After going through a lengthy process to rename a project, my DLL project will not build in Debug mode (Release builds work):
MSVCRTD.lib(msvcr90d.dll) : error LNK2005: _CrtDbgReportW already defined in LIBCMTD.lib(dbgrpt.obj)
This project, and the five static libraries it depends on, are set to use "Multi-threaded Debug (/MTd)" (under C/C++|Code Generation|Runtime Library). I believe LIBCMTD.lib is the one for multi-threaded debug, but what is MSVCRTD.lib, and what could be causing this error?
If it makes a difference, this DLL is for Windows CE.
LIBCMT is what you need for /MT, MSVCRT is what you need for /MD. You are linking .obj and .lib files that were mixed, some compiled with /MT some with /MD. That's not good.
Usually it is the .lib files that cause the problem. Review their build settings and make sure their /M option is the same as your DLL project.
Also, beware of the trouble you can get into if the DLL was compiled with /MT. You'll have major problems when the DLL returns pointers to objects that the client needs to release. It can't, it doesn't use the same memory allocator.
The MSDN article on LNK4098 has a very useful table: it tells you which libraries to manually add to the "Ignore specific library" list, depending on which CRT you're using. In your case, you should ignore all of these:
libc.lib, libcmt.lib, msvcrt.lib, libcd.lib, libcmtd.lib
Observe that the reported library is in this list too. The problem is described in more detail in KB154753 ... libraries that a program will link with when built by using Visual C++
My interpretation of this is that in certain situations the algorithm that automatically picks which CRT libraries to link your code with will pick several conflicting libraries.
What is release set too? Setting a DLL to multithreaded debug can cause problems if you allocate memory that something accesing the DLL tries to free (they will be allocated in different heaps, for example). Try setting multi-threaded debug DLL.
Your link problem probably arises because a library you are linking to is expecting multithreaded debug DLL so the linker tries to link both and your link fails ...
The problem is the msvcr90d.dll is not in the windows ce image. It must be deployed with the application. The msvcr90d.dll is located in $(VCInstallDir)/ce/bin/$(ARCHFAM).
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15959877/windows-ce-6-0-and-runtime-link-to-debug-dll-mdd
Related
I was working on a MS Visual Studio project and noticed that the Debug build was Linking to a Release library (DLL), when a Debug library with the same name was also available. I switched the path to Link the Debug library, and it seems to still work. Is there any way to know if my change was correct?
Additional Information:
Using the debug DLL triggers a small memory leak that wasn't triggered with the release DLL. Or possibly that is debug related cache data. That leak made me question if it was including the lib headers without _DEBUG somehow. Thus this question.
It is the preferred way to link Debug builds of your program with Debug version of external dynamic libraries as it guarantees that uniform Visual C++ runtime libraries will be used. Mixing libraries built in Debug and Release mode will result in both Debug and Release VC++ runtimes being linked and annoying linker warnings about multiple symbol definitions in conflicting Debug/Runtime libraries.
Sometimes it may be inevitable as i.e. only Release version of some external library may be available. Hence in VC++ there are linker settings allowing to ignore some specific libraries. So you may start checking in the Linker-Input settings of the Debug build if such ignores are already defined for existing conflicts. With some luck you might be able to remove them now.
If using the Debug version of some library breaks the whole program it might be an insight how to improve the whole system, it is that what a Debug build is for anyway.
Assuming that it is the right library (as in the same code compiled to a different configuration), you are right to link to the debug dll on your debug configuration (and should link to the release dll on your release configuration).
The differences tend to be related to the optimisation level (Debug is usually compiled without any optimisation at all) and any symbols that might be included to make it easier to develop with and maybe step into.
I'm reading about /MT and /MD, but I'm a little confused about it
HEAR is something I don't completely understand :
/MT Causes your application to use the multithread, static version of the run-time library. Defines _MT and causes the compiler to place the library name LIBCMT.lib into the .obj file so that the linker will use LIBCMT.lib to resolve external symbols.
what does it mean?
