• 0

Bluetooth Programming [C]


Question

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <Winsock2.h>
#include <Ws2bth.h>
#include <BluetoothAPIs.h>
#include <windows.h>

void ErrorExit(LPTSTR lpszFunction);

int main(void)
{
	BLUETOOTH_FIND_RADIO_PARAMS FirstRadio;
	HANDLE RadioHandle;
	HANDLE NextRadio;
	BOOL FoundNextRadioHandle;
	BLUETOOTH_RADIO_INFO RadioDeviceInfo;
	DWORD dw;

	BluetoothFindFirstRadio((BLUETOOTH_FIND_RADIO_PARAMS*)&FirstRadio,(HANDLE*)&RadioHandle);
	if(RadioHandle == NULL)
	{
  printf("Problems Creating Radio Handle");
	}

	FoundNextRadioHandle = BluetoothFindNextRadio((HANDLE*)&RadioHandle,(HANDLE*)&NextRadio);

	if(FoundNextRadioHandle == TRUE)
	{
  printf("Found Another Bluetooth Radio");
	}
	else
	{
  printf("Only One Bluetooth Radio Handle Present\n");
  
	}
  
	BluetoothGetRadioInfo(RadioHandle,(BLUETOOTH_RADIO_INFO*)&RadioDeviceInfo);
	dw = GetLastError();
	ErrorExit((LPTSTR)&dw);

	HBLUETOOTH_DEVICE_FIND DeviceHandle;
	BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_INFO DeviceInfo;
	BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_SEARCH_PARAMS SearchParams;

	BOOL FoundDevice; /*Return Value of FindNextDevice*/
	BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_INFO FoundDeviceInfo; /*Structure Containing Info of next Device*/

	SearchParams.dwSize = sizeof(BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_SEARCH_PARAMS);
	SearchParams.fReturnAuthenticated = TRUE;
	SearchParams.fReturnRemembered = TRUE;
	SearchParams.fReturnUnknown = TRUE;
	SearchParams.fReturnConnected = TRUE;
	SearchParams.fIssueInquiry = TRUE;
	SearchParams.cTimeoutMultiplier = 10;
	SearchParams.hRadio = RadioHandle;

	BluetoothFindFirstDevice((BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_SEARCH_PARAMS*)&SearchParams,(BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_INFO*)&DeviceInfo);
	dw = GetLastError();
	ErrorExit((LPTSTR)&dw);

	FoundDevice = BluetoothFindNextDevice((HBLUETOOTH_DEVICE_FIND*)&DeviceHandle,(BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_INFO*) &FoundDeviceInfo);
	dw = GetLastError();
	ErrorExit((LPTSTR)&dw);

	return 0;
}

void ErrorExit(LPTSTR lpszFunction) 
{ 
    TCHAR szBuf[80]; 
    LPVOID lpMsgBuf;
    DWORD dw = GetLastError(); 

    FormatMessage(
        FORMAT_MESSAGE_ALLOCATE_BUFFER | 
        FORMAT_MESSAGE_FROM_SYSTEM,
        NULL,
        dw,
        MAKELANGID(LANG_NEUTRAL, SUBLANG_DEFAULT),
        (LPTSTR) &lpMsgBuf,
        0, NULL );

    wsprintf(szBuf, 
        "%s failed with error %d: %s", 
        lpszFunction, dw, lpMsgBuf); 

    MessageBox(NULL, szBuf, "Error", MB_OK); 

    LocalFree(lpMsgBuf);
    ExitProcess(dw); 
}

Hi, Please could someone tell me why this program isnt working. It keeps comming up with the error :

  Quote
Error 126 : The specified module could not be found.

It needs the platform SDK installed for the bluetooth headers and such. It also doesnt find the local bluetooth dongle or my phone which is what it is intended to do.

Thanks in Advance.

