I have a Visual C++ library which I want to compile for a certain platform (I try to compile POCO for a Win CE ARM platform, but that might not be relevant to this question). I got a vendor-specific Windows CE SDK (including all common Windows include files e.g. winbase.h) which is set as target platform within the Visual Studio project files. However, when I compile the program, I can see from the error log that the default Windows 6.0A SDK is used, resulting in a bunch of compilation errors.
I guess the WindowsSdkDir ist not set accordingly - I thought this would be automatically overriden when setting the target platform within Visual Studio.
So my question is: can I modify the WindowsSdkDir for a single project explicitly?
Thank you in advance
Which CE version, which VS version and on which Windows version? I know that I had problems installing CE5 and/or CE6 SDKs and getting them recognized by Visual Studio 2005 running on Windows 7 (64 bit). I don't remember the exact symptoms and fix, but you can test that by simply creating a smart device project for the target SDK.
If that is not the issue, there is also the pitfall with the target in both the project file (.vcproj) and the solution (.sln). You can change both independently from each other, up to the point where you compile the x64 debug version of a project in the win32 release version of the solution. Verify that these setting match.
Then, if you adjusted the .vcproj file to use your target platform (for which I personally would use a text editor), things should work. If you need to adjust the build or some paths, you can sometimes get by with e.g $(Platform) in the compiler/linker settings.
Lastly, if all that doesn't work, there are property sheets, which can adjust certain settings. You then create a property sheet once and then load it into the project that you want to compile. I'm not sure if you can change the target platform or the SDK paths with that approach though, and I'd rather try to find out why the SDK doesn't work and how to fix it instead.
Related
Not sure if anyone else is having this issue.
I am attempting to create a windows forms library control. I need the control to run in an x86 environment. So, the first thing I do is go into the properties of the project and switch the platform target to x86.
I try running the application and I get the lovely error message referencing the assembly I am trying to create and stating: An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format.
I have not added any references nor any code, just trying to create a control in x86.
I am using a windows 7 64bit machine with VS2012 trying to write the app in .NET 4.5. I have to do the project in x86 because I am using some OCX that are x86 only.
Has anyone run into this?
go into the properties of the project and switch the platform target to x86
Well, that worked. Instead of a confusing COM exception (typically "Class not registered" which has several possible reasons) you get an early .NET exception that tells you that you are using the library wrong.
To test your library project, you needed to create an EXE project that had a reference to the library project. What you forgot to do is change the Platform target setting on that EXE project. Which matters because only the EXE project can determine what the bitness for the process will be. It is the one that loads first, a library project has no say. It can only veto the choice, the BadImageFormatException is that veto.
So you have to change the Platform target setting for the EXE project to x86 as well.
We're planning moving from Visual Studio 2005 to Visual Studio 2012 (Visual-C++-11).
(We would very much like to skip 2010 if we can help it, since the newer version is already there and offers a better C++ experience.)
But we've hit a little roadblock:
Our build servers still run Windows 2003r2 (all inside dedicated virtual machines), and due to messy tool support/issues, we're in no position to upgrade the build servers to a newer OS.
Developers mostly have switched to Windows7 by now, so moving the remaining Windows XP developer boxes shouldn't pose a problem.
Since VS2012 only runs on Win7 we are wondering whether we can leverage it's tools (C++ compiler, C#) and still do a full equivalent build on the W2k3 build server - after all, we don't really need a VS GUI there, just build C++ and C# projects from VS2012.
What are our options?
Will the SDK (7.1? 8?) compilers + msbuild command line get me anywhere?
In Project Property Pages, there an option "Platform Toolset" that allow you to choose compatibility of your project. So, you can work in VS2012, but built it with "VS2008 compiler"
Here is what we do:
Use CMake
CMake allows you to create build systems for your operating system. Thus we are able to use the same code within VS2005, VS2010 and Eclipse, XCode etc.
You could do something similar: Install VS2005 on your old machines and let CMake create the projects for you from the sources. On your newer machines you can use CMake to generate VS2012 Solutions (I don't know if they have 2012 support yet, because we don't use 2012 yet too).
A big pro here is: If you plan to migrate to any other IDE or even Linux you just can re-run CMake and get your source code within these environment easily compilable.
A big con: You have to start reading about CMake and create CMakeLists.txt for all your projects (might be a lot of work depending on the amount of projects, amount of source code files within each project, specific compiler options, linker options etc.)
Our build servers still run Windows 2003r2 (all inside dedicated
virtual machines), and due to messy tool support/issues, we're in no
position to upgrade the build servers to a newer OS.
Well. Not much came out of this question. We recently re-evaluated this issue, and I see two options (I haven't tried any yet):
Just do a full VS installation on a supported OS (Win7), zip up the whole VS+WinSDK directories (as well as the neccesary runtme DLLs that live somewhere under %WINDR%), and try if you can get that thing working on an XP based OS. Might work. Not a great idea if you ask me.
