I've an executable with a lot of dll from which it import function. I need to know if there's a way to insert the code of .dll inside the .exe to make it free from others file,so to have just the executable distributed.
Thanks to who'll answer.
The point of a DLL (Dynamic Link Library) is that it is separate from the executable. There's no conventional way to do so since the DLL is precompiled, meaning that a compiler cannot reference the source code and directly compile it to your executable.
If you have the source of the library, you can compile the library statically with your executable and then they will all be output into a single executable file.
Yes, that's possible, but you need 3rd party tools. You need so-called "exe bundle", just google it.
You need to check why did you created a dll in the first place . http://cs-fundamentals.com/tech-interview/c/difference-between-static-and-dynamic-linking.php . Changing from dll to static linking lib might defeat some basic design purpose .
Quinn Kirwan has provided the right answer, you need the source code of all the dll's that you have linked to your exe. Then you have to go to the project properties and liker properties and select the option to statically link the dll's. On successful steps you will get a single exe. Please note that the size of this exe will be much larger than the one you have now. Because all the functionality provided by the dll's will be part of the exe now.
Thanks
Related
I currently have a C# project that uses a 32 bit dll. What I am trying to do is to use the dll in a C++ project , unfortunately the dll referenced in the project does not come with a .h or .lib file so I am confused on how I could access the classes in the dll or use the dll file in my project in C++ (Visual Studio 2010) . I read here that if a dll file contains classes its a good chance it might be a COM component.Any suggestions on what I should be looking at in order to integrate and consume methods and objects in that dll.
Update:
I checked if it was a COM by doing an import statement. However I get a "cannot find .tlb file". Then I decided to use dependency walker to check for any exported methods (objects)it seems there are none. I clicked on the main file (which has been highlighted) and couldn't see any exported functions. Any hints on what I should check for next ?. Here is what I get from dependency walker.
With only a .dll and without a corresponding .h or .exp, one place that you might try looking would be the exports table. Tools such as Dependency Walker can show you this information.
One caveat with Dependency Walker is that you'll want to use the right version (x86 or x86_64) for the binary (your DLL). If you're not sure, pick one version and try loading it. Under the CPU column, middle panel, look to see if it says "x64" or "x86" to determine which one you should be using.
With the provided screenshot of Dependency Walker (indicating a dependency on MSCOREE.DLL), I agree with Eugene - this is most likely a .NET library, not a COM library. You will want to check one of the other questions about calling .NET managed code from C/C++.
The dll is most likely a .Net assembly (seeing that it imports mscoree.dll), so you probably want this: How do I call a .NET assembly from C/C++?
Kind of a simple question, but when I compile an application I'd like to make it so the user doesn't need all the dll's/shared objects and can just have one standalone executable. How do I do this? Either in a Makefile or in CodeBlocks' settings.
If you have the source, or if you have the right kind of .lib file, you can statically link. (Note, however, that DLLs also sometimes come with a .lib file, and that file is just a shim for calling into the DLL.) If you can statically link, you'll have a single executable.
Other than that, make an install directory and put the DLL into the same directory as the executable. That's the easiest way.
There's probably a trick where you could inject the DLL into executable and write a custom loader that would act like a DLL, but you really don't want to go down that path.
You can use a static link library instead of a DLL if you have the source code.
I have compiled my Qt application and now have the following question - now my built project requires QtCore4.dll and QtGui4.dll to be located at the same folder where the .exe file is. (I built my project using MSVS2008 with Qt addon)
Q:
Is there any way to combine my final application with these .dll files so that they make one large .exe-file? (I simply don't want to have another bunch of dll files with my release - app)
Thank you.
You need to build and link to Qt statically.
Edit: Here's an updated link to at least similar information.
Bundle them into a self-extracting .exe (e.g. using 7zip) which extracts all files to a temporary directory, runs the program, then deletes the files after the program exits.
This will be easier, less time consuming and less legally constraining than statically linking Qt as previously suggested.
Of course you could statically link someway. But the point of using DLL should be to make program smaller (both on disk and in memory, if other apps are using Qt libs of course)... DLL such as those should be systemwide so that other apps needing them can use them. Basically you have to say to people wanting your program to work, to install the Qt framework.
Deploying the other way is explained here, read the part related to Static Linking.
I am currently working with DLL injection and need to have a single hybrid binary that could act as both an executable and a DLL. I thought of maybe writing a DllMain and WinMain function and then compiling it as an executable but I don't know what would happen if I did that. I know that it is posssible to combine a dll and exe by using something like thinstall or extracting the dll to a temporary location then going from there but I don't want to mess with any of that stuff. So basically, is it possible to define a WinMain and Dll Main and then use the resulting executable as both, and if not, is this even possible? Thanks in advance!
No.
Both a DLL and an EXE have a PE (Portable Executable) header. That header has a field IMAGE_FILE_HEADER::Characteristics. Bit 14 of that field is either 0 (for an EXE) or 1 (for a DLL).
Why don't you put all the common code into a static library (.lib) and have both DLL project and EXE project as a very thin wrapper around the static library?
You could create a temporary copy of your executable, patch the PE header and inject this copy. Another way is to put the DLL as binary resource to the executable. On runtime you can write this binary resource to a temporary file and use this for injection.
It is possible to export functions from a exe too. So you should be able to LoadLibrary("foo.exe") followed by GetProcAddress(hFoo,"bar")
We have a (pure native C++) .DLL that is build by VS. As clients we have some native C++ applications and a .Net-Wrapper around this DLL written in C++/CLI. Finally there are some client applications for the .Net-Wrapper written in C#.
My problem is that the native.dll must be distributed in a different way than the .Net world works and the VS does not keeps track of that DLL.
So to let all my C# Apps work correctly I have to copy it to each executable directory or put it somwhere in %PATH% (which I would avoid on developer computers since they may want to start different apps with different versions of the DLL).
Even bigger problems occur if there are UserControls that reference the Wrapper-DLL: You have to copy the DLL to VS's directory or again to %PATH%.
But the worst case occurs with our Translator tool. This tool keeps track of .Net-Assemblies and packs them into Translator-packages that can be send to an external translator. As far as I know there is no way to put the native .DLL into that package!
So I plan to link the native DLL statically into the .Net-Wrapper which would solve my problems.
But for our Native applications this native DLL must still be a DLL.
So I have two options:
Make two projects of that (one that generates a static library; and one that creates a dynamic one => I try to avoid this)
Find a solution to link DLLs statically
Find a way to let VS generate two outputs from one project
In the C++ project file for the dll, create two configurations, one that generates a DLL and one that generates a .lib. Two projects are not necessary, since any .NET/C++ project can support multiple build configurations (this is how Release and Debug versions build differently).
Another option is to have two projects, one project will output a .lib which can be statically linked, and a second project which will output a .dll and will have your .lib as dependency, you should add .def to your .dll with the symbols that you are planning to export, or else it will be empty.
Pick up a copy of DLL to Lib (Edit: If you can't find a cheaper option)
You can generate a dll and export the entry point to a lib using dllexport, this is explained here
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3y1sfaz2.aspx