you are using a for loop to patch bytes? 0_o
i feel for() is more human readable. opinions? im posting this because i see a lot of people using memcpy() which in my personal experience has been a little slower.
"XXXXXXX.DLL IS MISSING"
Download Missing DLL Files HERE
X64 users must place missing DLLs in sysWOW64 as well as System32. NEVER place DLLs in the Combat Arms folder no matter what a noob tells you.
you are using a for loop to patch bytes? 0_o
for statement != memcpy bro
i think he mean something on this wayCode:BYTE Example[] = {0x90,0x90,0x90,x90}; void newmemcpy(DWORD ADDY, BYTE WTF[],int size) { for(int i = 0; i < size;i++) { *(BYTE*)(ADDY+i) = WTF[i]; } } newmemcpy(Recoil,Example,4);
this is pseudo and not a checked source
The Internet SHOULD Be Illegal
When you say
"Java is a great programming language because it works on all platforms"
it is just like
"anal sex is great because it works on all genders"
Are YOU a Troll?
"XXXXXXX.DLL IS MISSING"
Download Missing DLL Files HERE
X64 users must place missing DLLs in sysWOW64 as well as System32. NEVER place DLLs in the Combat Arms folder no matter what a noob tells you.
"XXXXXXX.DLL IS MISSING"
Download Missing DLL Files HERE
X64 users must place missing DLLs in sysWOW64 as well as System32. NEVER place DLLs in the Combat Arms folder no matter what a noob tells you.
You best bet is to look up on msdn exactly where the function derives from, for example it could be part of user32 module which calls another module ect.. ect.. just like when you use WriteProcessMemory is alot slower because of this reason...
infinite loop? since when does that represent a real-life application of that |:
the speed would also be the same... right? Well basically my game uses memcpy about 5 times every frame to copy 5(1280*1024*4) = 26 214 400 bit array (of different renders via. IPC) while still maintaining godd FPS. And IPC is dreadfully slow.
Last edited by freedompeace; 02-08-2011 at 12:18 PM.
memcpy is (at least with Visual Studio) an optimized assembly function. Hand written assembly will nearly always be faster than C++, unless the assembly coder has no idea what he is doing. I believe memcpy copies in DWORD chunks also, which would make it much faster than a for loop.