How to know if files have been changed? - c++

I'm writing a custom C++ program that copies files only if they were changed in the source since the last time they were copied. So I need to know if files in my specific folder were changed.
I was originally thinking about calculating SHA-1 hash on those files, but then this probably means that I have to do this on the entire folder. Plus, what if the size of those files is 100GB. That would mean that I have to calculate SHA-1 on 100GB of data that would probably take some time.
So I'm curious if there's a better way to do this?


You have at least a couple of possibilities.
One would be to use NTFS change journals to track what files have been modified.
Each file also has an "archive" flag associated with it. This is typically used by backup programs. Any time you write to a file, the flag is set. When you copy/back it up, you clear the flag. When you want to see what files to copy/backup, you just check whether the flag is set or clear. Obvious problem: collisions with other backup programs.
There is also a ReadDirectoryChangesW1. This, however, can only detect changes that happen while your code that uses it is running. So, to use it to track changes you need to do something like setting up a service that runs in the background all the time to keep track of changes. Depending on the file and how it gets modified, it's still possible for even this to miss changes that happen during boot (before your service starts executing).
I've listed these in roughly descending order of how well they seem to fit your needs--i.e., change journals are almost certainly the best fit, the archive flag second and ReadDirectoryChangesW (by quite a large margin) the worst fit for your apparent needs.
1. There's also an older FindFirstChangeNotification/FindNextChangeNotification, but they're less versatile and have all the same shortcomings as ReadDirectoryChangesW. At one time they were useful for code that needed to be compatible with Windows 95/98/SE (since those didn't include ReadDirectoryChangesW) but it's been years since there was a good reason to use them.


In comments for other answers, you've stated that you can't use a file-monitoring API (such as FindFirstChangeNotification) since your code may not be running at the time the change occurs.
I would suggest a multi-pronged approach.
If your application is running, use the file monitoring APIs to detect new changes.
On startup or when a new disk appears, check to see if the file size is the same as before. If it isn't, then you know you have a change.
If the file size is the same, you could use the file's archive flags to determine if it has changed. However, the archive flag is easily altered by users and therefore you probably shouldn't rely on it.
Use the file's last altered timestamp. This can be modified by users, but it's more difficult to do.
Use a hash to determine if the file has changed. The hash you pick depends on how important it is to detect changes. If it isn't critical something like CRC32 or MD5 would be sufficient. If it needs to be secure, consider SHA-256. Consider breaking large files into chunks. That way you don't have to hash the whole file before getting a "this changed" result.
This tiered approach lets you skip the expensive hashing whenever you can.


If you want to do it in "real-time", Windows has a native API for that. FindFirstChangeNotifcation()

Related

How to lower a files length by chopping off its beginning rather than the end part?

I've been using SetFilePointer/SetEndOfFile to manage the size of the memory mapped files I got. I've had a bunch of trouble with windows filesystem responding to the rapid changes I sometimes need to make but I think I finally got a hang of it.
Currently it seems like the best solution would be to make a new file each time I need to grow/shrink my data (it needs to temporarily coexist with the old file) but another potential solution would be if I could extend the file and after the old section loses its significance just cut it out. That would make it all neat and tidy.
I couldn't find any reference as to how I could actually do it though. Also would it be possible to preserve the map views (pointing to the same new part despite their actual position in regards to file start being different) throughout the resizing effort?

