The reason I ask this is widows do not support a good method to communicate between processes. So I want to create a DLL for a communications point between windows processes. A thread is owned by a process and cannot be given to another process.
Each thread has a stack of its own.
If a DLL is loaded (loadlibray) and a DLL function is called that asks windows for memory. Am I write to think the thread is still being owned by the same process and allocates memory into that same process.
So I’m thinking can I turn to assembly to reallocate a small memory block to another process. Create a critical section, copy the data over to another (already created) memory block and return to the original block to its original process with out up setting windows. Has any one done that before. Or is thier a better way.
Best regards,
Lex Dean.
I see other methods that mite be quite fast but I would like a very fast method that has little over head. Pipes and internet will obviously work but are not the best option yet simple to implement (thanks to offer such suggestions guys). I want to send quite a few 500 byte blocks at quite regular intervals sometimes. I like WM_COPYDATA because it looks fast, my biggest question that I have been looking all over the internet is:- GetCurrentProcess and DuplicateHandle to get the real handle. Finding the other process. And using messages to set up memory and then use WM_COPYDATA. I only need two messages a) the pointer and size b) the data has been copied.
I get my application process easy ‘GetCurrentProcess’ except it’s a pseudo handle, that’s always $FFFFFFE. I need the real process handle and no body on the internet gives an example of DuplicateHandle. That’s what’s got me stumped. Can you show me an example of DuplicateHandle as that’s what’s got me stumped?
I do not like turning to a form to get a handle as one application dose not always have a current form.
I do not like turning to a form to get a handle as one application dose not always have a current form.
In Delphi I have seen message sending with TSpeedButton to set up a simple fast communication methods between applications that most probably uses about 80 instructions I guess. And so I still thinking to think dll’s. The example Mads Elvheim sent is on that same line as what I already know.
I'm still willing to understand any other options of using my own *.Dll
Because my applications important to me can simply register/unregister on the *.DLL its own process rather than searching all the time to see if a process is current.
It’s how I manage memory with a *.DLL between process but I’m not told about.
To me DLL’s are not hard to implement to me as I already have one of my own in operation.
The real bottom line is access to windows to create a good option. As I’m very open to idea’s. Even the assembly instructions for between processes or a windows call. But I do not what to get court crashing windows ether by doing things illegal.
So please show an example of what you have done that is to my needs. That is fast and I’m interested as I most probably will use it anyway.
I have a very fast IPC (interprocess communication) solution based on named pipes. It is very fast and very easy to use (It hides the actual implementation from you. You just work with data packets). Also tested and proven. You can find the code and the demo here.
http://www.cromis.net/blog/downloads/cromis-ipc/
It also works across computers in the same LAN.
If your processes have message loops (with windows), you can send/receive serialized data with the WM_COPYDATA message: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms649011(VS.85).aspx
Just remember that only the allocated memory for the COPYDATASTRUCT::lpData member is allowed to be read. Again, you can not pass a structure that has pointers. The data must be serialized instead. And the receiving side can only read this structure, it can not write to it. Example:
/* Both are conceptual windows procedures. */
/* For sending : */
{
...
TCHAR msg[] = _T("This is a test\r\n");
HWND target;
COPYDATASTRUCT cd = {0};
cd.lpData = _tcsdup(msg); // We allocate and copy a string, which is fine.
cd.cbData = _tcsclen(msg) + 1; //The size of our data. Windows needs to know this.
target = FindWindow(..); //or EnumProcesses
SendMessage(target, WM_COPYDATA, (LPARAM)hwnd, (WPARAM)&cd);
}
/* For receiving */
{
...
case WM_COPYDATA:
{
TCHAR* msg;
COPYDATASTRUCT* cb = (COPYDATASTRUCT*)wParam;
sender = FindWindow(..); //or EnumProcesses
//check if this message is sent from the window/process we want
if(sender == (HWND)lParam){
msg = _tcsdup(cb->ldData);
...
