|
But If I run the application using clicking the exe, it is running and same exceptino is coming after quit the application.
But If I run application as Admin, It works fine.
What is the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Then your code must do something that requires Admin rights (in the Cleanup) and you aren't handling the error properley.
There is a vast number of things that this could be, but there is a fair chance that it is with a file. The Program Files and Windows directory are protected if UAC is enabled (Win Vista/7).
For example, if you open a file in a protected location and try to read it without checking that it is open you may be using invalid data.
|
|
|
|
|
May be you will have to install the VC++ 2008 redistributable as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Although some people define "crash" rather generally, if it was missing the runtimes it would generally show a message saying something like "the application failed to initialize. The application configuration is incorrect"
|
|
|
|
|
That's mean it doesn't work on another machine?
If the answer is yes then you probably have to deploy VC runtime and/or MFC DLL (see, for instance, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8kche8ah(VS.90).aspx[^]).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to what others suggested, please make sure all the dependent files ( lib and dll) are located by your installer app.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
How can i get this below string.
For example:
I want to pass string as phone+="984512345".
I am trying with below code.
CString str = "phone+=";
str += "984512345";
Output:str = phone+=984512345.
I am not getting that "984512345".
How can i add " to that string
Thanks
Raj
|
|
|
|
|
If I well understood, you want the " into the final string.
Try
CString str = "phone+=";
str += "\"984512345\"";
2 bugs found.
> recompile ...
65534 bugs found.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All.
A very simple question, but so far not able to find any concrete solution.
I just want to round a decimal value to a provided decimal place.
I have found few functions to do the same, but they also fail for some double values...like...
double Round1(double dbVal, int nPlaces)
{
const double dbShift = pow(10.0, nPlaces);
return floor(dbVal * dbShift + 0.5) / dbShift;
}
double Round2(double value,int pos)
{
double returnValue;
double tens = exp(pos*log(10.0));
if((value - floor(value*tens)/tens)*tens >= 0.5)
returnValue = ceil(value*tens)/tens
else
returnValue = floor(value*tens)/tens;
return returnValue;
}
Both of above function fails in case the double value is
10430.889999999999
464.45999999999998
3294.5100000000002
Please suggest.
Thanks
PanB
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't looks at Round2, but cannot imagine a case where you would need to use exp and log to round.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a possibility for you to convert this to CString (if using MFC) or char* (using sprintf_s)?
If affirmative, use the format specifiers and call API CString::Format or sprintf_s and then convert back to double value when returning from your function.
I am a HUMAN. I have that keyword in my name........
_AnsHUMAN_
|
|
|
|
|
Converting double to CString can be done, but to round off the same will take lots of permutations and combinations because we dont know upto what decimal place we need rounding.
If I am wrong then please let me know, and in case you have some pointers then do let me know that as well.
Thanks
PanB
|
|
|
|
|
That's still won't solve the problem, you would still be limited by floating point precision.
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look here[^] to see how a double variable is stored in memory.
You miss a ';' in your Round2 function, but otherwise the rounding functions are fine. 64 bits just isn't accurate enough to store the numbers you need.
modified 13-Sep-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You won't be able to do something like that due to the nature of floating points. I suggest you google for floating point precision for more information about the subject (e.g. on wikipedia[^]).
The good news is that you most probably don't have to care about it. Why do you need to be precise like that ? Most of the time a such a precision error is perfectly acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot alter the precision of floating point numbers this way. Your rounding should occur when you wish to display the number as a string. A Google search for "floating point value" will find lots of papers that explain why this is so.
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
I used convolution operation to measure performance of the 2 configurations on 64 bit OS.
Inner Product Experiment: CPU, FPU vs. SSE*[^]
x64 x86
chars processing time: 10 ms 20 ms
shorts processing time: 12 ms 23 ms
shorts sse2 processing time: 6 ms 6 ms
ints processing time: 14 ms 20 ms
floats processing time: 18 ms 50 ms
sse2 set processing time: 14 ms 15 ms
sse2 intrin processing time: 12 ms 12 ms
sse3 assembly processing time: N/A 13 ms
doubles processing time: 26 ms 25 ms
doubles sse2 processing time: 25 ms 24 ms
As can be seen there is no difference in SSE optimization but chars, shorts, ints and floats runs faster.
Especially floats runs as fast or SSE optimization.
But doubles do not show any difference.
Why there is no difference in SSE and double operations?
Чесноков
|
|
|
|
|
It mostly depend on how the algorithm is implemented.
Multicore processor take advantage of their own optimization if the data used into instructions can stay in the processor caches.
If the algorithm jumps around fetching data in a dispersed way, the speed will be not the one of the processor, but the one of the RAM. Whatever optimization the processor may have used.
2 bugs found.
> recompile ...
65534 bugs found.
|
|
|
|
|
exactly the same algorithm on exactly the same machine, the difference is in conpilation only.
does it mean when loading 32 bit process windows scatters its memory randomly to produce false impression and induce user to buy 64 bit versions of the products?
Чесноков
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarilly: data structures are packed differently and have different interleaving.
The 32bit "emulation" introduce an indirection level to mask the different interleaving in memory.
Because of this indirection some memory may be located differently, or some bit-shift are needed to compensate.
2 bugs found.
> recompile ...
65534 bugs found.
|
|
|
|
|
if that is the case x64 code should be used on 64 bit systems.
microsoft did not spent much efforts to support the same performance in 'emulation' and induce explicit x64 products development
Чесноков
|
|
|
|
|
If the code was compiled from the MSVC++ compiler then the SSE tests wont be very accurate.
When optimising code for SSE, the VC++ compiler does alot of stupid unneeded things that affects performance. This is only the case if the source language was C/C++. If it was done through assemblies it is ok.
I'm not aware of this issue on the GNU compilers gcc/gpp/g++
If the code was compiled from C++ with the Intel ICL compiler then it is very platform dependant and will have sub-optimal performance on most AMD CPUs due to multiple code paths with different optimisations.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Brock wrote: When optimising code for SSE, the VC++ compiler does alot of stupid unneeded things that affects performance. This is only the case if the source language was C/C++. If it was done through assemblies it is ok.
The compiler is VC and 7.1 SDK.
I did not set flag compile with SSE. The SSE instructions are explicit.
There is no difference between assembly implementation and SSE intrinsics.
Andrew Brock wrote: If the code was compiled from C++ with the Intel ICL compiler then it is very platform dependant and will have sub-optimal performance on most AMD CPUs due to
intentional code design to prevent AMD processors execute code faster than Intel based, but that is a bit out of current topic.
Чесноков
|
|
|
|
|
Did you have a look at the generated assembly code?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
no, do you think x64 configuration replaces all CPU with SSE operations?
Enable Enhanced Instructions is not set in both cases.
Чесноков
|
|
|
|