I have a COM component which I wish to deploy in a 64bit environment. There are multiple applications using this COM component. Some of these applications are 32-bit and others are 64-bit.
So while creating an installer, I which to bundle both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of my COM dll.
In my first attempt, while building the installer project, I get a lot of warnings:
Ex. WARNING: Two or more objects have the same target location ('[payload_ul]\msvcp90.dll')
The warnings above are to do with merge modules. I have checked, but no multiple merge modules are present.
Also while the projects compiles successfully though with the warnings, while testing I found that the 64 bit module had failed to register.
The MSI was marked for x64 platform.
Can anyone provide pointers for the correct way to do this?
MSI doesn't support mixed x86 and x64 installers (check out this blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/heaths/archive/2008/01/15/different-packages-are-required-for-different-processor-architectures.aspx ). There are ways to "workaround" it, but eventually you will be bitten one way or another.
Related
I created 32-bit and 64-bit installation files respectively with Windows Installer. How can I create a unified installation file that can check the bits during installation, and merge these two into one to install automatically according to the bits?
Heath Stewart: Different Packages are Required for Different Processor Architectures. Here is an extract: "A common question is how to create a Windows Installer package that installs 32-bit binaries on 32-bit platforms, and both 32- and 64-bit binaries on 64-bit platforms. If you’re actually trying to install 64-bit binaries to appropriate directories and write to the 64-bit view of the registry, the short answer is that you can’t build a single package."
You should be able to use a setup.exe creation tool such as WiX's Burn or Advanced Installer or InstallShield (all can create setup.exe launchers). I am unsure of the built-in mechanisms they provide for this at the moment - I haven't looked at it for a while.
In any case you need a 32-bit setup.exe so that it can launch on both 32 and 64 bit systems and inside it you can keep your 64-bit setup along with the 32-bit one.
Rob Mensching's on the topic: How to deploy 64-bit and a 32-bit Windows Installer package as a single setup?.
Here is one of his blogs on Burn: https://robmensching.com/blog/posts/2009/7/14/lets-talk-about-burn/ and here is the normal starting point in the WiX documentation for Burn.
Here is my attempt to show a basic, functional Burn package (many links - too many - towards the bottom).
Links:
Single MSI to install correct 32 or 64 bit c# application
https://www.firegiant.com/wix/tutorial/net-and-net/bootstrapping/
We are developing a DLL, which calls generic WinUsb functions from WinDDK. This DLL needs to work in 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows, including xp, vista, win7, and possibly win8.
My question is, how can we manage the Visual Studio 2010 solution by targeting all these platforms? WinDDK libraries are different for each OS, so if I reference a library from the code:
#### #pragma comment (lib , "C:\\WinDDK\\7600.16385.1\\lib\\wlh\\i386\\winmm.lib" )
Or by referencing the library from the project options->includes section, this project only becomes correct for a particular target architecture. (In this example, Vista 32-bits, since I am including 'wlh').
Are we supposed to create a different project for each different OS target?
The WDK/DDK version does not constrain the OS version for which you build. You can pass the target OS as a build environment/compile parameter.
I think you should build DLL through DDK and use that in your VS project.
You can write pre-build event for your VS project to run a batch file which will build the DLL and put it in some well-known place for the project.
Also, you may have to create different project configurations for each platform you want to build for (at least different for 32-bit and 64-bit) and run appropriate build command for DLL.
I have an application that I compile as x86 code but as a separate version, as x64 code as well. The application basically has two parts, a c# managed exe and a c++ unmanaged dll. I have problems with the latter. On my development PC (Windows 7 64-bit, Visual Studio 2008) I create a setup with a deployment project and this setup installs the application in Program Files... as it should and the application runs. I also have a test PC (Windows 7 64-bit with practically nothing else). There the application still installs into Program Files... but it does not run, I get the BadImageFormatException when a function (any function) of the unmanaged dll is called. The problem is that my own project that produces the dll also makes use of quite a few freely available libraries (e.g. glew32, openal, freeimage, etc.) I took as much care is possible to make sure that I use the x64 versions of these libraries, but something still must be wrong. For some reason one of the libraries used by my dll is not available as x64 code on the test PC but it is on the development PC. At least that is the only explanation I have at the moment why my setup works on the development PC but not on the test PC.
My question is: how can I find out where the problem is. The error message I receive does not tell any helpful detail. I tried to analyze my dll with depends but it looks OK. It lists a lot of dependent libraries as X86 (these are probably system files) but all those that I use on purpose are listed as x64.
Is there any way to test why the Windows on my test PC tries to run the DLL as x86 code even though it should be x64?
Thanks.
I noticed something very strange: My application is being deployed in the Program Files folder as it should be for a x64 application but it fails to run. However if I copy all the files in the folder it is installed to to another folder (inside the Documents folder) the application runs perfectly.
Run Fusion Log Viewer in the machine where you want to diagnose the issue. Look carefully at the logs and you'll see exactly which dlls are being loaded, and where from.
You have build your .NET executable (or DLL) with Any CPU configuration, and you have given x64/Win32 native DLL for Win32/x64 (i.e. wrong config).
On x64 systems, your .NET binary will try to load the native DLL as if native DLL is x64.
And on 32-bit systems, it will try to load 32-bit native DLL.
I found the answer. The problem was not the 64-bit dll at all. One of the libraries I did not make but I link to (I do not know which yet, there) seems to try to write a file to the application folder. Of course, this is not allowed inside the Program Files folder unless you run the application as an administrator. Sorry for asking help for the wrong question.