Sawyer12 :)

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/275426-bluetooth-programming-c/
Share on other sites

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

If a function succeeds, it is not required to set the last error to 0. You have to check what success means for each function. For example, BluetoothFindFirstDevice is supposed to return a valid handle and fails on NULL - you should check this first. If you have a NULL handle, then call GetLastError.

  • 0
  Sawyer12 said:
Can anyone tell me the difference between the functions :

BluetoothFindFirstDevice and  BluetoothFindFirstRadio ?

Which should I call first, Im basically trying to get my program to find my bluetooth phone. Any ideas?

585348297[/snapback]

I tried the code on 2 dev machines:

Machine 1: Mitsumi Bluetooth Adapter - Got an Error 126

Machine 2: Microsoft Bluetooth Keyboard/Mouse Adapter - Worked no problem

I guess it could be a driver issue.

BluetoothFindfirstDevice, this would find a device like phone, pda, keyboard etc.

BluetoothFindFirstRadio, this would find the actual bluetooth adapter.

  • 0

If you only have the 1 bluetooth adapter installed then you can have the line

 SearchParams.hRadio = NULL;

Then you can delete all the code that deals with BluetoothFindFirstRadio().

But like I said, 1 adapter worked for me, the other didn't... If you are still getting the same error it might be the adapter/api conflict.

  • 0

Here is the code that worked for me

#include "bthdef.h"
#include "BluetoothAPIs.h"
#pragma comment(lib, "irprops.lib")

	BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_SEARCH_PARAMS bdsp;
	BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_INFO bdi;
	HBLUETOOTH_DEVICE_FIND hbf;

	ZeroMemory(&bdsp, sizeof(BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_SEARCH_PARAMS));

	bdsp.dwSize = sizeof(BLUETOOTH_DEVICE_SEARCH_PARAMS);
	bdsp.fReturnAuthenticated = TRUE;
	bdsp.fReturnRemembered = TRUE;
	bdsp.fReturnUnknown = TRUE;
	bdsp.fReturnConnected = TRUE;
	bdsp.fIssueInquiry = TRUE;
	bdsp.cTimeoutMultiplier = 10;
	bdsp.hRadio = NULL;

	bdi.dwSize = sizeof(bdi);

	hbf = BluetoothFindFirstDevice(&bdsp, &bdi);
	DWORD dwErr = GetLastError();

	if (hbf != NULL)
	{
  TCHAR szDevName[MAX_PATH];

  while(1)
  {
  	memset(szDevName, 0x00, sizeof(szDevName));
  	sprintf(szDevName, _T("Name:%S"), bdi.szName);
  	MessageBox(szDevName, _T("Bluetooth Info"));

  	if (BluetoothFindNextDevice(hbf, &bdi) == FALSE)
    break;
  }

  BluetoothFindDeviceClose(hbf);
	}
	else
	{
  //No Devices Found...
	}

  • 0

I think that the Microsoft Bluetoothxxx() API functions are only to enumerate, bond, select & get info of bluetooth devices in the area. You may have to use the Winsock functions to actually communicate to the bluetooth device.

I only do WindowsCE programming, and the MS Bluetooth API functions are very different, eg. once you have bonded/selected a device it usually appears as a COM Port, then it is a simple matter of opening/closing/read/write to that port. On WIn32, I don't know.

