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).
Related
I'm working with a native C++/Win32/MFC application built using Visual Studio 2010 Pro on Windows 7 x64. The application is linked with some other DLLs using their .lib files.
I'd like to be able to run this application and have it find the DLLs in their respective directories without 1) having to put the DLLs in the application directory or 2) add the DLL directories to the PATH or 3) resort to dynamically loading the DLLs and having to lookup stuff at runtime.
Is this even possible? Is there some way to direct the OS loader to go find the DLLs in an arbitrary location I specify without having to add that to the PATH?
Basics:
In Visual Studio project settings, keep everything default specially in Release configuration.
Ensure that you give Release build to the client (Where VS wouldn't have been installed).
If client OS is 32-bit, you must give 32-bit. Otherwise you can give 64-bit (Release build in any case).
Now comes distribution and VC++ runtime library.
You must install appropriate Visual C++ Runtime on client's machine,
ensuring that:
The version should match (VC7, VC8,.. VC14 etc.)
The bit-ness should match. If your application is 32-bit, you need 32-bit
redistributable, and same for x64.
The service pack version must also
match!
It should be noted that all of them can co-exist! VC10 RTM, VC10 SP2, VC10 x64 RTM.. all can co-exist
I built an application in C++ using Visual Studio 2010 Express. When I tried to run it on a certain computer today I got this error:
MyApplication.exe - Bad Image
C:\Path to My Application\MSVCP100.dll is either not designed to run on Windows or it contains an error. Try installing the program again using the original installation media or contact your system administrator or the software vendor for support.
The DLL mentioned is one of the Visual C++ Redistributable DLLs. My application’s installer used to launch Microsoft’s installer for those DLLs but I recently tweaked it just to install msvcp100.dll and msvcr100.dll alongside my application. The new way worked fine on a handful of other computers, though I can’t rule out the possibility that that was only because the DLLs had already been installed at system level on those other computers.
What is causing this sudden DLL mismatch?
That's STATUS_INVALID_IMAGE_FORMAT, the Machine property in the DLL header doesn't match the architecture of the application.
Do keep in mind that you are likely to have two copies of this DLL on your build machine, the x86 and the x64 version. Later versions of VS have a 3rd copy, the ARM version. So very high odds that you picked the wrong one. Usually you'd target x86, the one you tested your program with is stored in the c:\windows\syswow64 directory. The 64-bit version is in c:\windows\system32.
How these directories got these seemingly backward names is a story for another day :) Favor using the vc/redist subdirectory of the VS install directory as a source for the copy, it is less ambiguous.
This .dll file is related to the Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable x64 Package.
Try removing the Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable x64 Package by using the Add or Remove Programs item in Control Panel.
Then, install the latest version Visual C++ (file name= vcredist_x64.exe) from the site:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26999
Hope that helped..
If all above suggested solutions not worked for you than download MSVCR100.dll 32 bit or 64 bit as per your system configuration.
Download DLL from below link
https://www.sts-tutorial.com/sites/downloadCenter.php?MSVCR100
Follow da steps
1.Download the dll from here
https://www.sts-tutorial.com/sites/downloadCenter.php?MSVCR100
2.open with winrar
3.Extract MSVCR100.dll to C:\Windows\System32
hope it will work c:
I have a windows form application which is being installed on client pc by using msi file trough active directories, application is a 32bit app which is being deployed to a 32 bit and 64 bit windows systems and as we know application folder names are different between 32 and 64 bit systems, Program Files and Program Files(x86), also during installation application shortcut is placed in startup folder so app will be started when PC us powered up.
Question: Is there a chance to build msi by Windows Installer provided by Visual Studion in such a way that it will check what operating system its being installed at and place the shortcut in to start up folder with correct URI, to Program Files\Applicaiton\ or Program Files(x86)\Applicaiton?
Thank you!
Windows Installer packages are platform aware (x86, x64 ). Windows Installer doesn't support 64bit packages running on 32bit platforms or 32bit packages writing to 64bit ProgramFiles.
You can compile your EXE as AnyCPU and even though it's installed as 32bit it'll execute as 64bit. Although the Visual Studio team has moved away from that and compile as x86 by default in recent versions of Visual Studio.
Upon initialization, the Windows Installer gathers information about the operating system and automatically sets properties that can be used in optional conditional statements used by the setup application, such as VersionNT64 and "System Folder Properties"
In cases where it is necessary for the setup to know this information, it is preferred practice to allow the Windows Installer service to determine folder locations rather than try to hard-code this information into the package.
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.
I have a c++/cli dll that I load at runtime and which works great in debug mode. If I try and load the dll in release mode it fails to load stating that one or more dependencies are missing. If I run depends against it I am missing MSVCR90.DLL from MSVCM90.DLL. If I check the debug version of the dll it also has the missing dependency, but against the debug (D) version.
I have made sure debug/release embed the manifest file. I read something about there being issues with the app loading the dll being build as Any CPU and the dll being built as x86, but I don't see how to set them both to x86.
I am using VS2010.
Anyway, I've been messing around for a while now and have no idea what is wrong. I'm sure someone out there knows what is going on. Let me know if I need to include additional info.
alt text http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/fb31c0e256.png
UPDATE:
This ended up being the resolution to my problem: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vclanguage/thread/07794679-159b-4363-ae94-a68fe258d827
MSVCR90 is the runtime for Visual Studio 2008. If you are running your application on your development PC, then you should have the debug and release runtimes installed (as part of Visual Studio) but it is possible something has gone awry with your install, or that VS2010 doesn't actually include the older runtimes. If you're trying to run the Release on a different PC, then it just needs the runtime installed.
Either way, you may be able to fix it by installing the Visual Studio 2008 redistributable - but make sure you get the right download for your PC (x86 or x64).
In previous versions of VS, you needed the runtime for the version you were compiling with, so if VS2010 follows this precedent you'd need MSVCR100, not MSVCR90 - which suggests that you may not have recompiled the dll with VS2010 - doing so may be another approach to get it running on your PC (using the redist that is in your VS2010 install) but beware that you will still need other users to install the appropriate (VS2010) redistributable on their PC.
As for "Any CPU" versus "x86", this is a problem only on a 64-bit computer. On those systems a 64-bit application can't link dynamically to 32-bit dlls. If you compile your application as "Any CPU" it will be JIT compiled to be 64-bit on an 64-bit OS, so will crash if it tries to call any 32-bit dlls directly. THe solution is to build the application targeting "x86" as that forces the JIT compiler to generate 32-bit code (even on a 64-bit machine) and thus ensures compatibility with the dll you wish to call. If the DLL is a managed assembly, then you can use Any CPU on both the app an dll as they will both be JITted to the same format.
It happened to me something similar running a website in Vistual Studio 2012, after migrating from Visual Studio 2010. The error message was saying that MSVCR90.DLL was missing. The solution was:
1) Delete the folder _bindeployable located at the project path.
2) Rebuild.
I hope it helps.