PRB: Brush Permanent Handle Map Doesn't Work on Windows 95

ID: Q151865

The information in this article applies to:

Microsoft Visual C++ for Windows, versions 1.0, 1.5, 1.51, 1.52, 1.52b
Microsoft Visual C++ 32-bit Edition, versions 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 4.0, 4.1

SYMPTOMS

Unexpected behavior might occur if an application relies on MFC's permanent brush handle map.

In MFC 2.0 (included with Visual C++, version 1.0), symptoms can include:

Assertion Failure, winhand.cpp - Line 129

In MFC 2.5 (included with Visual C++, version 1.5), symptoms can include:

Assertion Failure, winhand.cpp - Line 169

CAUSE

Windows 95 has been optimized to prevent individual applications from burdening the system resources. One of the optimizations is in the area of brush handles. Windows 95 will not always return a unique handle when a new brush object is created. Because MFC's permanent handle map mechanism relies on a one-to-one mapping from HANDLE-> C++ Object, this optimization will prevent MFC's permanent brush handle map mechanism from working properly. See the More Information section below for further details.

RESOLUTION

Do not rely on the brush permanent handle map when running on Windows 95. You can still use the return value of any MFC function which might return a temporary, but you should not rely on the function returning a specific object that you expected to be in the permanent handle map.

For example, the code shown below could be re-written as:


    CBrush *pBrush1 = new CBrush (RGB(255,0,0));
   CBrush *pBrush2 = new CBrush (RGB(255,0,0));

   CBrush *pOld = pDC->SelectObject(pBrush1);
   // Do some stuff in here

   // Don't rely on the return value from SelectObject being pBrush1
   pDC->SelectObject(pOld);

   // Instead, maintain the pointer to the object yourself
   delete pBrush1;

The following functions might return an unexpected object:

SelectObject
FromHandle
FromHandlePermanent
GetCurrentBrush
GetHalftoneBrush
SelectStockObject

In MFC versions 2.0 and 2.50, the assertion failures can be ignored although the behavior mentioned above could still cause problems. If you cannot ignore the assertion failures if, for instance, they occur far too often, then you can remove the assertions from the MFC source code and rebuild the DEBUG version of the MFC libraries. For details on how to accomplish this behavior, see the README.TXT file in the <MSVC>\MFC\SRC directory.

STATUS

This behavior is by design.

MORE INFORMATION

On Windows NT or Windows 3.x, if a successful call is made to create a brush object, then a unique handle will be returned. This isn't necessarily true on Windows 95. Consider the following code:


   HANDLE hBrush = ::CreateSolidBrush(RGB(255,0,0));
   HANDLE hBrush2 = ::CreateSolidBrush(RGB(255,0,0));

   // In this case, hBrush and hBrush2 will have different values on
   // Windows NT or Windows 3.x, so the following assert will succeed

   ASSERT(hBrush!=hBrush2);

On Windows 95, the above assert will fail. Windows 95 is optimized to detect when an application is creating a duplicate brush handle so it doesn't need to create a brand new brush, just maintain internal information about the brush and return the same handle.

This presents a problem for MFC's permanent handle map mechanism. The handle map maintains an entry that maps each GDI handle to the unique Visual C++ object (derived from CGdiObject) that encapsulates that handle. This is a one-to-one mapping. If a new Visual C++ object is created that encapsulates the same handle as the previous object, then the previous object's entry in the permanent handle map will be replaced. This in itself is not a problem, but if you rely on the handle map to return the original Visual C++ object, then your code could run into serious problems. For example:


    CBrush *pBrush1 = new CBrush (RGB(255,0,0));
   CBrush *pBrush2 = new CBrush (RGB(255,0,0));

   CBrush *pOld = pDC->SelectObject(pBrush1);
   // Do some stuff in here
   delete pDC->SelectObject(pOld);
   ASSERT_VALID(pBrush2);
   // On Windows NT or Windows 3.x, the above call to "delete"
   // will delete pBrush1. On Windows 95, the above call to "delete"
   // will delete pBrush2 and the ASSERT_VALID will fail.

Additional query words: 1.00 1.50 1.51 1.52 2.00 2.10 2.20 4.00 4.10

Keywords : kbMFC KbUIDesign kbVC
Version : :1.0,1.5,1.51,1.52,1.52b,2.0,2.1,2.2,4.0,4.1
Platform : NT WINDOWS
Issue type :