To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles, the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
18  2542 
On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles, the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
Don't use TerminateThread . Use event or something else to notify the
thread to exit by itself instead.
On Dec 26, 12:00*pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles, the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
Don't use TerminateThread . Use event or something else to notify the
thread to exit by itself instead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My thread is not event oriented. It runs from start to end unless some
exception is thrown. Could I tell the thread to throw an exception, by
sending a message to it, at an arbitrary point? I would rather avoid
introducing checkpoints where the thread decides whether to continue
or exit.
Thanks again.
On Dec 26, 7:20 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 12:00 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles, the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
Don't use TerminateThread . Use event or something else to notify the
thread to exit by itself instead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My thread is not event oriented. It runs from start to end unless some
exception is thrown. Could I tell the thread to throw an exception, by
sending a message to it, at an arbitrary point? I would rather avoid
introducing checkpoints where the thread decides whether to continue
or exit.
Thanks again.
Sorry to misguide you. What I mean about the event is not the event
supported by OS, but just a notification.
Maybe you can do it like this:
volatile bool flag = false; // this is a global variable for notifying
DWORD WINAPI TheThreadProc(L PVOID) // this is the thread proc
{
// ...
while ( ! flag)
{
// ...
if (flag) break;
// ...
}
return 0;
}
void Foo()
{
HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(.. .);
// ...
flag = true; // Set the variable to let the thread exit by itself
WaitForSingleOb ject(hThread);
// ...
}
Since TerminateThread can not guarantee variables in thread be
destroied correctly, let the thread exit by itself is the right way.
On Dec 26, 2:04*pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 7:20 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 12:00 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles, the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
Don't use TerminateThread . Use event or something else to notify the
thread to exit by itself instead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My thread is not event oriented. It runs from start to end unless some
exception is thrown. Could I tell the thread to throw an exception, by
sending a message to it, at an arbitrary point? I would rather avoid
introducing checkpoints where the thread decides whether to continue
or exit.
Thanks again.
Sorry to misguide you. What I mean about the event is not the event
supported by OS, but just a notification.
Maybe you can do it like this:
volatile bool flag = false; // this is a global variable for notifying
DWORD WINAPI TheThreadProc(L PVOID) // this is the thread proc
{
* *// ...
* *while ( ! flag)
* *{
* * * // ...
* * * if (flag) break;
* * * // ...
* *}
* *return 0;
}
void Foo()
{
* *HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(.. .);
* *// ...
* *flag = true; // Set the variable to let the thread exit by itself
* *WaitForSingleO bject(hThread);
* *// ...
}
Since TerminateThread can not guarantee variables in thread be
destroied correctly, let the thread exit by itself is the right way.- Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks.
However, redesigning this application to check for an exit flag at
every second (or whatever we might choose) would be very costly. So I
was hoping there could be a simpler way, such as sending an exception
to the thread that is to exit. In that way we would be using the
existing exception handling system. The thread would exit upon
catching the exception.
Again, thanks.
On Dec 26, 3:01*pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 2:04*pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 7:20 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 12:00 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles,the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
Don't use TerminateThread . Use event or something else to notify the
thread to exit by itself instead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My thread is not event oriented. It runs from start to end unless some
exception is thrown. Could I tell the thread to throw an exception, by
sending a message to it, at an arbitrary point? I would rather avoid
introducing checkpoints where the thread decides whether to continue
or exit.
Thanks again.
Sorry to misguide you. What I mean about the event is not the event
supported by OS, but just a notification.
Maybe you can do it like this:
volatile bool flag = false; // this is a global variable for notifying
DWORD WINAPI TheThreadProc(L PVOID) // this is the thread proc
{
* *// ...
* *while ( ! flag)
* *{
* * * // ...
* * * if (flag) break;
* * * // ...
* *}
* *return 0;
}
void Foo()
{
* *HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(.. .);
* *// ...
* *flag = true; // Set the variable to let the thread exit by itself
* *WaitForSingleO bject(hThread);
* *// ...
}
Since TerminateThread can not guarantee variables in thread be
destroied correctly, let the thread exit by itself is the right way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks.
However, redesigning this application to check for an exit flag at
every second (or whatever we might choose) would be very costly. So I
was hoping there could be a simpler way, such as sending an exception
to the thread that is to exit. In that way we would be using the
existing exception handling system. The thread would exit upon
catching the exception.
Again, thanks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've tried a solution with SuspendThread as well. There seems to be
some of the same problems with that. I've also thought about putting
the thread to sleep for such a long time that it won't wake up before
the entire process has exited. However, I haven't found a way of
putting a thread to sleep from outside.
On Dec 26, 10:01 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 2:04 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 7:20 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 12:00 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles, the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
Don't use TerminateThread . Use event or something else to notify the
thread to exit by itself instead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My thread is not event oriented. It runs from start to end unless some
exception is thrown. Could I tell the thread to throw an exception, by
sending a message to it, at an arbitrary point? I would rather avoid
introducing checkpoints where the thread decides whether to continue
or exit.
Thanks again.
