 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / Managed C++ / January 2007Simple code doesn't work on two systems
I wrote this very simple code in .NET VC++. I compiled it on my system, and tried to run it on my friend's computer (he doesn't have the compiler). We both have Windows XP Professional. I have .NET framework 2.0, and he had 1.0 and it didn't work; then he installed 2.0 and it still didn't work; so he tried with 2.1 and it didn't work, then 3.0 and nothing still worked. I have Intel Centrino Mobile (laptop computer), and he has Intel Pentium 4 (desktop computer). His system reported an error that it cannot execute the program because of invalid configuration. Why doesn't it work? Here is the code I wrote, if it would mean anything: #include <stdlib.h> int main(void) { int *a; while (1) { a = (int *) malloc(100000 * sizeof(int)); } return 0; }  Signature"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-reliance 1841 http://pinpoint.wordpress.com/ >I wrote this very simple code in .NET VC++. I compiled it on my system, and >tried to run it on my friend's computer (he doesn't have the compiler). We [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(desktop computer). His system reported an error that it cannot execute the >program because of invalid configuration. Why doesn't it work? Did you do a release compile? The debug compile in C++ requires debug libraries that are only present when the compiler is installed. > Here is the code I wrote, if it would mean anything: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > return 0; > } >>I wrote this very simple code in .NET VC++. I compiled it on my system, and >>tried to run it on my friend's computer (he doesn't have the compiler). We [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Did you do a release compile? The debug compile in C++ requires debug > libraries that are only present when the compiler is installed. Do you mean by going to Build->Compile in the menu (or pressing Ctrl+F7)? I did that, but it doesn't work. Signature"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-reliance 1841 http://pinpoint.wordpress.com/ >>>I wrote this very simple code in .NET VC++. I compiled it on my system, >>>and tried to run it on my friend's computer (he doesn't have the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Do you mean by going to Build->Compile in the menu (or pressing Ctrl+F7)? > I did that, but it doesn't work. I mean select "Release" as the current build configuration. After you compile, what directory does the .exe appear in? If it's a Debug directory, then it won't run on any computer without the compiler installed. Note that the directory name isn't what counts, it's just a good indicator under the default project options. The build configuration appears on the "Standard" toolbar in Visual Studio 2005. >>>>I wrote this very simple code in .NET VC++. I compiled it on my system, and >>>>tried to run it on my friend's computer (he doesn't have the compiler). We [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The build configuration appears on the "Standard" toolbar in Visual Studio > 2005. OK, that solved the problem with the error. The program now runs, but is terminated by Windows. Windows reports being low on Virtual Memory. Now I know for a fact that my roommate has his Virtual Memory size set to zero. However, what I don't understand is why the program won't run, given that he has 1.7GB of RAM free most of the time (idle Windows only use about 300MB). Why won't Windows use physical memory, but instead insist on using virtual memory for this program? Other programs run just fine on his computer. Signature"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-reliance 1841 http://pinpoint.wordpress.com/ >>>>>I wrote this very simple code in .NET VC++. I compiled it on my system, and tried to >>>>>run it on my friend's computer (he doesn't have the compiler). We both have Windows XP [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > memory, but instead insist on using virtual memory for this program? Other programs run > just fine on his computer. while (1) { a = (int *) malloc(100000 * sizeof(int)); } Not surprising, this is an endless loop, you keep allocating memory until all your VAS is exhausted. What did you expect from this code? Willy. >>>>>>I wrote this very simple code in .NET VC++. I compiled it on my system, >>>>>>and tried to run it on my friend's computer (he doesn't have the [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Not surprising, this is an endless loop, you keep allocating memory until all > your VAS is exhausted. What did you expect from this code? No, you misunderstood. It's supposed to be an endless loop. However, the program doesn't even begin execution. We were monitoring the performance in Task Manager, to see how the memory gets allocated. On my system, the memory is properly allocated until it is all gone, and then I terminate the execution by force. On his system, nothing gets allocated. The performance meters don't show any memory being allocated at all. My question is, what does this have to do with Virtual Memory? I want to occupy physical memory, not virtual. Signature"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-reliance 1841 http://pinpoint.wordpress.com/ >My question is, what does this have to do with Virtual Memory? I >want to occupy physical memory, not virtual. So does everybody. But, when every app wants a lot of physical memory, then something's gotta give. Virtual memory is the way of fulfilling the promises made to each app, allowing them to share the physical memory. Consider virtual memory the security for a loan you're getting. Nathan Mates -- <*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/ # Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/ # NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors # think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein >>My question is, what does this have to do with Virtual Memory? I >>want to occupy physical memory, not virtual. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > physical memory. Consider virtual memory the security for a loan > you're getting. Something has to go wrong eventually, yes, but why is the program terminated immediately? Why doesn't the system allocate physical memory when it is available, and only when it's running out go tamper with virtual memory? Signature"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-reliance 1841 http://pinpoint.wordpress.com/ >>>My question is, what does this have to do with Virtual Memory? I >>>want to occupy physical memory, not virtual. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why doesn't the system allocate physical memory when it is available, and > only when it's running out go tamper with virtual memory? Only kernel-mode code can use physical memory, all user code uses virtual memory which can be mapped into physical memory or into the swapfile (also called pagefile). You can't disable virtual memory, the VMM is essential to any modern OS because it does stack allocation, process isolation, and a host of other stuff that's not related to the swapfile. You can only disable the swapfile. Some things can still be purged temporarily from physical ram even without a swapfile, specifically read-only segments which are mainly code (because the system can always get them back from disk). That's one reason you can't delete a program that's running. In fact, with 1.7GB of physical ram, you are as likely to run out of virtual memory space (2 GB limit, which can be fragmented leaving holes, and even though you haven't much fragmentation in your allocation pattern, the DLL load addresses cause some holes in your address space) as physical. Why the program terminates immediately I can't quite say. How do you know it isn't running? On a fast processor it could finish before task manager ever notices it. Perhaps if you write to a file at the beginning of the program, you can find out if it ever starts up. You could also log after each allocation to find out how many times the loop runs. Make sure you flush the file after each write, otherwise the runtime library will cache your messages in memory, and they'll be lost when the error occurs. >>>>>>>I wrote this very simple code in .NET VC++. I compiled it on my system, and tried to >>>>>>>run it on my friend's computer (he doesn't have the compiler). We both have Windows [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > gone, and then I terminate the execution by force. On his system, nothing gets allocated. > The performance meters don't show any memory being allocated at all. If you run this on a system that is able to allocate all available VAS, before taskman is showing the memory counter's value, you won't see anything *unusual*, more your program will probably prevent Taskman from updating the UI in a timely fashion, because your program pegs the CPU and the Memory system. Beware that the smallest interval between the fetches is 1 second, fast systems are able to allocate much more RAM than available on most systems within one second. To illustrate what I'm saying, add a Sleep(10) call between each malloc and watch Taskman. > My question is, what does this have to do with Virtual Memory? I want to occupy physical > memory, not virtual. You will occupy physical memory, but this is not under your control, neither will you allocate physical memory only by calling malloc, you need to write to this memory before virtual memory (reserved) turns into physical (comitted). Willy.
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.