Compiling on-demand executables

GoToMeeting's gotomeeting.com/join has an interesting behavior - when you visit a meeting URL directly you're required to download a new exe binary file which, when executed, has the meeting ID already integrated and will auto-launch the program without you needing to input a meeting ID.
My first thought is that this was incorporated into the metadata of the executable, but closer inspection leads me to believe that these exes are compiled with the meeting ID.
So here are a few questions:
Are they building/compiling on the fly?
If so, isn't there massive overhead to implementing this?
This has to be a massive security risk, right?
So assuming I am silly enough to attempt something like this - is there a safe way to be issuing make, etc. from my web-based framework? My gut tells me there isn't.
I've read the following SO questions which tell me that this kind of question is typically met with much ire:
fast on-demand c++ compilation
Silverlight on-demand compilation/Build

I don't see why you say that issuing make from within your web-based framework must necessarily be insecure. It may, but it may not. It will almost certainly be slow and will probably result in unacceptable delays.
The more sensible approach, in my opinion, is to have the executable already compiled, with a "blob" of reserved data in the resulting file into which you substitute the actual data you want and then sign the resulting file.
This will likely be significantly faster than compiling and easier to implement to boot!

Writing raw data "signature" to disk without corrupting filesystem

I am trying to create a program that will write a series of 10-30 letters/numbers to a disk in raw format (not to a file that the OS will read). Perhaps to make my attempt clearer, if you were to open the disk in a hex editor, you would see the 10-30 letters/numbers but a file manager such as Windows Explorer would not see it (because the data is not a file).
My goal is to be able to "sign" a disk with a series of characters and to be able to read and write that "signature" in my program. I understand NTFS signs its partitions with a NTFS flag as do other file systems and I have to be careful to not write my signature to any of those critical parts.
Are there any libraries in C++/C that could help me write at a low level to a disk and how will I know a safe sector to start writing my signature to? To narrow this down, it only needs to be able to write to NTFS, FAT, FAT32, FAT16 and exFAT file systems and run on Windows. Any links or references are greatly appreciated!
Edit: After some research, USB drives allow only 1 partition without applying hacking tricks that would unfold further problems for the user. This rules out the "partition idea" unfortunately.

First, as the commenters said, you should look at why you're trying to do this, and see if it's really a good idea. Most apps which try to circumvent the normal UI the user has for using his/her computer are "bad", in various ways.
That said, you could try finding a well-known file which will always be on the system and has some slack in the block size for the disk, and write to the slack. I don't think most filesystems would care about extra data in the slack, and it would probably even be copied if the file happens to be relocated (more efficient to copy the whole block at the disk level).
Just a thought; dunno how feasible it would be, but seems like it could work in theory.

Though I think this is generally a pretty poor idea, the obvious way to do it would be to mark a cluster as "bad", then use it for your own purposes.
Problems with that:
Marking it as bad is non-trivial (on NTFS bad clusters are stored in a file named something like $BadClus, but it's not accessible to user code (and I'm not even sure it's accessible to a device driver either).
There are various programs to scan for (and attempt to repair) bad clusters/sectors. Since we don't even believe this one is really bad, almost any of these that works at all will find that it's good and put it back into use.
Most of the reasons people think of doing things like this (like tying a particular software installation to a particular computer) are pretty silly anyway.
You'd have to scan through all the "bad" sectors to see if any of them contained your signature.

This is very dangerous, however, zero-fill programs do the same thing so you can google how to wipe your hard drive with zero's in C++.
The hard part is finding a place you KNOW is unused and won't be used.

What to do about a 11000 lines C++ source file?

So we have this huge (is 11000 lines huge?) mainmodule.cpp source file in our project and every time I have to touch it I cringe.
As this file is so central and large, it keeps accumulating more and more code and I can't think of a good way to make it actually start to shrink.
The file is used and actively changed in several (> 10) maintenance versions of our product and so it is really hard to refactor it. If I were to "simply" split it up, say for a start, into 3 files, then merging back changes from maintenance versions will become a nightmare. And also if you split up a file with such a long and rich history, tracking and checking old changes in the SCC history suddenly becomes a lot harder.
The file basically contains the "main class" (main internal work dispatching and coordination) of our program, so every time a feature is added, it also affects this file and every time it grows. :-(
What would you do in this situation? Any ideas on how to move new features to a separate source file without messing up the SCC workflow?
(Note on the tools: We use C++ with Visual Studio; We use AccuRev as SCC but I think the type of SCC doesn't really matter here; We use Araxis Merge to do actual comparison and merging of files)

Merging will not be such a big nightmare as it will be when you'll get 30000 LOC file in the future. So:
Stop adding more code to that file.
Split it.
If you can't just stop coding during refactoring process, you could leave this big file as is for a while at least without adding more code to it: since it contains one "main class" you could inherit from it and keep inherited class(es) with overloaded functions in several new small and well designed files.