Some devices like PDA's use OBEX to transfer files, maybe that could be used, maybe not !!!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Tariffs have nothing to do with this pricing. It was always intended to be slightly more expensive then the S25+
    • Hello, The static link still downloads 10.3.2040.0 from May 22, 2025. The 10.3.2412.0 version can be downloaded directly from emclient.com/dist/v10.3.2412/setup.msi. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • Hello, Yes, and yes. More specifically, there are lots of features in Windows that I do not use--I cannot recall the last time I needed to run EUDCEDIT.EXE or ODBCAD32.EXE on a computer I own, but I'm sure that for some people they are useful, and for a smaller set of people they might even be indispensable. I don't begrudge Microsoft for including them as part of the standard Windows installation nor the people who need such tools; sometimes it is convenient to have some little utility or feature readily available. One thing I do begrudge is Microsoft's over-reliance on its own telemetry, and perhaps surpisingly on the flip side, customers who disable it. Collecting telemetry is generally a good thing, if it is done for good reasons and does not include any customer PII. However, how you interpret that telemetry is even more important, as that can lead to all sorts of disastrous decisions. On the customer side of things, telemetry is your "vote:" it's how you tell companies what features you use in the program, and lets them prioritize things appropriately. One glaring example is Windows 8, which shipped with the full-screen Start Screen because Microsoft's telemetry told them the average Windows user pressed the Windows key to bring up the Start Menu less than once a day. I have often wondered how many "power users" of previous versions of Windows (XP, Vista, and 7) that relied on the Start Menu disabled the telemetry that would have told Microsoft a difference story about its usage. More recently, I came across a young lady who had a problem with a third-party sync program on her computer running Windows 7. An update for the utility removed Windows 7 compatibility, and broke her backup process. Now, support for Windows 7 ended over 5 years ago in 2020, but there are ISVs who still support their software on it, but decisions about stuff like that are made, in part, by knowing what percentage of your customer base is on what operating system version. When I asked about that, she mentioned she had specifically disabled the telemetry from the sync program to its developers, which was optional to begin with. What made things even worse was that this was an open source utility, and its authors had a very clear, well-designed and scoped policy on the telemetry they collected, the pains they went through to avoid collecting any PII, and even other ancillary risks involving information disclosure (like just using of the software) because of the network connection made for the checks. Yet, she took herself out of telling the project maintainers "Hey, I use your software and I'm running Windows 7" by disabling the telemetry checks, which could have let them know they needed to continue supporting it. In a sense, sending telemetry is just like voting: Individually, you may not think it matters much, but it is often the basis for very important decisions. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • Hello, My thoughts on this are mixed. Microsoft has hosted malicious code in the Microsoft Update Catalog where third party device drivers are stored; I wrote about one such incident about fifteen years ago, so if there are any other old malicious drivers floating around in the catalog, this will be a good step towards preventing any infestations from reoccurring. Another thing, which surprisingly is not mentioned in Microsoft's announcement, is that this helps protect against BYOVD (Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver) attacks, where malware either comes with or downloads an older device drivers with vulnerabilities in it that can be exploited to gain access to kernel memory. Removing all those old device drivers from the Windows Update Catalog, potentially with all sorts of undisclosed vulnerabilities in them, means an attacker can no longer leisurely count on being able to download them from Microsoft's servers--something that may go unnoticed or ignored by security analysts. This makes the adversary attack a little more noisy, since they have to either include the device driver with the rest of their initial payload or download it from a third-party site at some point prior to beginning their BYOVD attack. On the other hand, it means that people who are looking for a specific version of an older device driver for whatever legitimate reasons, like compatibility, performance or stability, may end up going to dodgy third-party sites in search of older drivers, which increases the risk of exposure to everything from nuisance advertisements and unwanted software to actual malicious code. As for me, I have keeping copies of all the device drivers, firmware updates, etc. I have downloaded over the years, some dating back to DOS and Windows 3.x era, not just for hardware I won, but popular things like unified chipset and video card drivers, just in case I ever needed it. It might seem silly to collect such a thing, but the hardware drivers, firmware updates, and documentation are just about 2 TB in size. From my perspective, it is an inexpensive form of insurance, especially given that disk space is always getting cheaper over time. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • @Raze Bold it boy. (I admit, we all did it from time to time..)
  • Recent Achievements

    • Contributor
      GravityDead went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Week One Done
      BlakeBringer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Helen Shafer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      emptyother earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Crunchy6 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      660
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      266
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      235
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      164
    5. 5
      +FloatingFatMan
      149
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!