If you link with /MD or /MDd your program is going to need the CRT dlls in order to run. typically they are called something like msvcp100.dll for the C++ runtime and msvcr100.dll for the C runtime. If you are deploying your application using an installer, you can add a package with these to your installer so the dlls are going to be there when someone runs the application. If on the other hand you are going to deploy your application just as a single stand alone exe, your users are going to need a copy of these dlls. The latest versions of these dlls usually come with windows itself (not the debug ones) but if your user is running an older version of windows it may not have the needed dlls.
Linking your application to the static version of the CRT saves this whole headache for the price that the exe is slightly bigger (since it contains the CRT in it)
If you do use /MT (Static CRT) you have to make sure that everything else that you statically link with uses /MT as well. otherwise you'll end up with an executable where part of the code uses the static CRT and part is still depends on the CRT DLL. Other than defeating the basic purpose not needing the CRT DLL, this can also cause other problems.
To make sure what DLLs your exe depends on you can use the dependency walker.
I have a dll that I distribute that will not run on some windows OS. Using dependancy walker I discover msvcp90d.dll missing on these systems. I DO NOT want any run time dependancies that require the C++ redistributable, and since the application that calls the DLL is not written in C++, it does not have any dependancy on the C++ redistributable.
I am guessing the I left the DEBUG option in the linker preferences on when I compiled the dll which is why it needs msvcp90d.dll?
ADDED:
Appologies, I pasted the wrong dll name in my original question.... too many hours in front of the monitor...
THe dll is a third party dll that I did not write compiled by me in VS2008.
MSVCP90 is nothing to do with debug (that'd be msvcp90d). You can remove your dependency by switching the compiler to /MT (instead of /MD). You also need to ensure that every static library you link to was also compiled /MT.
I recommend against building apps /MT because it has a significant negative effect on system performance and makes servicing take longer in the event of a security issue with the CRT.
Finally, note that /MT means that your CRT is private. So you must ensure that CRT/STL types don't pass across your DLL boundary.
Martyn
Your options as I see them:
Compile the DLL with the /MT option to use static linking to the C runtime.
Continue with dynamic linking to the runtime, but distribute the C runtime with your app.
It needs MSVCP90.dll because the dll was compiled with Visual Studio 2008 most likely. That is the release runtime. The short answer is if you don't want C++ runtime dependencies don't use C++ libraries or applications.
However you can do any of the following to solve your problem:
Install the redistributable to the target system to satisfy the dependency
Remove the dependency on that dll from your application
Recompile the dll against the version of VC you prefer that is already present on the target system
Problem:
I'm trying to use a library named DCMTK which used some other external libraries ( zlib, libtiff, libpng, libxml2, libiconv ). I've downloaded these external libraries (*.LIB & *.h files ) from the same website. Now, when I compile the DCMTK library I'm getting link errors (793 errors) like this:
Error 2 error LNK2005: __encode_pointer already defined in MSVCRTD.lib(MSVCR90D.dll) LIBCMTD.lib dcmmkdir
Error 3 error LNK2005: __decode_pointer already defined in MSVCRTD.lib(MSVCR90D.dll) LIBCMTD.lib dcmmkdir
Error 4 error LNK2005: __CrtSetCheckCount already defined in MSVCRTD.lib(MSVCR90D.dll) LIBCMTD.lib dcmmkdir
Error 5 error LNK2005: __invoke_watson already defined in MSVCRTD.lib(MSVCR90D.dll) LIBCMTD.lib dcmmkdir
Error 6 error LNK2005: __errno already defined in MSVCRTD.lib(MSVCR90D.dll) LIBCMTD.lib dcmmkdir
Error 7 error LNK2005: __configthreadlocale already defined in MSVCRTD.lib(MSVCR90D.dll) LIBCMTD.lib dcmmkdir
Error 8 error LNK2005: _exit already defined in MSVCRTD.lib(MSVCR90D.dll) LIBCMTD.lib dcmmkdir
Documentation:
This seems to be a popular error for this library so, they do have a FAQ entry addressing this issue which ( http://forum.dcmtk.org/viewtopic.php?t=35 ) says:
The problem is that the linker tries to combine different,
incompatible versions of the Visual
C++ runtime library into a single
binary.
This happens when not all parts of your project and the libraries you
link against are generated with the
same code generation options in Visual
C++.
Do not use the /NODEFAULTLIB workaround, because strange software
crashes may follow. Fix the problem!