Find some code in the file which is relatively stable (not changing fast, and doesn't vary much between branches) and could stand as an independent unit. Move this into its own file, and for that matter into its own class, in all branches. Because it's stable, this won't cause (many) "awkward" merges that have to be applied to a different file from the one they were originally made on, when you merge the change from one branch to another. Repeat.
Find some code in the file which basically only applies to a small number of branches, and could stand alone. Doesn't matter whether it's changing fast or not, because of the small number of branches. Move this into its own classes and files. Repeat.
So, we've got rid of the code that's the same everywhere, and the code that's specific to certain branches.
This leaves you with a nucleus of badly-managed code - it's needed everywhere, but it's different in every branch (and/or it changes constantly so that some branches are running behind others), and yet it's in a single file that you're unsuccessfully trying to merge between branches. Stop doing that. Branch the file permanently, perhaps by renaming it in each branch. It's not "main" any more, it's "main for configuration X". OK, so you lose the ability to apply the same change to multiple branches by merging, but this is in any case the core of code where merging doesn't work very well. If you're having to manually manage the merges anyway to deal with conflicts, then it's no loss to manually apply them independently on each branch.
I think you're wrong to say that the kind of SCC doesn't matter, because for example git's merging abilities are probably better than the merge tool you're using. So the core problem, "merging is difficult" occurs at different times for different SCCs. However, you're unlikely to be able to change SCCs, so the issue is probably irrelevant.

It sounds to me like you're facing a number of code smells here. First of all the main class appears to violate the open/closed principle. It also sounds like it is handling too many responsibilities. Due to this I would assume the code to be more brittle than it needs to be.
While I can understand your concerns regarding traceability following a refactoring, I would expect that this class is rather hard to maintain and enhance and that any changes you do make are likely to cause side effects. I would assume that the cost of these outweighs the cost of refactoring the class.
In any case, since the code smells will only get worse with time, at least at some point the cost of these will outweigh the cost of refactoring. From your description I would assume that you're past the tipping point.
Refactoring this should be done in small steps. If possible add automated tests to verify current behavior before refactoring anything. Then pick out small areas of isolated functionality and extract these as types in order to delegate the responsibility.
In any case, it sounds like a major project, so good luck :)

The only solution I have ever imagined to such problems follows. The actual gain by the described method is progressiveness of the evolutions. No revolutions here, otherwise you'll be in trouble very fast.
Insert a new cpp class above the original main class. For now, it would basically redirect all calls to the current main class, but aim at making the API of this new class as clear and succinct as possible.
Once this has been done, you get the possibility to add new functionalities in new classes.
As for existing functionalities, you have to progressively move them in new classes as they become stable enough. You will lose SCC help for this piece of code, but there is not much that can be done about that. Just pick the right timing.
I know this is not perfect, though I hope it can help, and the process must be adapted to your needs!
Additional information
Note that Git is an SCC that can follow pieces of code from one file to another. I have heard good things about it, so it could help while you are progressively moving your work.
Git is constructed around the notion of blobs which, if I understand correctly, represent pieces of code files. Move these pieces around in different files and Git will find them, even if you modify them. Apart from the video from Linus Torvalds mentioned in comments below, I have not been able to find something clear about this.

Confucius say: "first step to getting out of hole is to stop digging hole."