}
break;
}
}
Otherwise, use memory mapped files, or network sockets.
I currently use Mailslots in Delphi to do it and it is very efficient.
"Win32 DLLs are mapped into the address space of the calling process. By default, each process using a DLL has its own instance of all the DLLs global and static variables. If your DLL needs to share data with other instances of it loaded by other applications, you can use either of the following approaches:
•Create named data sections using the data_seg pragma.
•Use memory mapped files. See the Win32 documentation about memory mapped files."
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/h90dkhs0(VS.80).aspx
You cannot share pointers between processes, they only make sense to the process that alloc'd it. You're likely to run into issues.
Win32 is not different from any other modern OS in this aspect. There are plenty IPC services at your disposal in Windows.
Try to describe, which task you want to solve - not the "...then I think that I need to copy that block of memory here...". It's not your task. Your customer didn't say you: "I want to transfer thread from one process to another".
Related
In a large complex C program, I'd like to save to a file the contents of all memory that is used by static variables, global structures and dynamically allocated variables. Those memory variables are more than 10,000.
The C program has only single thread, no file operation and program itself is not so complex (calculation is complex).
Then, in a same execution of the program, I want to initialize the memory from this saved state.
If this is even possible, can someone offer an approach to accomplish this?
You have to define a Struct to keep al your data in and then you have to implement a function to save it into a file.
Something like this: Saving struct to file
Please note, however, that this method is the simplest, but comes with no portability at all.
Edit after Comment: basically, what you would like to do is save whatever is happening in the program and then restart it after a load. I don't think this is possible in any simple way. You MUST understand what "status of your application" means.
Think about it: doing a dump of the memory saves not only the data, but also the current Instruction Pointer. So, with that "dumb" dump, you would have also saved the actual instruction currently running. And many more complications you really don't want to care about.
The closest thing you are thinking about is running the program in a Virtual Machine. If you pause the VM the execution status will be "saved", but whenever you restart the VM, the program will restart at the exact same execution point you paused it.
If the configurations are scattered through the application, still you can access a global struct used to save everything.
But still you have to know your program and identify what you have to save. No shortcuts on that.
In a Delphi 7 console application, how can I check whether stdin holds a character, without blocking until one is entered?
My plan is that this console program will be executed by a GUI program, and its stdin will be written to by the GUI program.
So I want my console app to periodically check stdin, but I can't find a way of doing this without blocking.
I have looked at this answer, which gets me a stream pointing to stdin, but there's still no way to "peek" as far as I can see.
I think you have already found the right way to read stdin. It is meant to block when there's nothing more to be read.
The standard way to handle this is to use a separate thread to handle the pipe. When it receives new data from stdin it signals this to the processing thread, for example with a message passing mechanism.
Having said all that, if you really want to poll you can call PeekNamedPipe to check if there is data in the pipe.
You could as the other answer says use threads, but even then you might have problems (using the threading method) unless you also investigate overlapped IO.
I normally use overlapped IO with serial ports rather than stdin, where "read a character if one is ready" is commonly needed, and where non-blocking IO is a usual way of working. You should be able to adapt the technique shown here. However, if I was writing an application that was keyboard driven (instead of purely driven by say, a file redirected to standard input) I would let go of StdIN, and use a CRT type unit. So, if you don't mind letting go of StdIn, and simply want to have a keyboard-driven input model, you could look at console based APIs and abandon the very limiting StdIn capabilities. For an example of a "kbhit" function that uses the Win32 Console APIs see here.
There is no other way (as far as i know), as reading from a pipe inside a separate thread. Otherwise as you already have seen, the readfile operation will block. I wrote an example how to do this, an example project is also available: redirect stdoutput
Edit: Well, reading your question another time, i understand that your problem lies within the console program, not the calling application. I wonder what your console application expects, normally a console application knows when it needs input and cannot proceede until the user enters this information. Do you need to check for an exit?
