I have a big native C++ project which is build by many specific and 3rd party libraries in Visual Studio 2013.
I am compiling for both 64 bits and 32 bits architecture.
For the 32 bits architecture I set (for both the 3rd party and our libraries) the XP toolset (v120_xp) to keep the compatibility with Windows XP.
Recently we have updated a library and from the error we receive it looks like some of the library has not been set properly for XP. Is it possible with Dependancy Walker or other tools to detect which is the toolset used to build the DLL or the EXE?
I just need any way to check which library is not XP compatible.
Use dumpbin /headers my_program.exe and look for the operating system version and subsystem version. When building for Windows XP they will be 5.01. When not building for Windows XP they will be 6.00.
(This isn't foolproof--if the DLL or EXE declares that it runs on Windows XP but tries to use Windows APIs that are not available on Windows XP, then obviously the DLL or EXE won't run on Windows XP.)
Related
This is similar to the question here, but it pertains to the unmanaged C++ assemblies, instead of managed .Net ones.
Assuming that my application directory has its own Visual Studio Redistributable 2015 runtime DLLs ( I redistribute the runtime at app directory, just in case the client machine cannot install the VC++ redistributables from Windows update), and the client machine also has Visual Studio Redistributable 2015 package installed. Which one will get loaded, the vcruntime140.dll located at the application directory, or the vcruntime140.dll installed?
Similarly, my application directory has its own set of Universal C Runtime ( Again, I do this out of the reason that some client machines cannot install Universal CRT due to various reasons), and in the case the client machines also have Universal CRT installed, which one will get loaded, the installed Universal CRT DLLs, or the ones at my application directory?
For Windows 10 and Universal CRT, I know that the Universal CRT in the system directory is always used, even if an application includes an application-local copy of the Universal CRT. It's true even when the local copy is newer, because the Universal CRT is a core operating system component on Windows 10.
But I am not sure about other Windows 10, and above Visual Studio C++ redistributable package.
Thus I am looking for answers on all supported Windows versions, including Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10.
Note: I am calling the unmanaged C++ assemblies from .Net, if that matters.
The load order for your CRT dll's are in the following order:
Directory from where app was started
Current directory
System directory
Windows directory
Path environment variables.
You can place your runtime dll's in the app's current dir, and they should load. If you are compiling on Windows 10 and don't want UCRT refrences, compile with /NODEFAULTLIB
Or, you can statically link to the CRT libraries using the compile option /MT
I have written a portable program in C# with certain dependencies (.NET Framework, Visual C++ redistributable, etc) that will run on Windows XP SP3 and up.
Because of that, the program needs a launcher that will run every time before the actual program does, checking that all the required dependencies are installed. If any of the dependencies are missing, an option to download and install that dependency, will be offered. If there are no missing dependencies, then the actual program is executed.
The launcher itself is relatively simple, consisting of some registry checkup and some WinAPI calls to verify the installed dependencies.
The file structure in the end will look something like this:
C#_compiled_portable_program.exe
C++_compiled_launcher.exe // executes on any system as low as a clean Windows XP SP3 install
The problem is that I have no idea how to compile a C++ code in Visual Studio 2013 that will run with absolute bare minimum dependencies (running on the runtime libraries that come with Windows XP SP3, at least).
Take for instance the absolute simplest C++ code:
#include "stdafx.h"
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
printf("Hello world!");
return 0;
}
If I compile this with Visual Studio 2013 with the default configurations, it will not execute on a machine that doesn't have VC++ 2013 installed, showing some nasty errors.
I looked around for similar questions and the closest I could find was
Visual Studio 2010 MSVCR dependency removal?, but the answers are either incomplete or outdated.
So, just like an installer, is it possible to compile a C++ project in Visual Studio 2013 that will run pretty much on any system?
This is not perfect, but will do for now.
This is what I did to make a C++ project, compiled in Visual Studio 2013, execute ona system that doesn't have VC++ 2013 installed.
I created a new C++ project in Visual Studio 2013, File>New>Project>Visual C++>Win32 Console Application
Then in Solution Explorer right click the project and select Properties.
Click the Configuration drop down menu and select All Configurations.
In Configuration Properties>General, set Platform Toolset to Visual Studio 2013 - Windows XP (v120_xp).
With Dependency Walker determine what modules are imported by the compiled exe (the release build, not the debug one). The imported modules should be:
c:\windows\system32\KERNEL32.DLL
c:\windows\system32\MSVCR120.DLL
KERNEL32.DLL is a system file so we don't have to worry about that, and MSVCR120.DLL is the Visual C++ 2013 Runtime Library and we need to distribute this file along with the release build. When the executable needs to load a module, it first looks at its current location for that file and then in PATH (System32, etc). If we copy MSVCR120.DLL at same location the release executable is, then the program will run even on systems without VC++ 2013 installed.
Since the project is a 32-bit application, download VC++ 2013 Redistributable x86, install it on a 32-bit version of Windows (I installed it on a fresh Windows XP virtual machine), and copy c:\windows\system32\MSVCR120.DLL.
