Alternative to "system()" in C++

[darktemplarcs]

Hey, does anyone know an alternative function in C++ that can execute window programs other then using "system()"?

Thanks

[Banfa]

CreateProcess

[JosAH]

The "exec*" family of functions can be an alternative too.

kind regards,

Jos

[Savage]

The "exec*" family of functions can be an alternative too.

kind regards,

Jos

or spawn*

:)

Savage

[darktemplarcs]

CreateProcess

Thanks, I a actually looking for console base functions. A function I can include in my C++ program, and when execute, my C++ program would open up a program from the current window, such as notepad, ie, etc.

[darktemplarcs]

The "exec*" family of functions can be an alternative too.

kind regards,

Jos

I can seem to find any reference on it.

[cpg]

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <process.h>
#include <windows.h>
 
#define Error(err) printf("error on %s: %d\n",#err,GetLastError());
 
int main(void)
{
    char *ARG[]={"command",0};
 
    //execl("c:\\windows\\notepad","notepad","\"c:\\test.txt\"",0);
    //execv("c:\\windows\\command.com",ARG);
    spawnl(0,"c:\\windows\\command.com","command",0);
    spawnv(0,"c:\\windows\\command.com",ARG);
    printf("etc....\n");
 
    return 0;
}
 

[Banfa]

Thanks, I a actually looking for console base functions. A function I can include in my C++ program, and when execute, my C++ program would open up a program from the current window, such as notepad, ie, etc.

That's fine you can call Createprocess from a console based function.

[Banfa]

or spawn*

Unfortunately that doesn't exist on Windows.


For that matter I don't think "exec*" does either.

[Savage]

Unfortunately that doesn't exist on Windows.


For that matter I don't think "exec*" does either.

That's no prob.It can execute windows applications.

I tested it!

Savage

[Banfa]

That's no prob.It can execute windows applications.

Your meaning is not clear to me.

Do you mean

1. That other platforms (Linux I assume) can run native Windows apps and in that environment you can use exec* and spawn* to start applications?

2. Some development platform for Windows (not DevStudio) has library support for exec* and spawn* which can start Windows apps?

3. Something else?

[Savage]

Your meaning is not clear to me.

Do you mean

1. That other platforms (Linux I assume) can run native Windows apps and in that environment you can use exec* and spawn* to start applications?

2. Some development platform for Windows (not DevStudio) has library support for exec* and spawn* which can start Windows apps?

3. Something else?

I was saying that by using exec* or spawn* OP can run all possible apps under Windows.Under Linux i'm not sure that OP can run windows app becasue they don't exist on it(or even if they do,they don't have same location or same name).But it can surely run some Unix based apps.


Now it's all up to the OP to select!

Especialy with usage of spawn* user, or in this case our OP, can specify
mode for executing that app which puts spawn* more modular then exec*, I assume

Savage

[Banfa]

I was saying that by using exec* or spawn* OP can run all possible apps under Windows.

But exec* and spawn* are not standard library functions and are not part of the WIN32 API (i.e. Windows) so which library/platform are you using / talking about?

OK that is what I was going to reply before I remembered that Windows is POSIX compliant.

However having looked up a little information n Windows POSIX implementation it appears that a POSIX compliant app requires 2 extra processes running to provide it with the POSIX interface required when running on Windows.

This suggests to me that it may not necessarily be the best way to write an app destined solely for Windows. I think I would only be inclined to use it for an app that actually required POSIX compatibility, rather than using it in general. However I can see that for someone already familiar with POSIX and unfamiliar with WIN32 that it may well be easier to just use what they already know.

[Savage]

OK that is what I was going to reply before I remembered that Windows is POSIX compliant.

However having looked up a little information n Windows POSIX implementation it appears that a POSIX compliant app requires 2 extra processes running to provide it with the POSIX interface required when running on Windows.

This suggests to me that it may not necessarily be the best way to write an app destined solely for Windows. I think I would only be inclined to use it for an app that actually required POSIX compatibility, rather than using it in general. However I can see that for someone already familiar with POSIX and unfamiliar with WIN32 that it may well be easier to just use what they already know.

OK,I agree with u!

Savage