For a Stream if you .Read() the function result is the number of bytes read which will be zero if there was nothing there even if you asked for more. From the Delphi help for Classes.TStream.Read:
Read is used in cases where the number of bytes to read from the stream is not necessarily fixed. It attempts to read up to Count bytes into buffer and returns the number of bytes actually read.
I'm currently attempting to integrate a DLL (FooEmulation) into an existing project.
The DLL assumes that it will only be used to emulate one Foo at a time, and uses a lot of static globals as a result.
However, I want to be able to manage thousands of Foo instances at once.
I have the source to the original DLL, so I could convert all of the static globals into parameters that would be passed in (whether directly or via a handle), but the DLL is being maintained separately and I'd like to avoid forking/merging if at all possible.
One technique I found was to load multiple dynamically generated copies of the DLL, but that is too resource-heavy for the scale I need.
I also can't afford to create a process or thread for each Foo.
Is it possible to keep multiple copies of the DLL's static memory and restore it per use of the DLL?
How do I locate it? Am I even allowed to touch it?
When you load the DLL multiple times into the same process all the static data is shared, period. You'll have to redesign the library so that all those objects can be created dynamically as you need them during the runtime.
I am assuming you're on windows since there's nothing telling me otherwise..
Take a look here, which is the documentation for DLLMain in Windows.
DLLMain has a parameter that tells you if
A process is attaching (loading your DLL)
A process is detaching (unloading your DLL)
A thread is attaching (loading the per thread parts of your DLL)
A thread is detaching (unloading the per thread parts of your DLL)
If you catch the process or thread events and allocate (attach) / free (detach) a new instance of your statics, I think this would solve your problem. It's a little hacky, but it would work...
You have to be careful what you do in DLLMain as well. Look in the docs for the warnings about blocking in any way in DLLMain.
Recently, I have encountered many difficulties when I was developing using C++ and Lua. My situation is: for some reason, there can be thousands of Lua-states in my C++ program. But these states should be same just after initialization. Of course, I can do luaL_loadlibs() and lua_loadfile() for each state, but that is pretty heavy(in fact, it takes a rather long time for me even just initial one state). So, I am wondering the following schema: What about keeping a separate Lua-state(the only state that has to be initialized) which is then cloned for other Lua-states, is that possible?
When I started with Lua, like you I once wrote a program with thousands of states, had the same problem and thoughts, until I realized I was doing it totally wrong :)
Lua has coroutines and threads, you need to use these features to do what you need. They can be a bit tricky at first but you should be able to understand them in a few days, it'll be well worth your time.
take a look to the following lua API call I think it is what you exactly need.
lua_State *lua_newthread (lua_State *L);
This creates a new thread, pushes it on the stack, and returns a pointer to a lua_State that represents this new thread. The new thread returned by this function shares with the original thread its global environment, but has an independent execution stack.
There is no explicit function to close or to destroy a thread. Threads are subject to garbage collection, like any Lua object.
Unfortunately, no.
You could try Pluto to serialize the whole state. It does work pretty well, but in most cases it costs roughly the same time as normal initialization.
I think it will be hard to do exactly what you're requesting here given that just copying the state would have internal references as well as potentially pointers to external data. One would need to reconstruct those internal references in order to not just have multiple states pointing to the clone source.
You could serialize out the state after one starts up and then load that into subsequent states. If initialization is really expensive, this might be worth it.
I think the closest thing to doing what you want that would be relatively easy would be to put the states in different processes by initializing one state and then forking, however your operating system supports it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(operating_system)
If you want something available from within Lua, you could try something like this:
How do you construct a read-write pipe with lua?
I created a class that handles serial port asynchronously. I use it to communicate with a modem. I have no idea why, but sometimes, when I close my application, I get the Blue Screen and my computer restarts. I logged my code step by step, but when the BSOD appeared, and my computer restarted, the file into which I was logging data contained only white spaces. Therefore I have no idea, what the reason of the BSOD could be.
