Memory dialogs revisited.

[dedndave]

Code:

   mov icce.dwSize, SIZEOF INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX
   xor eax, eax
   or eax, ICC_ANIMATE_CLASS
   or eax, ICC_BAR_CLASSES
   or eax, ICC_COOL_CLASSES
   or eax, ICC_DATE_CLASSES
   or eax, ICC_HOTKEY_CLASS
   or eax, ICC_INTERNET_CLASSES
   or eax, ICC_LISTVIEW_CLASSES
   or eax, ICC_PAGESCROLLER_CLASS
   or eax, ICC_PROGRESS_CLASS
   or eax, ICC_TAB_CLASSES
   or eax, ICC_TREEVIEW_CLASSES
   or eax, ICC_UPDOWN_CLASS
   or eax, ICC_USEREX_CLASSES
   or eax, ICC_WIN95_CLASSES
   mov icce.dwICC, eax
   invoke InitCommonControlsEx,ADDR icce

yikes !

how about.....

Code:

ICC_FLAGS = ICC_WIN95_CLASSES
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_ANIMATE_CLASS
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_BAR_CLASSES
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_COOL_CLASSES
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_DATE_CLASSES
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_HOTKEY_CLASS
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_INTERNET_CLASSES
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_LISTVIEW_CLASSES
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_PAGESCROLLER_CLASS
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_PROGRESS_CLASS
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_TAB_CLASSES
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_TREEVIEW_CLASSES
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_UPDOWN_CLASS
ICC_FLAGS = ICC_FLAGS or ICC_USEREX_CLASSES

       .DATA
icc INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX <sizeof INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX,ICC_FLAGS>

       .CODE
       INVOKE  InitCommonControlsEx,offset icc

total size ~ 18 bytes

Hutch - i doubt there is any harm in initializing controls you don't use
although, it may use memory unnecessarily
the problem i see is that if you don't initialize the ones you do use....
.... it has to be tested on a platform that exhibits the problem   

[hutch--]

Dave,

Apart from the MASM line length limit there is nothing to stop you from orring the whole lot together so that you only had 4 bytes but size is not the problem, I am trying to quantify why initialising all of the controls works on some Windows versions but not others and by versions I mean the language version. I cannot duplicte the problem with any of my US English versions.

I have the OR list for convenience of being able to comment them in and out, not for minimum size even though their memory usage is trivial.

[dedndave]

that's why i listed them seperately, as well - so you can comment them out

i see a lot of uninitialied structures - initialized in code
if you initialize a dword in code, it usually takes at least 5 bytes   
why not just pre-initialize the data - execution time = 0 - and it is smaller
(it might make sense if much of the structure need not be initialized)

[Antariy]

Alex,

I have no doubt that many read you post, its just that I remembered it. 

Thank you, Hutch!

[hutch--]

Dave,

The assumption that the size matters is one we don't share, this type of stuff most probably would not line up to the next 512 byte section. I am far more interested in getting it to work on multiple language versions.

[Antariy]

Jochen:

Code:

call InitCommonControlsEx ; this will never be called, but

this is right, the dll just should be statically linked. On my system InitCommonControls code is just a RET as first instruction of the "function". Very funny.
What it is on other systems?

[Vortex]

Hi Hutch,

Thanks for the new version of the example. It works fine. InitCommonControls solved the problem.

Hi Antariy,

I remembered for your posting, thanks.

[Ramon Sala]

Hi Hutch,

This is my report for catalan and spanish versions of Windows:

Win2K3 Server and Win7 32-64 bit: The dialog works fine without initializing common controls.

WinXp SP3: The dialog just works if common controls are initialized. However, calling InitCommonControls is enough (no need to call InitCommonControlsEx).

Regards.

[jj2007]

this is right, the dll just should be statically linked. On my system InitCommonControls code is just a RET as first instruction of the "function". Very funny.
What it is on other systems?

Win XP SP2, Italian edition: InitCommonControls is just a retn, and static linking without actually calling it makes the dialog work
InitCommonControlsEx has the same positive effect, but when you call it, there is a bit more than just a retn. It starts with the intelligent opcode mov edi, edi ;-)

[dedndave]

perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye
it may be that pulling the function in also pulls in some other code and/or data that is not readily obvious