VirtualAlloc,GlobalAlloc,HeapAlloc,..what to use in my case,...
in [Visual C]
|
Prev: Warnings about deprecated / insecure function usage
Next: App built by VS2008 causes "side-by-side configuration"-error in Vista
From: Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] on 10 Mar 2008 10:40 Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > See below... > On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 03:47:53 +0100, "Kerem G�mr�kc�" > <kareem114(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Joseph, >> >>> Why use VirtualAlloc at all? Doesn't make much sense to me to see >>> this low-level call in >>> use; it is used in rare situations (I've used it twice in over 15 >>> years of Win32 >>> programming). >> >> I think i posted the reason, because i need to keep track of several >> regions of the >> memory to get signaled on change/read/write/access... > **** > Yes, I saw that in a later part of a thread. But you should have > said this up front to make your use of VirtualAlloc make sense > **** I would go further and say that, based on the initial statement that the OP was considering HeapAlloc and LocalAlloc as well as VirtualAlloc, that there was a strong implied claim that the unique features of VirtualAlloc weren't needed.
From: Kerem G�mr�kc� on 10 Mar 2008 14:10 Hi Ben, >I would go further and say that, based on the initial statement that the OP >was considering HeapAlloc and LocalAlloc as well as VirtualAlloc, that >there was a strong implied claim that the unique features of VirtualAlloc >weren't needed. Why you say that? I just asked what the differences are, except the Information in the MSDN Library. How can you say that i dont need this feature, without knowing what my code is doing? >I would go further,... You go "too" far Ben,... >was considering HeapAlloc and LocalAlloc as well as VirtualAlloc Yes i did at first, but this feature made my decision stronger, otherwhise i had to poll the information from the memory by my own with a timer or some sort of Kernel Objects like Signals, etc,... But everything is just fine now,...thanks for the replies! Regards K. -- ----------------------- Beste Gr�sse / Best regards / Votre bien devoue Kerem G�mr�kc� Microsoft Live Space: http://kerem-g.spaces.live.com/ Latest Open-Source Projects: http://entwicklung.junetz.de ----------------------- "This reply is provided as is, without warranty express or implied." "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <rbv(a)nospam.nospam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:%23zbraxrgIHA.536(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: >> See below... >> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 03:47:53 +0100, "Kerem G�mr�kc�" >> <kareem114(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Joseph, >>> >>>> Why use VirtualAlloc at all? Doesn't make much sense to me to see >>>> this low-level call in >>>> use; it is used in rare situations (I've used it twice in over 15 >>>> years of Win32 >>>> programming). >>> >>> I think i posted the reason, because i need to keep track of several >>> regions of the >>> memory to get signaled on change/read/write/access... >> **** >> Yes, I saw that in a later part of a thread. But you should have >> said this up front to make your use of VirtualAlloc make sense >> **** > > I would go further and say that, based on the initial statement that the > OP was considering HeapAlloc and LocalAlloc as well as VirtualAlloc, that > there was a strong implied claim that the unique features of VirtualAlloc > weren't needed. >
From: Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] on 11 Mar 2008 11:42 Kerem G�mr�kc� wrote: > Hi Ben, > >> I would go further and say that, based on the initial statement that >> the OP was considering HeapAlloc and LocalAlloc as well as >> VirtualAlloc, that there was a strong implied claim that the unique >> features of VirtualAlloc weren't needed. > > Why you say that? I just asked what the differences are, except the > Information in the MSDN Library. How can you say that i dont need > this feature, without knowing what my code is doing? I can't, but that's why I didn't. *You* said, in several different messages in this thread, that HeapAlloc was a viable alternative.
From: Kerem G�mr�kc� on 11 Mar 2008 12:28
Hi Ben, yes *I did*, but you shouldn't come to the conlusion, that i did not know what i am doing, so at least thats what it sounds to me, when you think , "that there was a strong implied claim that the uniquevfeatures of VirtualAlloc weren't needed". If i did not had the chance to use the notification feature, i had to poll the memory or had to use another signaling mechanism to check for Change events. There was also the Question "what" benefits the VA has against the HA, except the features described in the MSDN, whether someone has experinence on the usage there. But its all solved now and thanks for your answers on my topic. Regards K. -- ----------------------- Beste Gr�sse / Best regards / Votre bien devoue Kerem G�mr�kc� Microsoft Live Space: http://kerem-g.spaces.live.com/ Latest Open-Source Projects: http://entwicklung.junetz.de ----------------------- "This reply is provided as is, without warranty express or implied." "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <rbv(a)nospam.nospam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:ebdtw44gIHA.1944(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Kerem G�mr�kc� wrote: >> Hi Ben, >> >>> I would go further and say that, based on the initial statement that >>> the OP was considering HeapAlloc and LocalAlloc as well as >>> VirtualAlloc, that there was a strong implied claim that the unique >>> features of VirtualAlloc weren't needed. >> >> Why you say that? I just asked what the differences are, except the >> Information in the MSDN Library. How can you say that i dont need >> this feature, without knowing what my code is doing? > > I can't, but that's why I didn't. *You* said, in several different > messages in this thread, that HeapAlloc was a viable alternative. > |