Printable View
I am making a program that can start multiple other programs.
I do this by
_____________________________________
Process ^p;
ProcessStartInfo ^pInfo;
pInfo = gcnew ProcessStartInfo();
pInfo->Verb = "open";
pInfo->FileName = "c:\\WINDOWS\\System32\\sample.exe";
pInfo->UseShellExecute = true;
p = Process::Start(pInfo);
_________________________________________
however when i do this the other program takes the place of this one is there a way to stop this from happening
I am a noob in C++
I donno Am I right or Not
I think You can do it through system()
use system("c:\\WINDOWS\\System32\\sample.exe");
or just system("sample.exe");
I guess you'd have to run it on a different thread. What is this library you're using; I'm not familiar (because I don't get out much).
That looks like managed C++. (Or managed =~ s/m/d/ as Salem once said. :D ) I don't know anything about it, but if you can use system(), then read on.
A simple way to run programs in the background without using spawn() or CreateProcess() or some other function from the FAQ is to do this (under Windows):
start is a program which starts another program in the background. It has several options, such as starting the new program minimized or maximized. The options vary between different versions of Windows -- stick with minimized, maximized, and restored and you should be okay for most Windowses. Open a command prompt and type "start /?" to see the possible options.Code:system("start program.exe");
Hey anybody please say am I wrong ??Quote:
Originally Posted by noobcpp
Isnt system() enough ??
Whoops, yes, you're right.
It sounds like the program is doing the equivalent of an exec(), which takes the new program and overwrites the old program with the new. I took it to mean that a program was executing, and took a long time, and the programmer wanted the original program to execute another program while the first one was still going (which is what my reply targeted).Quote:
however when i do this the other program takes the place of this one is there a way to stop this from happening
It's possible that system() wouldn't work with that compiler or whatever. I don't know how it works.
I am using visual c++ express edition 2005Quote:
Originally Posted by dwks
I tryed to use system but it didn't work do I need to include some libraries to make it work
You need to include <cstdlib>Quote:
I tryed to use system but it didn't work do I need to include some libraries to make it work
I am on g++ Here system() works just with <iostream>
>> I am on g++ Here system() works just with <iostream>
It's generally a bad idea to rely on stuff like that. For example, you might provide sample code to somebody who uses a different compiler, and it doesn't work for them. Or you might change compilers and all of a sudden it dosen't work.
It usually doesn't take that much extra effort to #include the correct header for something you use in your program, and it is usually worth the effort in the end.
Is there any such compiler that doesnt supports system() ??
>> Is there any such compiler that doesnt supports system()
No, all standards compliant libraries have system. However, you have to #include <cstdlib> or <stdlib.h> in order to guarantee it will work.
Also, what you send to system is platform dependent (which makes sense, since it is a system call). So while system is works with all compilers, what you use it for might not.
Yes
In win you need to use
system("programm.exe");//Probabbly I am not sure
and on Linux
system("./programm");
This is not a guaranteed behavior, though, if I recall. It just so happens to work on your compiler but may not work on others. The correct library for system() is cstdlib, as stated earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by noobcpp
Edit: You might also want to know that if someone were to replace the console executable (cmd.exe on Windows) with a malicious program, calling system() would trigger that malicious program. Thus, system() isn't safe.
I used system and it works thanks everybody
Not posting your error messages was one thing.
Not including the whole path in "" was another.
Then Windows Would not work ProperlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Desolation
> Then Windows Would not work Properly
But if it's done subtly, you wouldn't know that. And even if you did, once the executable is triggered, the damage might be done before you have a chance to do anything about it.
I didnt Understand What you told.
Say cmd.exe was replaced with a program which formatted your hard drive. Sure, Windows wouldn't work properly. But if you ran cmd.exe, the damage would be done anyway.
But you wouldn't have to have cmd.exe replaced. If the program you were running was replaced or infected or something, like sample.exe, Windows might work just fine until you ran this program.
If you supply the complete path to a program, there's a slightly reduced security risk, but not by much, especially on Windows systems. Executing an external program always has some risks.
[edit] Also, There's No Need To Do This. :) [/edit]
But I dont understand where is the Risk of the Programmer if something bad went on it will affect that users (who was trying to crack that) PC not the Programmers one. As it was w orking fine when it was just factory made. The User is trying to so something Bad So teh User is reliable for that. Where is the Headeche of teh Programmer here ??
How many users will want to buy your program after they know that the program puts their computers under some risks?Quote:
Where is the Headeche of teh Programmer here ??
How long will you stay at your job after the marketing will fail to sell the product?