Let me guess: Ten clients with divergent feature sets and a sales manager that promotes "customization"? I've worked on products like that before. We had essentially the same problem.
You recognize that having an enormous file is trouble, but even more trouble is ten versions that you have to keep "current". That's multiple maintenance. SCC can make that easier, but it can't make it right.
Before you try to break the file into parts, you need to bring the ten branches back in sync with each other so that you can see and shape all the code at once. You can do this one branch at a time, testing both branches against the same main code file. To enforce the custom behavior, you can use #ifdef and friends, but it's better as much as possible to use ordinary if/else against defined constants. This way, your compiler will verify all types and most probably eliminate "dead" object code anyway. (You may want to turn off the warning about dead code, though.)
Once there's only one version of that file shared implicitly by all branches, then it's rather easier to begin traditional refactoring methods.
The #ifdefs are primarily better for sections where the affected code only makes sense in the context of other per-branch customizations. One may argue that these also present an opportunity for the same branch-merging scheme, but don't go hog-wild. One colossal project at a time, please.
In the short run, the file will appear to grow. This is OK. What you're doing is bringing things together that need to be together. Afterwards, you'll begin to see areas that are clearly the same regardless of version; these can be left alone or refactored at will. Other areas will clearly differ depending on the version. You have a number of options in this case. One method is to delegate the differences to per-version strategy objects. Another is to derive client versions from a common abstract class. But none of these transformations are possible as long as you have ten "tips" of development in different branches.

I don't know if this solves your problem, but what I guess you want to do is migrate the content of the file to smaller files independent of each other (summed up).
What I also get is that you have about 10 different versions of the software floating around and you need to support them all without messing things up.
First of all there is just no way that this is easy and will solve itself in a few minutes of brainstorming. The functions linked in your file are all vital to your application, and simply cutting them of and migrating them to other files won't save your problem.
I think you only have these options:
Don't migrate and stay with what you have. Possibly quit your job and start working on serious software with good design in addition. Extreme programming is not always the best solution if you are working on a long time project with enough funds to survive a crash or two.
Work out a layout of how you would love your file to look once it's split up. Create the necessary files and integrate them in your application. Rename the functions or overload them to take an additional parameter (maybe just a simple boolean?).
Once you have to work on your code, migrate the functions you need to work on to the new file and map the function calls of the old functions to the new functions.
You should still have your main-file this way, and still be able to see the changes that were made to it, once it comes to a specific function you know exactly when it was outsourced and so on.
Try to convince your co-workers with some good cake that workflow is overrated and that you need to rewrite some parts of the application in order to do serious business.

Exactly this problem is handled in one of the chapters of the book "Working Effectively with Legacy Code" (http://www.amazon.com/Working-Effectively-Legacy-Michael-Feathers/dp/0131177052).

I think you would be best off creating a set of command classes that map to the API points of the mainmodule.cpp.
Once they are in place, you will need to refactor the existing code base to access these API points via the command classes, once that's done, you are free to refactor each command's implementation into a new class structure.
Of course, with a single class of 11 KLOC the code in there is probably highly coupled and brittle, but creating individual command classes will help much more than any other proxy/facade strategy.
I don't envy the task, but as time goes on this problem will only get worse if it's not tackled.
Update
I'd suggest that the Command pattern is preferable to a Facade.
Maintaining/organizing a lot of different Command classes over a (relatively) monolithic Facade is preferable. Mapping a single Facade onto a 11 KLOC file will probably need to be broken up into a few different groups itself.
Why bother trying to figure out these facade groups? With the Command pattern you will be able to group and organise these small classes organically, so you have a lot more flexibility.
Of course, both options are better than the single 11 KLOC and growing, file.