Sorry to misguide you. What I mean about the event is not the event
supported by OS, but just a notification.
Maybe you can do it like this:
volatile bool flag = false; // this is a global variable for notifying
DWORD WINAPI TheThreadProc(L PVOID) // this is the thread proc
{
// ...
while ( ! flag)
{
// ...
if (flag) break;
// ...
}
return 0;
}
void Foo()
{
HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(.. .);
// ...
flag = true; // Set the variable to let the thread exit by itself
WaitForSingleOb ject(hThread);
// ...
}
Since TerminateThread can not guarantee variables in thread be
destroied correctly, let the thread exit by itself is the right way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks.
However, redesigning this application to check for an exit flag at
every second (or whatever we might choose) would be very costly. So I
was hoping there could be a simpler way, such as sending an exception
to the thread that is to exit. In that way we would be using the
existing exception handling system. The thread would exit upon
catching the exception.
Again, thanks.
Since exception is within a thread, I'm afraid you can not do like
that.
On Dec 26, 10:10 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 2:04 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 7:20 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 12:00 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles, the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
Don't use TerminateThread . Use event or something else to notify the
thread to exit by itself instead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My thread is not event oriented. It runs from start to end unless some
exception is thrown. Could I tell the thread to throw an exception, by
sending a message to it, at an arbitrary point? I would rather avoid
introducing checkpoints where the thread decides whether to continue
or exit.
Thanks again.
Sorry to misguide you. What I mean about the event is not the event
supported by OS, but just a notification.
Maybe you can do it like this:
volatile bool flag = false; // this is a global variable for notifying
DWORD WINAPI TheThreadProc(L PVOID) // this is the thread proc
{
// ...
while ( ! flag)
{
// ...
if (flag) break;
// ...
}
return 0;
}
void Foo()
{
HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(.. .);
// ...
flag = true; // Set the variable to let the thread exit by itself
WaitForSingleOb ject(hThread);
// ...
}
Since TerminateThread can not guarantee variables in thread be
destroied correctly, let the thread exit by itself is the right way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks.
However, redesigning this application to check for an exit flag at
every second (or whatever we might choose) would be very costly. So I
was hoping there could be a simpler way, such as sending an exception
to the thread that is to exit. In that way we would be using the
existing exception handling system. The thread would exit upon
catching the exception.
Again, thanks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've tried a solution with SuspendThread as well. There seems to be
some of the same problems with that. I've also thought about putting
the thread to sleep for such a long time that it won't wake up before
the entire process has exited. However, I haven't found a way of
putting a thread to sleep from outside.
Use ResumeThread to wake up the suspened thread. Or use CreateEvent
and WaitForSingleOb ject instead of sleep for long time.
On Dec 26, 4:49*pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 10:10 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 3:01 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 2:04 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 7:20 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
On Dec 26, 12:00 pm, yanlinlin <yanlinli...@gm ail.comwrote:
On Dec 26, 5:42 pm, "J.K. Baltzersen" <jornb...@pvv.o rgwrote:
To whomever it may concern:
I am using MS Visual C++ 6.0.
I have a process A which instantiates an object C.
At a later point the process A creates the thread B.
The thread B has access to the object C.
Because the user cancels the "process" which the thread B handles, the
thread B is stopped by the use of TerminateThread .
A bit later on I try to access member variables in the object B, the
purpose of this being replacing some files with backup versions of
these same files. These member variables are of type std::string.
Let's call these m, n, and o. When I access m, there seems to be no
problem. However, when I access n, the debugger hangs, apparently
infinitely.
I tried replacing std::string with char*, but that only resulted in
the problem showing up when I accessed m.
I want to be able to run TerminateThread on the thread B without my
object C being corrupted.
I would greatly appreciate any tips that would lead to my being able
to do so.
Thank you very much in advance for any help.
Best regards,
J.K. Baltzersen
Don't use TerminateThread . Use event or something else to notifythe
thread to exit by itself instead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My thread is not event oriented. It runs from start to end unless some
exception is thrown. Could I tell the thread to throw an exception, by
sending a message to it, at an arbitrary point? I would rather avoid
introducing checkpoints where the thread decides whether to continue
or exit.
Thanks again.
Sorry to misguide you. What I mean about the event is not the event
supported by OS, but just a notification.
Maybe you can do it like this:
volatile bool flag = false; // this is a global variable for notifying
DWORD WINAPI TheThreadProc(L PVOID) // this is the thread proc
{
* *// ...
* *while ( ! flag)
* *{
* * * // ...
* * * if (flag) break;
* * * // ...
* *}
* *return 0;
}
void Foo()
{
* *HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(.. .);
* *// ...
* *flag = true; // Set the variable to let the thread exit by itself
* *WaitForSingleO bject(hThread);
* *// ...
}
Since TerminateThread can not guarantee variables in thread be
destroied correctly, let the thread exit by itself is the right way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks.
However, redesigning this application to check for an exit flag at
every second (or whatever we might choose) would be very costly. So I
was hoping there could be a simpler way, such as sending an exception
to the thread that is to exit. In that way we would be using the
existing exception handling system. The thread would exit upon
catching the exception.