Split up the build process to distribute the build across several OS, so that we can work with tools that are only supported on one of them. -- This actually sounds more complicated than it'll be. We already run our build spread over several Jenkins jobs, so I should be able to get that to work. (And all build nodes are already VMs anyway, so adding more VMs isn't that much of an issue.)
I have some projects built with different versions of VS2005 that require different run-time version. i need to display the assemblyIdentity to see which run-time is required to run the program. I need the information to include the specific VC80 runtime MSM in my WiX installer project.
{Edit}
While the binaries have been built with Visual Studio I don't have a VS on the PCs where WiX shall be used. I am reluctant to install an Express version, since I am a guest on that PC.
{/Edit}
How can I conviniently display the embedded manifest? Preferrable with a small tool, command line tool would be OK.
Manifests are stored as resource in executables/DLLs. These are stored under RT_MANIFESTresource type. Open the resources under it and parse it as XML.
One example is pasted below (I opened one of my EXE using VS resource editor):
The PeStudio is a small tool that does the job. Including displaying the manifest in clear text.
Additionally it displays all DLLs that must be present on target system. That helps to author the installer.
I am learning how to build games in Visual C++ and when I upload them so friends can check them out, they all end up with messages saying it can not run. I did some research and found that it is because I am compiling against a Dynamic library instead of a static library. Correct me if I am wrong anywhere please. Upon further research, I found that a lot of people do not advise going this direction but instead include the files needed by my game.
How would I go about distributing my games to friends and make it real easy for them to just open up my .exe and play the game?
If you link to any DLLs, you also need to ship those along. If you produce a single .exe in your output, you probably need your friends to install the MS Visual Studio redistributable package for your version of visual studio. This is an example link for the VS 2010 one, but the one you give your friends should match your version.
There are essentially two options: Keep everything as-is and provide them with the runtime files (also named Microsoft Visual C++ * Redistributable Package or similar; the * has to be replaced with your version, e.g. 2005, 2008 or 2010). Downloads can be found on Microsoft's download site as well as in your Visual Studio installation folder (look for a folder called "Redist").
Alternative solution: In your project settings you're able to select the runtime environment (under linker options). Change your release build to use "Multithreaded" instead of "Multithreaded-DLL".
This is the error Dependency Walker gives me on an executable that I am building with VC++ 2005 Express Edition. When trying to run the .exe, I get:
This application has failed to start because the application configuration
is incorrect. Reinstalling the application may fix this problem.
(I am new to the manifest/SxS/etc. way of doing things post VC++ 2003.)
EDIT:
I am running on the same machine I am building the .exe with. In Event Viewer, I have the unhelpful:
Faulting application blah.exe, version 0.0.0.0, faulting module blah.exe,
version 0.0.0.0, fault address 0x004239b0.
Open the properties sheet for your project, go to the Configuration Properties -> C/C++ -> Code Generation page, and change the Runtime Library selection to /MT or /MTd so that your project does not use the DLL runtime libraries.
The C/C++ DLL runtimes used by VS2003 and up are not automatically distributed with the latest version of the OS and are a real pain to install and get working without this kind of problem. statically link the c-runtime and just avoid the total mess that is manifests and version specific runtime dlls.
I've had this problem. The solution has two steps:
1. Compile your program in "Release" mode instead of "Debug" mode (there's usually a combo-box in the toolbar)
2. Download from Microsoft their Redistributable Package of runtime components. Make sure to download the x86 edition for 32-bit computers and the x64 edition for 64-bit computers/OSes. Install this package on the target computer, and your application should run fine
P.S. This is a SxS thing
P.P.S. Alternatively, use a different compiler (like GCC, for example with Dev-Cpp) to compile your program's source, and your headaches will disappear.
Sorry to bump an old question, but I was able to get around this exact issue and thought I'd post a solution in case someone else needs it...
Even after installing Microsoft's redistributable DLLs I was getting this error, the fix was to copy the
C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\redist\x86\Microsoft.VC80.CRT
folder into the application's directory on the target PC. After that, no more problems.
BTW, the DLL that was giving me issues was a 3rd-party DLL that had never had problems before on over 100 other computers... go figure.
Run Event Viewer: it'll have more information.
Probably you've attempted to run your program on a machine that doesn't have the VC redistributables installed, or you're attempting to run a debug build on a machine that doesn't have Visual Studio installed (the debug libraries aren't redistributable).
I have had the same issue with VS 2008-built debug binaries on other winxp sp3 machines.
I first tried installing the client machine with vc redist package,as it seemed sensible. Annoyingly, it didn't work.
I tried copying all the dependent dlls to the application's directory - still didn't work
After being struck over this issue for hours, I found that the latest VS builds require manifests and policies to link with the dlls. After copying them into their respective "C:\WINDOWS\WinSxS\" folders, I got it working.
The problem was caused due to the fact that the vc redist package did not install debug versions of dlls, they somehow thought its up to the programmer to figure out.