One important advice: Do not mix refactoring and bugfixes. What you want is a Version of your program that is identical to the previous version, except that the source code is differently.
One way could be to start splitting up the least big function/part into it's own file and then either include with a header (thus turning main.cpp into a list of #includes, which sounds a code smell in itself *I'm not a C++ Guru though), but at least it's now split into files).
You could then try to switch all maintenance releases over to the "new" main.cpp or whatever your structure is. Again: No other changes or Bugfixes because tracking those is confusing as hell.
Another thing: As much as you may desire making one big pass at refactoring the whole thing in one go, you might bite off more than you can chew. Maybe just pick one or two "parts", get them into all the releases, then add some more value for your customer (after all, Refactoring does not add direct value so it is a cost that has to be justified) and then pick another one or two parts.
Obviously that requires some discipline in the team to actually use the split files and not just add new stuff to the main.cpp all the time, but again, trying to do one massive refactor may not be the best course of action.

Rofl, this reminds me of my old job. It seems that, before I joined, everything was inside one huge file (also C++). Then they've split it up (at completely random points using includes) into about three (still huge files). The quality of this software was, as you might expect, horrible. The project totaled at about 40k LOC. (containing almost no comments but LOTS of duplicate code)
In the end I did a complete rewrite of the project. I started by redoing the worst part of the project from scratch. Of course I had in mind a possible (small) interface between this new part and the rest. Then I did insert this part into the old project. I didn't refactor the old code to create the interface necessary, but just replaced it. Then I took made small steps from there, rewriting the old code.
I have to say that this took about half a year and there was no development of the old code base beside bugfixes during that time.
edit:
The size stayed at about 40k LOC but the new application contained many more features and presumably less bugs in its initial version than the 8 year old software. One reason of the rewrite was also that we needed the new features and introducing them inside the old code was nearly impossible.
The software was for an embedded system, a label printer.
Another point that I should add is that in theory the project was C++. But it wasn't OO at all, it could have been C. The new version was object oriented.

OK so for the most part rewriting API of production code is a bad idea as a start. Two things need to happen.
One, you need to actually have your team decide to do a code freeze on current production version of this file.
Two, you need to take this production version and create a branch that manages the builds using preprocessing directives to split up the big file. Splitting the compilation using JUST preprocessor directives (#ifdefs, #includes, #endifs) is easier than recoding the API. It's definitely easier for your SLAs and ongoing support.
Here you could simply cut out functions that relate to a particular subsystem within the class and put them in a file say mainloop_foostuff.cpp and include it in mainloop.cpp at the right location.
OR
A more time consuming but robust way would be to devise an internal dependencies structure with double-indirection in how things get included. This will allow you to split things up and still take care of co-dependencies. Note that this approach requires positional coding and therefore should be coupled with appropriate comments.
This approach would include components that get used based on which variant you are compiling.
The basic structure is that your mainclass.cpp will include a new file called MainClassComponents.cpp after a block of statements like the following:
#if VARIANT == 1
# define Uses_Component_1
# define Uses_Component_2
#elif VARIANT == 2
# define Uses_Component_1
# define Uses_Component_3
# define Uses_Component_6
...
#endif
#include "MainClassComponents.cpp"
The primary structure of the MainClassComponents.cpp file would be there to work out dependencies within the sub components like this:
#ifndef _MainClassComponents_cpp
#define _MainClassComponents_cpp
/* dependencies declarations */
#if defined(Activate_Component_1)
#define _REQUIRES_COMPONENT_1
#define _REQUIRES_COMPONENT_3 /* you also need component 3 for component 1 */
#endif
#if defined(Activate_Component_2)
#define _REQUIRES_COMPONENT_2
#define _REQUIRES_COMPONENT_15 /* you also need component 15 for this component */
#endif
/* later on in the header */
#ifdef _REQUIRES_COMPONENT_1
#include "component_1.cpp"
#endif
#ifdef _REQUIRES_COMPONENT_2
#include "component_2.cpp"
#endif
#ifdef _REQUIRES_COMPONENT_3
#include "component_3.cpp"
#endif
#endif /* _MainClassComponents_h */
And now for each component you create a component_xx.cpp file.
Of course i am using numbers but you should use something more logical based on your code.
Using preprocessor allows you to split things up without having to worry about API changes which is a nightmare in production.
Once you have production settled you can then actually work on redesign.

