I have a server console application that I've designed to run as console app if you specify the /CONSOLE command line, but at the same time allows itself to be installed as a Windows Service using InstallUtil.
My problem is when I run as a console app it correctly starts up as an x86 process and everything works great. But as soon as I install it as a Windows Service it starts up as a x64 process and consequently certain x86 dependant functions fail.
My project configuration is set to x86 and all referenced components are set to build as x86. The actual project itself has it's configuration set to x86 and its target set to x86. Does anyone else have a suggestion as to what could be causing this?
Thanks,
Gary
Make sure you are using the correct version (X86) of InstallUtil. See here for an explanation of differences between x86 and x64 versions.
For Googlers: Why would a .NET EXE, compiled as x86, run as x64? helped me fix my problem like this.
Also, you can use dumpbin /headers program.exe to see what it says in the headers. Look for 14c machine (x86) or 8664 machine (x64).
Related
As title suggests I am compiling C# app using VS 2012 on a 64-bit machine. I would like the program being built to run on a 32-bit machine.
Right now the only help I found online was for:
Menu>Build>Configuration>
Active Solution Platform defaulted to Any CPU, and I tried that but didn't work on 32-bit machine (unless I did something wrong)
Tried Add a new one to the Debug configuration for platform x86 with build checked
Compiled and ran the app on 32-bit machine getting error A.exe is not a valid Win32 application.
My above was similar to what was done here: Link to Stack Overflow Similar Question
UPDATE 1:
The target OS is WinXP SP3 but we dont believe it has .NET 4.5 on it. I will be testing to see if compiling earlier ver of the app in .NET 4.0 will solve the problem and fix the problem. The problem may not be what the error message is displaying.
Setting your project to target AnyCPU should allow it to run on a 32bit machine, provided you aren't using a library which loads 64bit native code. If you have any dependencies, you'll need to make sure to use AnyCPU or 32-bit versions of those dependencies, as well. Also, make sure you have the proper .NET Framework installed on the 32bit machine (.NET 4.5 by default, if you're using VS 2012 with a new project).
Note that the default in VS 2012 for new projects is AnyCPU, with the Prefer 32 Bit option checked. This will cause it to always run as a 32bit application, even on your 64bit OS.
Note that, since your friend is running XP sp3, you can't use .NET 4.5. .NET 4.5 is not supported on Windows XP. You will need to change your application to target .NET 4.0, which will then work on the XP machine (if he installs the 4.0 framework).
That error is the Win32 error ERROR_BAD_EXE_FORMAT. It's generated by the loader and is what happens when you try to run a 64 bit process on a 32 bit operating system. There are other ways to see that error, but this is by far the most common reason for it to occur on a .exe file.
To compile a 32 bit process you need to target x86 in your project configuration. Another alternative would be to target AnyCPU. That will result in a 32 bit process when executed on a 32 bit OS, and a 64 bit process when executed on a 64 bit OS. It would appear that your build targets x64.
The Platform name (shown on the top of the properties, page "Build") is only a name. The same for "Active Solution Platform" in configuration editor. This is a bit confusing.
You have to make sure that the "Target platform" setting is really set to "AnyCPU" or "x86".
I had same problem. I strugle with it. and the and I found a solution.
The solution is :
Firstly choose platform target "x86". After that build your project as "release mode" not "Debug mode". finally you can run on any platform (32 bit or 64 bit).
If none of the solutions presented above helped you, then try the following:
Open the project properties and click General in the left column.
Change Platform Toolset to the one with Windows XP in it.
For example, in Visual Studio 2015 it will default be set to "Visual Studio 2015 (v140)". To be able to run on Windows XP, you have to change this to "Visual Studio 2015 - Windows XP (v140_xp)".
Now do a full rebuild, and the exe should work on Windows XP.
