Re: Receiving single bytes with MSComm
From: Ed (Ed_at_whyshouldItell.me)
Date: 02/19/05
- Next message: Ed: "Re: Please help with this."
- Previous message: Hanna-Barbera: "OnDestroy"
- In reply to: Joseph M. Newcomer: "Re: Receiving single bytes with MSComm"
- Next in thread: Joseph M. Newcomer: "Re: Receiving single bytes with MSComm"
- Reply: Joseph M. Newcomer: "Re: Receiving single bytes with MSComm"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:44:35 GMT
Hi,
I still cannot get the receive working.
This is the last thing I have tried and all I get is garbage back.
All I seem to get is 0x01 even when I am supposed to get text.
Please take a look and feel free to suggest. I really need binary to work.
void CPSMDlg::OnOnCommMscomm1()
{
Char ed[2048];
FILE *in;
COleVariant Value;
if (m_comm.GetCommEvent() == 2)
{
Value = m_comm.GetInput();
CString Buffer = V_BSTR(&Value);
ed[current]=Buffer[0];
ed[current+1]=0x00;
in = fopen("c:\\psm\\a1.dat", "wb");
fwrite(ed, current, 1, in);
fclose(in);
current++;
AfxMessageBox(Buffer);
}
}
current is a count thats reset before I request any data.
Thanks in advance,
Ed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@flounder.com> wrote in message
news:2h671151c6kbs7l3jikhkd9n35jtrs749b@4ax.com...
>I guess I've never before seen such convoluted code whose sole purpose is
>to receive a
> single byte from a serial port. I tend to favor code that looks like
>
> ReadFile(h, &buffer, 1, &bytesRead, NULL);
>
> as being the most complicated code I want, and in addition, if I'm doing
> asynchronous I/O,
> I'll create an event to indicate the completion, e.g.,
>
> OVERLAPPED ovl;
> BYTE buffer;
> ovl.hEvent = event; // created a long time ago
> if(!ReadFile(h, &buffer, 1, &bytesRead, NULL))
> { /* error */
> DWORD err = ::GetLastError();
> if(err != ERROR_IO_PENDING)
> { /* fatal error */
> ... deal with it
> } /* fatal error */
> HANDLE waiters[2];
> waiters[0] = shutdownEvent;
> waiters[1] = event;
> DWORD wait = WaitForSingleObject(2, waiters, FALSE, INFINITE);
> switch(wait)
> { /* wait */
> case WAIT_OBJECT_0:
> // shut down
> break;
> case WAIT_OBJECT_0+1:
> break;
> default:
> ASSERT(FALSE);
> ... deal with error
> } /* wait */
> } /* error */
> wnd->PostMessage(UWM_BYTE_RECEIVED, buffer, NULL);
>
> I've used code like this in on the order of a dozen major applications,
> all of which are
> out there running right now. Had I used MSCOMM, I probably wouldn't have a
> single running
> app.
>
> I note that nowhere in your code is there any error detection. Nor is
> there a way to
> recover from a device that is hung waiting for a byte. Overall, there is
> an amazing amount
> of convoluted work to interface to what is probably an inappropriate
> interface in the
> first place. If you simply take as a premise that MSCOMM is the wrong
> approach, the
> problem becomes trivial by comparison. And it has issues such as
> reliability and
> robustness that appear to be absent in the MSCOMM solution.
>
> I suppose I might be able to offer more advice if MSCOMM were documented,
> but I am unable
> to locate any documentation in the MSDN. Probably one of the reasons I
> don't use it; I
> don't use undocumented interfaces. If it were an important control, there
> would be
> documentation on it. That is, I could type "MSCOMM" to the index, or
> possibly to the
> search window of the MSDN, and get an actual, real, live, document that
> describes how to
> use the control. (The best I found was a pointer to a nonexistent file,
> comm98.chm, which
> does not exist on my machine, and I have the full Visual Studio 6 and
> Visual Studio 7
> installations, the latest platform SDK, and the second-latest MSDN library
> installed, so
> the lack of documentation clearly means this is an inappropriate control).
> In the absence
> the the ability to find documentation, the presumption is that this
> control is distributed
> as a joke control, whose purpose is not to solve problems but to create
> them. Why elect to
> use something that is undocumented, hard to use, and probably completely
> inappropriate,
> and then try to force a solution out of it?
> joe
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:01:39 GMT, "Me" <me@right.her> wrote:
>
>>I got the transmit code working sending binary data for MSComm.
>>
>>I have the following code for receiving a string of bytes.
>>
>>bool CPSMDlg::GetChar()
>>{
>> COleVariant myVar;
>> int hr;
>> long lLen = 0;
>> BYTE *pAccess;
>> char buffer[255];
>>
>> myVar.Attach (m_Comm.GetInput());
>>
>> hr = SafeArrayGetUBound (myVar.parray, 1, &lLen); // Get the
>> length
>> if (hr == S_OK)
>> {
>> lLen++; // upper bound
>> is
>>zero based index
>> hr = SafeArrayAccess (myVar.parray,(void**)&pAccess); // lock array
>> so
>>you can access it
>> if (hr == S_OK)
>> {
>> for (int i 0; i < lLen; i++) // Make a copy
>> of
>>the data
>> buffer[i] = pAccess[i];
>> SafeArrayUnaccessData (myVar.parray); // unlock the
>>data
>> }
>> }
>> // COleVariant cleans itself up
>>}
>>
>>How do I receive single bytes one at a time since the device may only send
>>1
>>byte in response to commands????
>>
>>Thanks
>>eddie@eddie1.net
>>
>
> Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
> email: newcomer@flounder.com
> Web: http://www.flounder.com
> MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
- Next message: Ed: "Re: Please help with this."
- Previous message: Hanna-Barbera: "OnDestroy"
- In reply to: Joseph M. Newcomer: "Re: Receiving single bytes with MSComm"
- Next in thread: Joseph M. Newcomer: "Re: Receiving single bytes with MSComm"
- Reply: Joseph M. Newcomer: "Re: Receiving single bytes with MSComm"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