Well I understand your pain :) I've been in a few such projects as well and it's not pretty. There is no easy answer for this.
One approach that may work for you is to start adding safe guards in all functions, that is, checking arguments, pre/post-conditions in methods, then eventually adding unit tests all in order to capture the current functionality of the sources. Once you have this you are better equipped to re-factor the code because you will have asserts and errors popping up alerting you if you have forgotten something.
Sometimes though there are times when refactoring just may bring more pain than benefit. Then it may be better to just leave the original project and in a pseudo maintenance state and start from scratch and then incrementally adding the functionality from the beast.

You should not be concerned with reducing the file-size, but rather with reducing the class-size. It comes down to almost the same, but makes you look at the problem from a different angle (as #Brian Rasmussen suggests, your class seems to have to many responsibilities).

What you have is a classic example a known design antipattern called the blob. Take some time to read the article I point here, and maybe you may find something useful. Besides, if this project is as big as it looks, you should consider some design to prevent growing into code that you can't control.

This isn't an answer to the big problem, but a theoretical solution to a specific piece of it:
Figure out where you want to split the big file into subfiles. Put comments in some special format at each of those points.
Write a fairly trivial script that will break the file apart into subfiles at those points. (Perhaps the special comments have embedded filenames that the script can use as instructions for how to split it.) It should preserve the comments as part of the splitting.
Run the script. Delete the original file.
When you need to merge from a branch, first recreate the big file by concatenating the pieces back together, do the merge, and then re-split it.
Also, if you want to preserve the SCC file history, I expect the best way to do that is to tell your source control system that the individual piece files are copies of the original. Then it will preserve the history of the sections that were kept in that file, although of course it will also record that large parts were "deleted".

One way to split it without too much danger would be to take a historic look at all the line changes. Are there certain functions that are more stable than others? Hot spots of change if you will.
If a line hasn't been changed in a few years you can probably move it to another file without too much worry. I'd take a look at the source annotated with the last revision that touched a given line and see if there are any functions you could pull out.

Wow, sounds great. I think explaining to your boss, that you need a lot of time to refactor the beast is worth a try. If he doesn't agree, quitting is an option.
Anyway, what I suggest is basically throwing out all the implementation and regrouping it into new modules, let's call those "global services". The "main module" would only forward to those services and ANY new code you write will use them instead of the "main module". This should be feasible in a reasonable amount of time (because it's mostly copy and paste), you don't break existing code and you can do it one maintenance version at a time. And if you still have any time left, you can spend it refactoring all old depending modules to also use the global services.

Do not ever touch this file and the code again!
Treat is like something you are stuck with. Start writing adapters for the functionality encoded there.
Write new code in different units and talk only to adapters which encapsulate the functionality of the monster.
... if only one of the above is not possible, quit the job and get you a new one.

My sympathies - in my previous job I encountered a similar situation with a file that was several times larger than the one you have to deal with. Solution was:
Write code to exhaustively test the function in the program in question. Sounds like you won't already have this in hand...
Identify some code that can be abstracted out into a helper/utilities class. Need not be big, just something that is not truly part of your 'main' class.
Refactor the code identified in 2. into a separate class.
Rerun your tests to ensure nothing got broken.
When you have time, goto 2. and repeat as required to make the code manageable.
The classes you build in step 3. iterations will likely grow to absorb more code that is appropriate to their newly-clear function.
I could also add:
0: buy Michael Feathers' book on working with legacy code
Unfortunately this type of work is all too common, but my experience is that there is great value in being able to make working but horrid code incrementally less horrid while keeping it working.

Consider ways to rewrite the entire application in a more sensible way. Maybe rewrite a small section of it as a prototype to see if your idea is feasible.
If you've identified a workable solution, refactor the application accordingly.
If all attempts to produce a more rational architecture fail, then at least you know the solution is probably in redefining the program's functionality.