I looked through my code carefully and I found several possible reasons of the problem (I was looking for all that could lead to accessing unallocated memory and causing AV exceptions).
When I rethought the idea of asynchronous operations, a few things came to my mind. Please verify whether these are right:
1) WaitCommEvent() takes a pointer to the overlapped structure. Therefore, if I call WaitCommEvent() inside a function and then leave the function, the overlapped structure cannot be a local variable, right? The event mask variable and event handle too, right?
2) ReadFile() and WriteFile() also take references or pointers to variables. Therefore all these variables have to be accessible until the overlapped read or write operations finish, right?
3) I call WaitCommEvent() only once and check for its result in a loop, in the mean time doing other things. Because I have no idea how to terminate asynchronous operations (is it possible?), when I destroy my class that keeps a handle to a serial port, I first close the handle, and then wait for the event in the overlapped structure that was used when calling the WaitCommEvent() function. I do this to be sure that the thread that waits asynchronously for a comm event does not access any fields of my class which is destroyed. Is it a good idea or is it stupid?
try
CloseHandle(FSerialPortHandle);
if Assigned(FWaitCommEvent) then
FWaitCommEvent.WaitFor(INFINITE);
finally
FSerialPortHandle := INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE;
FreeAndNil(FWaitCommEvent);
end;
Before I noticed all these, most of the variables mentioned in point one and two were local variables of the functions that called the three methods above. Could it be the reason of the BSOD or should I look for some other mistakes in my code?
When I corrected the code, the BSOD stopped occuring, but It might be a coincidence. How do you think?
Any ideas will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I read the CancelIo() function documentation and it states that this method cancells all I/O operations issued by the calling thread. Is it OK to wait for the FWaitCommEvent after calling CancelIo() if I know that WaitCommEvent() was issued by a different thread than the one that calls CancelIo()?
if Assigned(FWaitCommEvent) and CancelIo(FSerialPortHandle) then
begin
FWaitCommEvent.WaitFor(INFINITE);
FreeAndNil(FWaitCommEvent);
end;
I checked what happens in such case and the thread calling this piece of code didn't get deadlocked even though it did not issue WaitCommEvent(). I tested in on Windows 7 (if it matters). May I leave the code as is or is it dangerous? Maybe I misunderstood the documentation and this is the reason of my question. I apologize for asking so many questions, but I really need to be sure about that.
Thanks.
An application running as a standard user should never be able to cause a bug check (a.k.a. BSOD). (And an application running as an Administrator should have to go well out of its way to do so.) Either you ran into a driver bug or you have bad hardware.
By default, Windows is configured to save a minidump in %SystemRoot%\minidump whenever a bug check occurs. You may be able to determine more information about the crash by loading the minidump file in WinDbg, configuring WinDbg to use the Microsoft public symbol store, and running the !analyze -v command in WinDbg. At the very least, this should identify what driver is probably at fault (though I would guess it's your modem driver).
Yes, you do need to keep the TOverlapped structure available for the duration of the overlapped operation. You're going to call GetOverlappedResult at some point, and GetOverlappedResult says it should receive a pointer to a structure that was used when starting the overlapped operation. The event mask and handle can be stored in local variables if you want; you're going to have a copy of them in the TOverlapped structure anyway.
Yes, the buffers that ReadFile and WriteFile use must remain valid. They do not make their own local copies to use internally. The documentation for ReadFile even says so:
This buffer must remain valid for the duration of the read operation. The caller must not use this buffer until the read operation is completed.
If you weren't obeying that rule, then you were likely reading into unreserved stack space, which could easily cause all sorts of unexpected behavior.
To cancel an overlapped I/O operation, use CancelIo. It's essential that you not free the memory of your TOverlapped record until you're sure the associated operation has terminated. Likewise for the buffer you're reading or writing. CancelIo does not cancel the operation immediately, so your buffers might still be in use even after you call it.