DCMTK is by default compiled with the "Multithreaded" or "Multithreaded
Debug" code generation option (the
latter for Debug mode).
Either change the project settings of all of your code to use these code
generation options,
or change the code generation for all DCMTK modules and re-compile.
MFC users beware: DCMTK should be compiled with "Multithreaded DLL" or
"Multithreaded DLL Debug" settings if
you want to link the libraries into an
MFC application.
Solution to same problem for others:
Huge Amount of Linker Issues with Release Build Only says:
It seems that your release build is
trying to link to something that was
built debug. You probably have a
broken dependency in your build, (or
you missed rebuilding something to
release by hand if your project is
normally built in pieces).
More technically, you seem to be
linking projects built with different
C Run Time library settings, one
with "Multi-Threaded", another one
with "Multi-Threaded Debug". Adjust
the settings for all the projects to
use the very same flavour of the
library and the issue should go away
Questions:
Till now I used to think that Name mangling is the only problem that may cause linking failures if its not been standardized. Just now I knew there are other things also which can cause same effect.
Whats up with the "Debug Mode" (Multi-Threaded Debug) and "Release Mode" (Multi-Threaded)? What exactly is happening under the hood? Why exactly this thing is causing linking error?
I wonder if there is something called "Single-Threaded Debug" and "Single-Threaded" which again causes the same thing.
Documentation talks something about "Code Generation Options". What Code Generation Options? WTH are they?
Documentation specifically warns us not to use /NODEFAULTLIB workaround. (example /NODEFAULTLIB :msvcrt ). Why? How would I cause troubles? what exactly is it?
Please explain the last point in the documentation for MFC users. Because I'm going to use MFC later in this project. Explain Why should we do it? What troubles would it cause if I don't.
Anything more you'd like to mention? I mean regarding similar errors. I'm very interested in Linker & its problems. So, if there are any similar things you can mentions them or some keywords atleast.
Whats up with the "Debug Mode"
(Multi-Threaded Debug) and "Release
Mode" (Multi-Threaded)? What exactly
is happening under the hood? Why
exactly this thing is causing linking
error?
The linker drags in libraries for several different reasons. The simplest is that a library is listed on the linker command line, or in the linker answer file on the linker command line. But any object files, whether compiled in your project or packed into a library, can also contain linker options including requesting particular libraries be linked in. In fact, the Visual C++ compiler automatically embeds such linker options matching the project options you use when compiling.
At link time, all the linker options from all object files and objects in static library files get combined. If more than one CRT library filename is requested, the linker reads in all of them and them you get naming conflicts, where the linker doesn't know which one to use.
I wonder if there is something called
"Single-Threaded Debug" and
"Single-Threaded" which again causes
the same thing.
There used to be, but the last few versions of Visual C++ have only shipped multi-thread compatible libraries.
Documentation talks something about
"Code Generation Options". What Code
Generation Options? WTH are they?
Look inside your project options.
Documentation specifically warns us
not to use /NODEFAULTLIB workaround.
(example /NODEFAULTLIB :msvcrt ). Why?
How would I cause troubles? what
exactly is it?
If you use /NODEFAULTLIB, all the linker settings stored within object files and objects in libraries get ignored. You'll end up with no runtime library and maybe missing other libraries. You can add them back in by hand, but it's still a big mess.
Please explain the last point in the
documentation for MFC users. Because
I'm going to use MFC later in this
project. Explain Why should we do it?
What troubles would it cause if I
don't. Anything more you'd like to
mention? I mean regarding similar
errors. I'm very interested in Linker
& its problems. So, if there are any
similar things you can mentions them
or some keywords atleast.
MFC applications and the MFC library have to use the same memory management functions, so that memory allocated by MFC can be freed by the application and vice-versa. FILE handles and other resources are also shared. The MFC DLLs are already compiled to use the CRT in a DLL, and in order to be able to share resources you need to use the same CRT, which means using a DLL too.
You need to configure project properties so that your debug build links with DCMTK's debug build and your release build links with DCMTK's release build.
The above is what you need to do. Below are explanations of some other random things you asked about.
