
pDC->Rectangle(currentState[i].pos);
// i'm getting an error for this line:
pDC->TextOut(currentState[i].pos.CenterPoint(), currentState[i].num);
}
pDC->TextOut(currentState[i].pos.CenterPoint(), currentState[i].num);
The error says that no instance of overloaded function CDC::TextOutW() matches the argument list . But the prototype for the function is:
CDC::TextOutW(int x, int y, const CString &str )
all i've done is that instead of the 2 points i've directly given the point object returned by CenterPoint() ... shouldn't it work?
That's because you didn't supplied arguments list correctly. Please read compiler error message carefully, it's usually helps to solve the problem.
TextOut(currentState[i].pos.CenterPoint(), currentState[i].num);
In this call you passed CPoint object and int. This is not correct, you need to pass int, int and CString (or const char* and int length).
To fix this you shall do something like this:
CString strState;
strState.Format("%d", currentState[i].num); // Or use atoi()/wtoi() functions
TextOut(currentState[i].pos.CenterPoint().x, currentState[i].pos.CenterPoint().x, strState);
I am upgrading a C++ project from MSVC 2008 to 2010, and because of the new CComBSTR move constructor [CComBSTR( CComBSTR&& )], I am getting a compiler error because of an ambiguous call.
Essentially, we have a String class, very similar to std::wstring that have a cast operator to CComBSTR. This is similator to the following code:
class CString {
public:
// ...
operator CComBSTR() {
CComBSTR temp;
/* Encoding conversion here */
return temp;
}
}
class CObjectConfig {
public:
CString GetName() const { return m_name; }
private:
CString m_name;
}
Now, at some places in the code, we do the following:
CObjectConfig config = GetObjectConfig();
CComBSTR objectName( config.GetName() );
In VS2008, this would work because the CString object would be implicitly converted to a CComBSTR rvalue and the copy constructor of CComBSTR (taking a const CComBSTR&) would be called to construct objectName.
In VS2010 with C++0x however, the compiler gives an ambiguous call error because CComBSTR rvalue seems to fit both the copy constructor and the move constructor.
While a bit clumsy, my solution to this problem is to static_cast the call to GetName:
CComBSTR objectName( static_cast<const CComBSTR&>( config.GetName() ) );
// or
CComBSTR objectName( static_cast<CComBSTR&&>( config.GetName() ) );
Both lines compile without error, but I need your advice on whether this is illegal, bad practice or undefined. Thank you.
This looks like a VC2010 bug to me. Either that, or I've incorrectly emulated your situation on my computer (I don't have VC2010). Here's what I'm doing:
#include <iostream>
class CComBSTR
{
public:
CComBSTR() {std::cout << "CComBSTR()\n";}
CComBSTR(const CComBSTR&) {std::cout << "CComBSTR(const CComBSTR&)\n";}
CComBSTR(CComBSTR&&) {std::cout << "CComBSTR(CComBSTR&&)\n";}
};
class CString {
public:
// ...
operator CComBSTR() {
CComBSTR temp;
/* Encoding conversion here */
return temp;
}
};
class CObjectConfig {
public:
CString GetName() const { return m_name; }
private:
CString m_name;
};
CObjectConfig GetObjectConfig()
{
return CObjectConfig();
}
int main()
{
CObjectConfig config = GetObjectConfig();
CComBSTR objectName( config.GetName() );
}
For me on g++-4.4 and clang (with -std=c++0x), this compiles fine. And it either calls or elides a call to CComBSTR(CComBSTR&&). My recommendation for working around this suspected bug is simply:
CComBSTR objectName( CComBSTR(config.GetName()) );
This is equivalent to your:
CComBSTR objectName( static_cast<CComBSTR&&>( config.GetName() ) );
but not as scary looking (and just as efficient). If you want to stay with the static_cast, then go with cast to CComBSTR&& as this will probably be more efficient than construction from a const lvalue.