Errors, bugs, questions - page 3055
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
This is how it works. The purchase goes through, but it won't run on 32 bits.
I don't see what the problem is. The main thing is not to write off the activation if it doesn't start.
But a warning before buying with minimum system requirements would be helpful.
Please fix search.
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing
Bugs, bugs, questions
fxsaber, 2021.05.25 16:12
The search does not always work on the site.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/search#!keyword=Oshibka
I can't see anything from this request, but it should.
This is how it works. Purchase goes through, but it won't run on 32 bits.
It would be nice if the customer received a warning such as your OS will not allow you to use the application you purchased....
Are macro overloads planned?
#undef and #ifdef MACRO would apply to all overloads at once.
Up
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and strategy testing
About MT5 Code Profiler
Alain Verleien, 2021.07.08 22:58
Some questions about strange things about the data returned by the profiler.
Profiling report used in an EA running on historical data:
Results (Functions on calls):
Q1. The report shows 139098 measurements, but onTick () Total CPU is 150026, how is this possible? (but CopyHistoryData 80087 as 57.58% correctly means 100% = 139098).
Q2. The report says 571,051 other "functions". What are these functions if they are not mql, embedded or system functions?
Q3. CopyHistoryData shows 80087 Total CPUs, with 3 reported function calls (CopyHigh, CopyLow, CopyTime) having different total CPUs, OK. However, the native CPU for these functions is the same and equal to the total CPU (call stack). This seems to be incorrect as on 80087 (stacks) for CopyHistoryData the sum for 3 functions is 62,161 (44286 + 9448 + 8427), how can it be, with 62,161 calls it detects 80,087 pauses in these 3 functions? Impossible, the only explanation is that this number is global for CopyHistoryData and therefore useless. Am I missing something?
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing
New MetaTrader 5 build 2980: Push notifications on trade operations
Alain Verleyen, 2021.07.12 19:10
I have a small request to add an mql function that returns the Windows version. It would be useful to identify some possible problems with the deployed application.
2021.07.12 12 20:48:55.786 Terminal Windows 10 build 19042, Intel Core i7-9750H @ 2.60GHz, 6/15 Gb memory, 62/279 Gb disk, IE 11, UAC, GMT-5
If there is a possibility to add, it would be nice. Thanks
There is a Cost column in the closed positions display mode.
What is it?
There is a Cost column in the closed positions display mode.
What is it?
Perhaps additional charges that are not counted in the commission...
Error failed [538].
Solution:
Some questions about strange things about the data returned by the profiler.
...
Q1. The report shows 139098 measurements, but onTick () Total CPU is 150026, how is this possible? (but CopyHistoryData 80087 as 57.58% correctly means 100% = 139098).
Q2. The report says 571,051 other "functions". What are these functions if they are not mql, embedded or system functions?
Q3. CopyHistoryData shows 80087 Total CPUs, with 3 reported function calls (CopyHigh, CopyLow, CopyTime) having different total CPUs, OK. However, the own CPU for these functions is the same and equal to the total CPU (call stack). This seems to be incorrect as on 80087 (stacks) for CopyHistoryData the sum for 3 functions is 62,161 (44286 + 9448 + 8427), how can it be, with 62,161 calls it detects 80,087 pauses in these 3 functions? Impossible, the only explanation is that this number is global for CopyHistoryData and therefore useless. Did I miss something?
Unfortunately, we can't determine (at least for now) which CopyXXX function was called.
Since this is one CopyHistoryData function, the "Self CPU" counter is also the same + in report you see 3 places of CopyHistoryData call, each place of call (actually a line of code) has its own "Total CPU" counter.
As for the discrepancy in values, the CopyHistoryData function is "heavy" and it seems that some of the measurements didn't manage to detect the place of call - this is connected to some peculiarities of native x64 code, I'll think what can be done.