Older versions of Visual Studio used to have single threaded libraries (release and debug versions) besides multithreaded libraries (release and debug versions). For your project you can pretend single threaded libraries never existed.
If you experiment with random ways to trick the linker into shutting up and leaving problems to be found by your customers instead of by yourself, you might find that the /NODEFAULTLIB option will do that. The makers of the DCMTK library are warning you not to do that because some other people did the same dumb thing in the past.
Whats up with the "Debug Mode" (Multi-Threaded Debug) and "Release Mode" (Multi-Threaded)? What exactly is happening under the hood? Why exactly this thing is causing linking error?
They are different versions of the C runtime library. You can statically link to the runtime library in debug and release mode. In the Code Generation Options (mentioned below), those would be "Multi-Threaded Debug" and "Multi-Threaded". The options "Multi-Threaded Debug DLL" and "Multi-Threaded DLL" dynamically link to the C runtime. By dynamically linking to the runtime, you'll also have to ship your installer configured to install the VC redistributable package that contains the proper runtime dlls for your version of Visual C++.
Statically linking to the C runtime is generally frowned upon, even by Microsoft:
In addition to all the methods
described above of distributing the
Visual C++ libraries DLLs, there is
one last option for building your
application which does not require you
to distribute the DLLs. However, this
option only works for native-only code
(it is not supported with /clr) and
leaves your customers seriously
vulnerable to any security holes as
well as adds a significant burden upon
yourself to patch all customer systems
should a vulnerability be found in any
of the libraries. This option is to
statically link in the libraries as
.lib files instead of dynamically
loading them as DLLs. You do this by
using the /MT flag on the cl.exe
command line (vs /MD), or selecting
the appropriate option in your project
properties through Visual Studio. You
may wish to use this option when
testing early debug builds of your
application on test machines before
you start working on setup. [See
footnote 3]
However, I can think of no scenarios
in which this is actually the right
thing to do when shipping your product
to customers. Basically, what this
approach does is pulls in the binary
code needed from .LIB files at compile
time, making it a part of your .exe or
.dll files. It increases the size of
your application, and there is no way
to update the libraries apart from
recompiling your application with new
.LIBs and redistributing your
application all over again. What this
means is that unless you go touch
every single machine which has
installed your application every time
there is a security vulnerability
found in the Visual C++ libraries and
completely reinstall your updated
binaries, you will be leaving your
customers vulnerable to attack. If
instead you use the DLLs, every time
there is a security vulnerability
found in the Visual C++ libraries,
Microsoft will install the update
centrally into the WinSxS folder via
Windows Update and all requests for
the DLLs will be redirected to the
updated version. This removes all
servicing burden on your side and also
allows the user to install one small
update which will touch all their
applications instead of replacing
every installed exe and DLL on their
system. Please, do not distribute an
application built by linking
statically against the Visual C++
libraries unless you have a system in
place for updating every customer
machine and also have a very good
reason to do so. At this time, I can
think of no circumstance under which
this would be the right thing to do
for a shipping application.
I wonder if there is something called
"Single-Threaded Debug" and
"Single-Threaded" which again causes
the same thing.
No such thing, see above.
Documentation talks something about "Code Generation Options". What Code Generation Options? WTH are they?
Right click on your Visual C++ project (from within Visual Studio) and select Properties. Under Configuration Properties->C/C++->Code Generation
Documentation specifically warns us not to use /NODEFAULTLIB workaround. (example /NODEFAULTLIB :msvcrt ). Why? How would I cause troubles? what exactly is it?
Take their advice and don't do it.
Please explain the last point in the documentation for MFC users. Because I'm going to use MFC later in this project. Explain Why should we do it? What troubles would it cause if I don't.
Because MFC is dynamically linked to the C runtime, using libraries that are statically linked to the C runtime will cause the linker errors you listed first in your post.
Anything more you'd like to mention? I mean regarding similar errors. I'm very interested in Linker & its problems. So, if there are any similar things you can mentions them or some keywords atleast.
From my experience, always dynamically link to the C runtime. It generally saves you a lot of headaches like the one you're experiencing right now.
In Visual Studio, there's the compile flags /MD and /MT which let you choose which kind of C runtime library you want.