Update:
Never mind. You don't have to distribute a copy of VC++ Runtime DLL file, you can just configure the project to link statically to the runtime library.
Here is explained how to do it. You'll still have to change the Platform Toolset though, if you plan on executing on Windows XP.
I compile my C++ source code with Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview. I statically link to the runtime library.
The resulting executable cannot be executed on Windows XP. When I try to execute it on Windows XP I get the error message "[Executable Path] is not a valid Win32 Application.".
According to Microsoft Visual Studio 11 won't support Windows XP.
How does it work that the resulting executable cannot be executed on Windows XP? Is there anything special within the executable?
They seem to drop support for older systems in every new release of VS (NT4,2000,XP) Even if you don't use the CRT at all, they still force the PE subsystem version to high numbers. You can work around that by changing the numbers back to 5.0 in a post build step. Just changing those numbers should allow the exe to start on XP unless the new CRT is using WinAPI functions that don't exist on XP.
The other alternative if you want to keep using VS11 is to use multi-targeting and older compilers...
Visual Studio 2012 will be able to target Windows XP later in 2012:
Targeting Windows XP with C++ in Visual Studio 2012
"Later this fall, Microsoft will provide an update to Visual Studio 2012 that will enable C++ applications to target Windows XP. This update will make the necessary modifications to the Visual C++ 2012 compiler, runtime, and libraries to enable developers to create applications and DLLs that run on Windows XP and higher versions as well as Windows Server 2003 and higher."
Edit: This has now happened (phew!)
The workaround is to use a different Platform Toolset, which will link a different version of CRT and produce binaries compatible to older operating systems.
See more here: Target Windows XP in Visual Studio 11 Beta using the Visual Studio 2010 compiler and libraries.
With v90 toolset your binary will be able to run even in older systems, such as Windows 2000.
http://blogs.msdn.com/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-65-69/7444.BlogPic.png
The runtime libraries bundled with VS 2010 and higher enforce your executable to import two new functions from kernel32.dll that are missing on Windows XP: EncodePointer and DecodePointer. Those are needed for yet another idiotic naive attempt to enhance the software "security".
In VS 2010 there is an option to use the runtime libraries of Visual Studio 2008, which solves this problem. I don't know if there's such an option in later versions of VS.
I compile my C++ source code with Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview. I statically link to the runtime library.
The resulting executable cannot be executed on Windows XP. When I try to execute it on Windows XP I get the error message "[Executable Path] is not a valid Win32 Application.".
According to Microsoft Visual Studio 11 won't support Windows XP.
How does it work that the resulting executable cannot be executed on Windows XP? Is there anything special within the executable?
They seem to drop support for older systems in every new release of VS (NT4,2000,XP) Even if you don't use the CRT at all, they still force the PE subsystem version to high numbers. You can work around that by changing the numbers back to 5.0 in a post build step. Just changing those numbers should allow the exe to start on XP unless the new CRT is using WinAPI functions that don't exist on XP.
The other alternative if you want to keep using VS11 is to use multi-targeting and older compilers...
Visual Studio 2012 will be able to target Windows XP later in 2012:
Targeting Windows XP with C++ in Visual Studio 2012
"Later this fall, Microsoft will provide an update to Visual Studio 2012 that will enable C++ applications to target Windows XP. This update will make the necessary modifications to the Visual C++ 2012 compiler, runtime, and libraries to enable developers to create applications and DLLs that run on Windows XP and higher versions as well as Windows Server 2003 and higher."
Edit: This has now happened (phew!)
The workaround is to use a different Platform Toolset, which will link a different version of CRT and produce binaries compatible to older operating systems.
See more here: Target Windows XP in Visual Studio 11 Beta using the Visual Studio 2010 compiler and libraries.
With v90 toolset your binary will be able to run even in older systems, such as Windows 2000.
http://blogs.msdn.com/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-65-69/7444.BlogPic.png
The runtime libraries bundled with VS 2010 and higher enforce your executable to import two new functions from kernel32.dll that are missing on Windows XP: EncodePointer and DecodePointer. Those are needed for yet another idiotic naive attempt to enhance the software "security".
In VS 2010 there is an option to use the runtime libraries of Visual Studio 2008, which solves this problem. I don't know if there's such an option in later versions of VS.
I have compiled a dll on Windows Server 2008 64 bit edition. It works fine on that version of Windows, but if I switch to Windows 7 or XP 64 bit edition the dll does not work. How can I make the dll compatible with all three versions of 64bit edition windows?
I am using Visual Studio 2010.
You can use a program called Dependency Walker to see what dependencies your .dll file has, and eliminate the ones that are different between versions of Windows.
Check how _WIN32_WINNT and WINVER macros were defined in your DLL. To make your DLL compatible with Windows XP you should define them as 0x0501. That lets you find all dependency problems at compile time. More information about these macros you could find here.