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.
Related
we have a project which uses a Win32 DLL and the project is built using the LIB file relevant to that DLL.But as a new requirement we were asked to create a new dummy DLL but we have to use the original LIB file.
What i would like to know is whether this is practical or whether one must create a new LIB file as well.Thanks in Advance
It is perfectly possible to do what you describe, although somewhat pointless. Once you've made it as far as making the dummy DLL, a new import library .lib will be generated.
So long as the DLL that you create uses functions with the same exported name or ordinal (depending on how you export the functions), and has functions with the same interface, then what you are attempting will work.
It's common to make a dummy DLL in order to generate a .lib file. This would be done if the DLL was created by tooling that does not output .lib files.
Yes, but you would have to re-use, or reverse-engineer, the original .DEF file so as to ensure that the same import ordinals are used, if there are any.
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
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")
I am writing a DLL to plug into another (3rd party) application. The DLL will need to depend on another set of DLLs (for license reasons I cannot link statically).
I would like my DLL to be "xcopy-deployable" to any directory. I would also like not to require adding this directory to the path.
If I just build the DLL the usual way, Windows will refuse to load the DLL, since it cannot find the DLLs next to the current process.
Are there any good options for helping Windows locate the DLL?
To answer some questions:
The DLL is written in C++.
The extra DLLs are QT-dlls.
I would like to place the extra DLLs in the same folder as my plugin DLL. I can get the name of that folder from GetModuleFileName.
The application is Firefox, the DLL is a PKCS#11 security module.
The application loads the DLL using the full path to the DLL (the user supplies it when installing the plugin).
Requiring that the DLLs be placed in System32 or next to the application would work, but it is a bit messy and could cause problems with uninstallers.
LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress would of course work, but is not really feasible in my case. I am using hundreds, if not thousands, of methods in the other DLLs. I really need to use the import-libraries.
I had thought about using delay-loaded dlls combined with SetDllDirectory in DllMain. Have anyone tried anything like this?
I can think of 3 ways.
put the dlls in the same folder as your application (you cannot do this?)
Use runtime linking. LoadLibrary() and GetProcAddress()
Use a manifest http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa374182(VS.85).aspx
But if the dll isn't in the same folder as the .exe, how are you going to know where it is? forget Windows not knowing, how do you know?
you can specify the path of dll as the parameter of LoadLibrary().
Another option is to modify the PATH variable. Have a batch file for launching the main app, and set the PATH=%PATH%;%~dp0. This ensures a minimal footprint, with no additional traces left in the system after running.