I have a problem related to this question. Two players:
C# application
Mixed assembly used by 1)
The application has to support anything from Windows XP (32bit) to Windows 7 (32 & 64bit). The assembly is complicated in different ways. It contains managed C++/CLI code and some native C++ classes dancing with native DirectX. It also is linked to a few 32bit native dll's w/o source access (containing C++ classes with import libraries).
Things are working well in 32bit environments (XP and 7 tested) including the 32bit subsystem on Windows 7. Havoc happens, as soon as "Any CPU" is used on 64bit systems in order to build the complete solution. The 32bit assembly is unusable than - but seemingly only in debug mode ("cannot load, wrong format" etc.). It seems to work in release. A 64bit assembly build is prevented by the implicit dependencies to the mentioned 32bit third-party dll's.
Is there any way to provide a real native 64bit application able to use the assembly?
Requirement for the assembly isn't that strict. It could be both - 32 or 64bit - but as said above, should be be usable from the application one way or the other.
You are running into a rock hard limitation in the 64-bit version of Windows, a 64-bit process cannot execute any 32-bit machine code in-process. You certainly have a dependency on machine code when you use C++/CLI and work with DirectX. Although it doesn't sound like you could not execute in 64-bit mode, both C++/CLI and DirectX can be compiled/are available in 64-bit.
This then boils down to a build and deployment issue. You have to build the C++/CLI project(s) in 64-bit mode and deploy only 64-bit components on a 64-bit operating system. The main EXE must be built to AnyCPU. Similarly, on a 32-bit operating system you must build and deploy only the 32-bit compiled version. You solve the build issue by adding the x64 configuration to the solution so you build the 32-bit and 64-bit version separately. You solve the deployment issue by creating two installers.
Since you have to support a 32-bit operating system anyway, the simple solution is to change the Target platform setting on your EXE project to x86. Now everything always runs in 32-bit mode and you don't have to bother with the build and deployment headaches. The only thing you miss out on is the larger virtual memory address space that's available in the 64-bit version.
Forget about the C++/CLI project for a minute.
You have third-party 32-bit DLLs. These CANNOT load in a 64-bit process. So your main application will have to be 32-bit. This restriction has nothing to do with the C++/CLI middleman.
The only way you can make use of these DLLs from a 64-bit application is to load them in a separate (32-bit) process and marshal data back and forth.
I have installation solution that have installer project (not web installer but simple installer) that installs NT services, web service and web sites with help of additional two projects of dlls with my own code that performs my installation step. In user actions of installer project I call installer function of one of those projects, and this project calls to installer of second project: installer -> MiddleCaller -> InstallationCore.
All this developing on Windows 7 and work fine when I compile all in 32 bit.
The project must run on Windows 2008. Because of some reasons all must be in x64 bit.
For this purpose, in MiddleCaller and InstallationCore I click right button of mouse on project -> build -> targer x64. For to move installer project to 64 bit in properties of installer (when project is active) I check: Target platform: x64.
When I run installation on x86 I get error:
The installation package is not supported by this processor type"
And this is good, because now I know that my installation compiled in 64 bit, but when I run this on windows 2008 I get:
Error 1001. Exception occured while initializing the instance:
System.BadImageFormatException: could not load file or Assembly
'MiddleCaller, v...' or one of its dependencies. An attempt was
made to load a program with an incorrect format.
Any one has some idea what I need to do for run fine the installation on x64?
May be I still not moved the installer project to x64 bit, if yes, where I do this?
Thank you for ahead.
Found a quick tip on Microsoft's website that could be useful on troubleshooting setup and deployment projects:
64-bit managed custom actions throw a System.BadImageFormatException exception
If you add a 64-bit managed custom action to a Setup project, the Visual Studio build process embeds a 32-bit version of InstallUtilLib.dll into the MSI as InstallUtil. In turn, the 32-bit .NET Framework is loaded to run the 64-bit managed custom action and causes a BadImageFormatException exception.
For the workaround, replace the 32-bit InstallUtilLib.dll with the 64-bit version.
Open the resulting .msi in Orca from the Windows Installer SDK.
Select the Binary table.
Double click the cell [Binary Data] for the record InstallUtil.
Make sure "Read binary from filename" is selected and click the Browse button.
Browse to %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v2.0.50727.
Note
The Framework64 directory is only installed on 64-bit platforms and corresponds to the 64-bit processor type.
Select InstallUtilLib.dll.
Click the Open button.
Click the OK button.
There are some unclear things in this scenario. I understand that you are having difficulty running a 32-bit installer that calls on 64-bit assemblies. If this is correct, then what you are doing is not allowed. You cannot have 32-bit and 64-bit assemblies in the same process - that is illegal. If the 64-bit assemblies are being referenced by the installer directly, then the installer must also be 64-bit.
As clarification: I believe a 32-bit installer can install a 64-bit application, but it may only do so by copying the 64-bit files and not by actually making calls into the 64-bit files. The only way this is supported is if the 64-bit files are loaded into a different process and you use IPC to call into them, but even this is likely to be a bad solution.
In your case, I would encourage you to convert your installer into a 64-bit installer.
So, eventually, I compiled MiddleCaller and InstallationCore in AnyCpu mode, when all dll and executables that I need to install were compiled in x64 bit. All this I compiled on Windows 2008 x64 bit with x64 bit outer dependencies (like Oracle client).