I understand the difference in implementation, but I'm still not sure which one to use. What are the pros/cons?
One advantage to /MD that I've heard, is that this allows someone to update the runtime, (like maybe patch a security problem) and my app will benefit from this update. Although to me, this almost seems like a non-feature: I don't want people changing my runtime without allowing me to test against the new version!
Some things I am curious about:
How would this affect build times? (presumably /MT is a little slower?)
What are the other implications?
Which one do most people use?
By dynamically linking with /MD,
you are exposed to system updates (for good or ill),
your executable can be smaller (since it doesn't have the library embedded in it), and
I believe that at very least the code segment of a DLL is shared amongst all processes that are actively using it (reducing the total amount of RAM consumed).
I've also found that in practice, when working with statically-linked 3rd-party binary-only libraries that have been built with different runtime options, /MT in the main application tends to cause conflicts much more often than /MD (because you'll run into trouble if the C runtime is statically-linked multiple times, especially if they are different versions).
If you are using DLLs then you should go for the dynamically linked CRT (/MD).
If you use the dynamic CRT for your .exe and all .dlls then they will all share a single implementation of the CRT - which means they will all share a single CRT heap and memory allocated in one .exe/.dll can be freed in another.
If you use the static CRT for your .exe and all .dlls then they'll all get a seperate copy of the CRT - which means they'll all use their own CRT heap so memory must be freed in the same module in which it was allocated. You'll also suffer from code bloat (multiple copies of the CRT) and excess runtime overhead (each heap allocates memory from the OS to keep track of its state, and the overhead can be noticeable).
I believe the default for projects built through Visual Studio is /MD.
If you use /MT, your executable won't depend on a DLL being present on the target system. If you're wrapping this in an installer, it probably won't be an issue and you can go either way.
I use /MT myself, so that I can ignore the whole DLL mess.
P.S. As Mr. Fooz points out, it's vital to be consistent. If you're linking with other libraries, you need to use the same option they do. If you're using a third party DLL, it's almost certain that you'll need to use the DLL version of the runtime library.
I prefer to link statically with /MT.
Even though you do get a smaller executable with /MD, you still have to ship a bunch of DLLs to make sure the user gets the right version for running your program. And in the end your installer is going to be BIGGER than when linking with /MT.
What's even worse, if you choose to put your runtime libraries in the windows directory, sooner or later the user is going to install a new application with different libraries and, with any bad luck, break your application.
The problem you will run into with /MD is that the target version of the CRT may not be on your users machine (especially if you're using the latest version of Visual Studio and the user has an older operating system).
In that case you have to figure out how to get the right version onto their machine.
from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2kzt1wy3(VS.71).aspx:
/MT Defines _MT so that multithread-specific versions of the run-time routines are selected from the standard header (.h) files. This option also causes the compiler to place the library name LIBCMT.lib into the .obj file so that the linker will use LIBCMT.lib to resolve external symbols. Either /MT or /MD (or their debug equivalents /MTd or /MDd) is required to create multithreaded programs.
/MD Defines _MT and _DLL so that both multithread- and DLL-specific versions of the run-time routines are selected from the standard .h files. This option also causes the compiler to place the library name MSVCRT.lib into the .obj file.
Applications compiled with this option are statically linked to MSVCRT.lib. This library provides a layer of code that allows the linker to resolve external references. The actual working code is contained in MSVCR71.DLL, which must be available at run time to applications linked with MSVCRT.lib.
When /MD is used with _STATIC_CPPLIB defined (/D_STATIC_CPPLIB) it will cause the application to link with the static multithread Standard C++ Library (libcpmt.lib) instead of the dynamic version (msvcprt.lib) while still dynamically linking to the main CRT via msvcrt.lib.
So if I am interpreting it correctly then /MT links statically and /MD links dynamically.
If you are building executable that uses other dlls or libs than /MD option is preferred because that way all the components will be sharing same library. Of course this option should match for all the modules involved i.e dll/lib/exe.
If your executable doesn't uses any lib or dll than its anyone's call. The difference is not too much now because the sharing aspect is not into play.
So maybe you can start the application with /MT since there is no compelling reason otherwise but when its time to add a lib or dll, you can change it to /MD with that of the lib/dll which is easy.