My 0.05 eurocents:
Re-design the whole mess, split it into subsystems taking into account the technical and business requirements (=many parallel maintenance tracks with potentially different codebase for each, there is obviously a need for high modifiability, etc.).
When splitting into subsystems, analyze the places which have most changed and separate those from the unchanging parts. This should show you the trouble-spots. Separate the most changing parts to their own modules (e.g. dll) in such a way that the module API can be kept intact and you don't need to break BC all the time. This way you can deploy different versions of the module for different maintenance branches, if needed, while having the core unchanged.
The redesign will likely need to be a separate project, trying to do it to a moving target will not work.
As for the source code history, my opinion: forget it for the new code. But keep the history somewhere so you can check it, if needed. I bet you won't need it that much after the beginning.
You most likely need to get management buy-in for this project. You can argue perhaps with faster development time, less bugs, easier maintaining and less overall chaos. Something along the lines of "Proactively enable the future-proofness and maintenance viability of our critical software assets" :)
This is how I'd start to tackle the problem at least.

Start by adding comments to it. With reference to where functions are called and if you can move things around. This can get things moving. You really need to assess how brittle the code base it. Then move common bits of functionality together. Small changes at a time.

Another book you may find interesting/helpful is Refactoring.

Something I find useful to do (and I'm doing it now although not at the scale you face), is to extract methods as classes (method object refactoring). The methods that differ across your different versions will become different classes which can be injected into a common base to provide the different behaviour you need.

I found this sentence to be the most interesting part of your post:
> The file is used and actively changed in several (> 10) maintenance versions of our product and so it is really hard to refactor it
First, I would recommend that you use a source control system for developing these 10 + maintenance versions that supports branching.
Second, I would create ten branches (one for each of your maintenance versions).
I can feel you cringing already! But either your source control isn't working for your situation because of a lack of features, or it's not being used correctly.
Now to the branch you work on - refactor it as you see fit, safe in the knowledge that you'll not upset the other nine branches of your product.
I would be a bit concerned that you have so much in your main() function.
In any projects I write, I would use main() only perform initialization of core objects - like a simulation or application object - these classes is where the real work should go on.
I would also initialize an application logging object in main for use globally throughout the program.
Finally, in main I also add leak detection code in preprocessor blocks that ensure it's only enabled in DEBUG builds. This is all I would add to main(). Main() should be short!
You say that
> The file basically contains the "main class" (main internal work dispatching and coordination) of our program
It sounds like these two tasks could be split into two separate objects - a co-ordinator and a work dispatcher.
When you split these up, you may mess up your "SCC workflow", but it sounds like adhering stringently to your SCC workflow is causing software maintenance problems. Ditch it, now and don't look back, because as soon as you fix it, you'll begin to sleep easy.
If you're not able to make the decision, fight tooth and nail with your manager for it - your application needs to be refactored - and badly by the sounds of it! Don't take no for an answer!

As you've described it, the main issue is diffing pre-split vs post-split, merging in bug fixes etc.. Tool around it. It won't take that long to hardcode a script in Perl, Ruby, etc. to rip out most of the noise from diffing pre-split against a concatenation of post-split. Do whatever's easiest in terms of handling noise:
remove certain lines pre/during concatenation (e.g. include guards)
remove other stuff from the diff output if necessary
You could even make it so whenever there's a checkin, the concatenation runs and you've got something prepared to diff against the single-file versions.

"The file basically contains the "main class" (main internal work dispatching and coordination) of our program, so every time a feature is added, it also affects this file and every time it grows."
If that big SWITCH (which I think there is) becomes the main maintenance problem, you could refactor it to use dictionary and the Command pattern and remove all switch logic from the existing code to the loader, which populates that map, i.e.:
// declaration
std::map<ID, ICommand*> dispatchTable;
...
// populating using some loader
dispatchTable[id] = concreteCommand;
...
// using
dispatchTable[id]->Execute();

I think the easiest way to track the history of source when splitting a file would be something like this:
Make copies of the original source code, using whatever history-preserving copy commands your SCM system provides. You'll probably need to submit at this point, but there's no need yet to tell your build system about the new files, so that should be ok.
Delete code from these copies. That should not break the history for the lines you keep.