Again, thanks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've tried a solution with SuspendThread as well. There seems to be
some of the same problems with that. I've also thought about putting
the thread to sleep for such a long time that it won't wake up before
the entire process has exited. However, I haven't found a way of
putting a thread to sleep from outside.
Use ResumeThread to wake up the suspened thread. Or use CreateEvent
and WaitForSingleOb ject instead of sleep for long time.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
When I try to access the member variables of object C while thread B
is under suspension, I get the same problem -- seemingly at least --
as I get when I have terminated the thread with TerminateThread .
yanlinlin <ya*********@gm ail.comwrote in news:f2315d85-ee13-425b-85e2- fb**********@b4 0g2000prf.googl egroups.com:
>However, redesigning this application to check for an exit flag at
every second (or whatever we might choose) would be very costly. So I
was hoping there could be a simpler way, such as sending an exception
to the thread that is to exit. In that way we would be using the
existing exception handling system. The thread would exit upon
catching the exception.
Again, thanks.
Since exception is within a thread, I'm afraid you can not do like
that.
You might be able to, but it's going to be platform-specific. Under the
hood, an exception on a 386 is typically implemented using the machine's
native exception machinery, and that same machinery is also used for OS-
specific asynchronous exceptions like task termination and keyboard
interrupt. One's compiler may have support for intercepting these kinds of
exceptions. For example, Windows compilers typically support "structured
exception handling" (SEH) which can "catch" these kinds of exceptions. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: djw |
last post by:
Hi, Folks-
I have a question regarding the "proper" use of try: finally:... Consider
some code like this:
d = Device.open()
try:
d.someMethodThatCanRaiseError(...)
if SomeCondition:
raise Error # Error is subclass of Exception
|
by: Jacek Pop³awski |
last post by:
Hello.
I am going to write python script which will read python command from
socket, run it and return some values back to socket.
My problem is, that I need some timeout. I need to say for example:
os.system("someapplication.exe")
and kill it, if it waits longer than let's say 100 seconds
|
by: Sgt. Sausage |
last post by:
New to multi-threading (less than 24 hours at it <grin>)
Anyway, it's all making sense, and working fairly well
thus far, but I'm having a minor issue I'm not sure how
to get around.
I've got a form that uses SqlDataAdapter. It fires off
a thread to fill a DataSet. Not a big deal, this works.
I've also got a requirement that the Thread that's going
off to do the work -- if it takes too long, it has to
|
by: nd02tsk |
last post by:
Hello!
I have a couple of final ( I hope, for your sake ) questions regarding
PostgreSQL.
I understand PostgreSQL uses processes rather than threads. I found this
statement in the archives:
"The developers agree that multiple processes provide
more benefits (mostly in stability and robustness) than costs (more
|
by: Rob |
last post by:
Hello,
I've got an issue where a process in a third party application has a dll
which while exiting sort of freezes and runs away with processor cycles.
i've written a block of code so that I can drill down into the process, and
get the offending Thread's ID (since the only ones that will have the issue
have higher User processor Time).
But, I can't figure out how to have my .Net app 'kill' or 'suspend' a Thread
| | |
by: Hans |
last post by:
Hi all,
Is there a way that the program that created and started a thread also stops
it.
(My usage is a time-out).
E.g.
thread = threading.Thread(target=Loop.testLoop)
thread.start() # This thread is expected to finish within a second
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?VGhlU2lsdmVySGFtbWVy?= |
last post by:
Because C# has no native SSH class, I am using SharpSSH. Sometimes, for
reasons I do not know, a Connect call will totally lock up the thread and
never return. I am sure it has something to do with weirdness going on with
the server I am talking to. Anyhow, this locked up state happens once in a
while (maybe once per day) and I can't figure out how to deal with the locked
up thread.
If I issue a Thread.Abort() the exception never...
|
by: Roger Heathcote |
last post by:
sjdevnull@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
Fair point, but for sub processes that need to be in close contact with
the original app, or very small functions that you'd like 100s or 1000s
of it seems like a kludge having to spawn whole new processes build in
socket communications and kill via explicit OS calls. I can't see that
approach scaling particularly well but I guess there's no choice.
Does anyone think it likely that the threading...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?QWxoYW1icmEgRWlkb3MgS2lxdWVuZXQ=?= |
last post by:
Hi misters,
Is it possible "kill" the thread of Backgroundworker ?
In my Dowork event, I have NOT While for do e.Cancel = true, only have a
call to external COM.
If I want cancel, calling CancelAsync, not cancels the call to COM.
How I can do it , please ? Any suggestions will be very appreciated.
|
by: dmitrey |
last post by:
hi all,
Is there a better way to kill threading.Thread (running) instance than
this one
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/496960
(it's all I have found via google).
BTW, it should be noticed that lots of threading module methods have
no docstrings (in my Python 2.5), for example _Thread__bootstrap,
_Thread__stop.
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
| | |
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
| | |
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
