thanks david. My Blog. My codeproject Articles.

In addition to previous replies, since the integers are automatic, i.e. allocated on the stack, which already has storage reserved, the memory footprint will not be affected if you add or remove such local variables, as it does not affect system resources. However, the stack will fill up quicker if you (or the compiler) add them.

My apologies, my initial observations were incorrect. All I can suggest is to try using other views to the one you are using at the moment, use LVM_SETVIEW to change the view.

ccpptrain wrote: ->Whether this method of using uninitialized pointer is acceptable in any condition? It is acceptable as long as you are careful, as you promised absolutely no data members. With this condition, you initialize or don't initialize or simply call using 0 (zero) pointer, it is acceptable. ccpptrain wrote: ->Will this work on different platforms? It is same for all platforms. ccpptrain wrote: ->Any pitfalls? One more promise: don't delete the pObj. ccpptrain wrote: ->Your Valuable suggestions. Don't do like this. You never know when you are going to add member variables and access them.

Following link discusses some commonly used techniques:http://www.catch22.net/tuts/flicker[^]

I have written software with your requirements, except that it could run on multiple networked machines. The approach I took was Named Pipes. I wrote a Generic Server, and a Generic Client, and, in effect, an RPC Procedure. In effect a 'SendMessage' procedure on the Client side, which gathered and wrapped all the Calling Info, created a Header, indicating where in the package each item resides, and, send it over the pipe. On the Server Side, you wait for the message, unwrap it, and present it to the function. For this to work, I created a MessageMap type of structure. For it to work better, Server and Client had only the Basic Bones in the Message Map for initial communication. At startup of the Client, it sends it's message map to the server, which the server registers. When you have this Generic Server/Client system written, you make each app both a server and a client. Be sure though to make plenty of use of Synchronisation Objects. N.B. The efford is always substantial, whatever route you take. I took this way because: 1. I considered RPC an overkill, and yet something else I had to learn and which Bill Gates could change on a whim. 2. Fully Debuggable, Very Few System calls you cannot debug into Regards :) Regards, Bram van Kampen

Hello, :) Your programming problem is interesting. As someone already pointed out, what you actually need is 9 bit precision to store values ranging from 0 to 299. A simple approach is packing these 9th bits into another byte, this would require an additional 1000 by 125 array (125 since we will pack these bits in a single byte, 1000 / 8 = 125) Here is a simple class I wrote that does precisely that. Since your primary concern is reducing memory consumption, instead of using jagged arrays as you suggest ([][]), I'm proposing multidimensional arrays [,]. Multidimensional arrays consume less memory than jagged arrays. using System; using System.Diagnostics; namespace stuff { public class MappedArray { private byte[,] _aByte = new byte[1000, 1000]; // we will store the 8 least significant bits here private byte[,] _msBit = new byte[1000, 125]; // we will store the 9th significant bits here, packed inside a byte (1000 / 8 = 125) private int [] _U = new int[300]; // we will store the unique values ranging from 0 to 999999 here private int _uniqueCounter = 0; // variable used to control the unique values that can be contained inside the array public MappedArray() { } protected int GetMappedIdx(int aValue) { for( int i = 0; i < _uniqueCounter; i++ ) if( _U[i] == aValue ) return i; if( _uniqueCounter >= 300 ) throw new Exception("more than 300 unique elements"); int idx = _uniqueCounter++; _U[idx] = aValue; return idx; } public void Set(int x, int y, int aValue) { Debug.Assert(x < 1000 && y < 1000); int mappedID = GetMappedIdx(aValue); // store the least 8 significant bits of the mappedID _aByte[x,y] = (byte)(mappedID & 0xff); // Now we will store the most significant bit (bit 9) in a packed array // first obtain the secondary idx of the byte that will store the bit int packedIdx = y / 8; byte msBits = _msBit[x, packedIdx]; // now obtain the bit position of the msb inside this byte int bitpos = y % 8; if( mappedID >= 256 ) { // the most significant bit shoud be 1 msBits|= (byte)( 1 << bitpos); } else { // the most significant bit should be 0 msBits&= (byte)~( 1 << bitpos); } // store the updat

If you have a dial-up, the attempt to query an IP will cause the ISP authentication junk (dialog boxes) to kick in. We tried this back in 2002 and soon realized it caused too many issues on laptops that needed to connect at locations with modems but weren't connected at the time the software was being run. You need to check the routing table, then maybe attempt a ping after you know there is some network connection. There are a couple of different approaches to check for network connectivity before attempting to go out and touch another computer.

Thanks Nibu it is working.

Won't the use of SetSysColor() set the color of the title bars across the OS? If affirmative, this doesn't seem to be a good idea. Somethings seem HARD to do, until we know how to do them. ;-)_AnShUmAn_

ccpptrain wrote: Please answer the followings :- Do I get a toffee? found at bash.org [kernx]|.|.|.|.|.|.|.| [kernx]sorry, wrong window [beox33]say me why in the f*ck will you type that in any window

Yes it solved my problem... Actually, vista is installed on D drive which is root directory on my PC. Previously, I use to log on as a user who was not having write/ create file permission on root directory. That is the reason why tmpfile() was returning NULL. The temporary file is created when I log on as an Administrator or a user who has that permission. I gave Permission "Full Control" to User. I solved that my "right clicking on D drive", then "propertise", then going to "Security Tab", then "Advanced", and then "selecting the User" and then "Edit" and giving the appropriate permission. Thanks & Regards, Sameer.

when INTERNET_SERVICE_FTP is used in InternetConnect that time INTERNET_INVALID_PORT_NUMBER is taken as 21. Is there any other issue that needs to be looked into?