I think what I would do in this situation is bit the bullet and:
Figure out how I wanted to split the file up (based on the current development version)
Put an administrative lock on the file ("Nobody touch mainmodule.cpp after 5pm Friday!!!"
Spend your long weekend applying that change to the >10 maintenance versions (from oldest to newest), up to and including the current version.
Delete mainmodule.cpp from all supported versions of the software. It's a new Age - there is no more mainmodule.cpp.
Convince Management that you shouldn't be supporting more than one maintenance version of the software (at least without a big $$$ support contract). If each of your customers have their own unique version.... yeeeeeshhhh. I'd be adding compiler directives rather than trying to maintain 10+ forks.
Tracking old changes to the file is simply solved by your first check-in comment saying something like "split from mainmodule.cpp". If you need to go back to something recent, most people will remember the change, if it's 2 year from now, the comment will tell them where to look. Of course, how valuable will it be to go back more than 2 years to look at who changed the code and why?

What is the best way I should go about creating a program to store information into a file, edit the information in that file, and add new information

I'm about to start on a little project i'm trying to do where I create a C++ program to store inventory data into a file ( I guess a .txt will do )
• Item Description • Quantity on Hand
• Wholesale Cost • Retail Cost • Date
Added to Inventory
I need to be able to:
• Add new records to the file
• Display any record in the file
• Change any record in the file
Is there anything I should know of before I start this that could make this much more easy & efficient...
Like for example, should I try and use XML or what that be too hard to work with via C++?
I've never really understood the most efficient way of doing this.
Like would I search through the file and look for things in brackets or something?
EDIT
The datasize shouldn't be too large. It is for homework I guess you could say. I want to write the struct's contents into a file's route, how would I go about doing that?

There are many approaches. Is this for homework or for real use? If it's for homework, there are probably some restrictions on what you may use.
Otherwise I suggest some embedded DBMS like SQLite. There are others too, but this will be the most powerful solution, and will also have the easiest implementation.
XML is also acceptable, and has many reusable implementations available, but it will start loosing performance once you go into thousands of records. The same goes for JSON. And one might still debat which one is simpler - JSON or XML.
Another possibility is to create a struct and write its contents directly to the file. Will get tricky though if the record size is not constant. And, if the record format changes, the file will need to be rebuilt. Otherwise this solution could be one of the best performance-wise - if implemented carefully.

Could you please enlighten us why don't you want to use a database engine for it?
If it is just for learning then.... give us please an estimated size of stored data in that file and the access pattern (how many users, how often they do it etc.)?
The challenge will be to create an efficient search and modification code.
For the search, it's about data structures and organization.
For the modification, it's how would you write updates to the file without reading it completely into memory, updating it there and then writing it again completely back to the file.

If this is a project that will actually be used, with the potential to have features added over time, go for a database solution from the start, even if it seems overkill. I've been down this road before, small features get added over time, and before you realize it you have implemented a database. Poorly. Bite the bullet and use a database.
If this is a learning exercise, it depends on the amount of data you want to store. If it is small, the easiest thing to do is read the entire file into memory and operate on it there. When changes are made, write the entire file back out to disk. If the data is too large to do that, the next best thing is to have fixed sized records. Create a POD struct that contains all of the data (i.e., no pointers, stl containers, etc). Then you can rewrite individual records without needed to rewrite the entire file. If neither of these will work, your best bet is a database solution.

If you insist to do it manually, I suggest JSON instead of XML.
Also, consider sqlite.

This sounds like a perfect job for SQLite. Small, fast, flexible and easy to use.