Thanks for the help, but I've figured it out, and the answer simply foolish :wtf:. I wasn't closing the connection correctly, hence the lack of buffer flushing As for the repeat message, it wasn't repeating. The message was being stored in a buffer with a static pointer, and because I neglected to check the data size returned from recv I was assuming the data pointed to was the latest message, but recv was in fact returning 0. When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming in terror like his passengers!!!

I have but seeing as it's a 2 y/o article noone has replied. Or maybe it's because I smell too badly and they don't want to reply for fear of catching something? When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming in terror like his passengers!!!

Thanks for the suggestions. I managed to fix(hack) it. I was already using safe arrays as the task I'm performing must communicate with older COM and OLE objects. The problem seemed to be an error in one of the OLE cpp files in the MSVS directory. It seemed to call a standard strlen function regardless of the input type so I've changed the code to check for unicode and call wcslen if needed. When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming in terror like his passengers!!!

OK I've worked it out. It seems you cannot set the data via the constructor or it will cause a leak, don't ask me why, it just does. Otherwise it works fine. The fix is to replace the faulty line with these two COleSafeArray cellArray; cellArray.Attach(usedCells.get_Value()); I have also noticed with this fussing today that if a value is assigned to any form of variant based objects in C++ it will leak unless you call Clear() after every assignment. One of the many reasons why I despise variants. When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming in terror like his passengers!!!

Thanks heaps. When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming in terror like his passengers!!!

You have to run msvcmon.exe on the remote machine before trying to connect to it from the debugger. Check msvcmon.exe in the MSDN (To use the tcpip without a password and without timeout, issue the command: msvcmon.exe -tcpip -anyuser -timeout -1) Papa while (TRUE) Papa.WillLove ( Bebe ) ;

Thanks for the link. When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming in terror like his passengers!!!

and you can replace HBITMAP hBmp = (HBITMAP)LoadImage(NULL,"c:\\a.bmp", IMAGE_BITMAP,0,0,LR_LOADFROMFILE|LR_CREATEDIBSECTION); bit.Attach(hBmp); instead bit.LoadBitmap(IDB_BITMAP1);

Try to update Office via windows update.

I am making an assumption that you did not define the function in the original class and that the second version worked. If you had defined the function (or method) in the first class you would not have had an error. Your could have simply declared it as this virtual void FOO (BAR& foo) {}; and there would not have been an error, you would have just had a function that did not do anything. The second version declares a pure virtual function, which needs to be implemented by a derived class. That is you inherited the interface from the defined base class (ABC) and must provide a function for the inherited interface. What that means is in the base class you have said this function must exit in the derived class, because it does not actually exist in the base class. Let’s try this, If you declare a function in a class the compiler will complain if that function does not exist. Therefore you must define the function so any one using that class will have that function to call. If you make the function as a pure virtual function, then the class is designed as a base interface class that is not intended to be used by its self, but is intended to be used as a base for derived classes. I know I sound like some text book, but I have been doing this a long time. Look up the words “pure virtual” and “virtual base class” along with “C++” on the Web; you should come up with a few decryptions. Amongst those may be instrument and car, all cars have things in common like press the accelerator, press the brake, and ect… . The base class specifies all things that classes derived from it have in common and forces all derived classes to implement those behaviors. Think of the “= 0” as a requirement that you impose on all users of the class that you have defined. I hope that helps, John R. Shaw INTP Every thing is relative...

Nobody? I assume I just need to change the clipping rects of the front and rear planes which would alter the frustum accordingly. When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my father, not screaming in terror like his passengers!!!

I guess noone knows or you don't what I'm talking about, which would give me the same answer anyway :cool:

You can get your 'unmangled' names declared this way: extern "C" { #include "gr_node_bin.h" } In other words, when you include header in CPP file for that of library written in C, you need to let compiler know now to make your OBJ look for UN-mangled names, since they will be UN-mangled in the other C-style library. No shirt, no shoes, no brains, no service.

The reason why they were allocating this way was the object is a union of static and dynamically sized data. Although not the best code this wasn't causing the issue. After following further I found a function that was being called was shifting the object but not updating the new pointer correctly.