I have got a .net application,
Class library (Target Platform set to Any CPU)
Winform Application (Target platform set to Any CPU)
Installer (Target Platform set to X86 and Detected dependencies set for .net framework(x86))
Now when I install this application through setup.exe on a 64-bit machine, it is installed in the Program Files [x86] folder; I guess this is WoW64 feature of emulating 32-bit environment on a 64-bit application.
Now when a client asks to convert it to 64-bit, why does it matter to him if the 32-bit version itself works fine through WoW64? would converting it to 64 bit result in performance benefits?
And when I try to convert it to 64-bit, do I need to change it for all, ie ,
Class Library (change Target platform to 64) (What if I skip this step?)
Winform Application (change target platform to 64) (What if I skip this too?)
Installer (change target platform to 64) [Detected dependencies listing doesn't show any .NET framework x64 option, why?]
Please suggest.
No conversion is necessary, your app already runs as a 64-bit process. Because you used AnyCPU on the EXE project. You installed it to the wrong folder but that doesn't matter much if no other process tries to start yours programmatically. That's exceedingly rare.
Verify this from TaskMgr.exe, Processes tab. A 32-bit process has *32 after its process name.
Make your client happy by changing the Setup project's TargetPlatform setting to x64 so it gets installed in c:\program files. Takes you a few minutes.
You can leave the .NET code projects on AnyCPU, however to install onto 64-bit without hitting the 32-bit WOW stuff you need to change the installer project property that you mention.
If you have custom actions in the installer, these may not work when you change to 64-bit. You might get a BadImageFormatException. To resolve this, you need to faff with the resulting MSI:
http://adamhouldsworth.blogspot.com/2010/10/64bit-custom-actions.html
It won't make much of a difference to the client if your application is standalone. There is no free performance benefit, other than access to more RAM, when going to 64-bit (though the JIT has different types of optimisations available).
The only situation I've seen where 64-bit is required is when you consume that DLL in another application, you cannot mix bit-ness in a single process.
Update: perhaps the lack of a 64-bit framework prerequisite is because you are using VS 2005?
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winformssetup/thread/7b00f4e9-64e3-4fb6-9906-880820ecda92
64 bit may or may not give performance differences. A 64 bit application can also utilize (way) more memory than a 32bit application.
If you launch an AnyCpu exe on a 64bit OS it should launch in 64bit (see in the task manager, 32bit processes are appended with *32 there). If you set the application to x64, the library must be either x64 or AnyCpu.
If you do not have native x64-only references you can leave your exe and dll as AnyCpu, but you will need to modify the setup to x64.
As for the framework, on an x64 machine (which is the only place an x64 app will run anyway), the framework always includes both 32 and 64 bit, found in C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework and Framework64 respectively.
Now when i install this application through setup.exe on a 64-bit machine, it is installed in the
Program Files [x86] folder; I guess this is WOW feature of emulating 32-bit environment on a 64-
bit application.
No, it has NOTHING to do with the program, only with the installer.
•Installer (Target Platform set to X86 and Detected dependencies set for .net framework(x86))
32 bit installer installes it in the 32 bit folder for programs, regarless whether the program is 32 or 64 bit.
Sadly you can not have one installer doing both - you need an installer for 32 and one for 64 bit in concept, by design.
This is totally a design decision on the MSI part and, again, has nothing to do with the program at all.
Mainly I ask this because I don't want to distribute both versions, and if I need to instal a 64bit .NET on an x64 PC and a 32bit .NET on a 32 bit PC then I would need to make this check in my loader application to download the correct version for the correct PC.
However, if I just do a one for all, it would be easier - and i would just like to know if theree is anything I should know before doing this (ie: any repercussions?) or all good?
Also, when I compile an exe in a 64bit version of VS2010 does it compile a 32bit exe by default or a 64bit? I'm presuming 32, but just wanted to make sure.
Thanks.
If you target AnyCPU for your compilation, the app will run as 64bit on a 64bit OS, and 32bit on a 32bit OS. If you target x86, the app will run as 32bit regardless of the OS. If you target x64, the app will only run on a 64bit OS.
The 64bit version of .Net also includes the 32bit dll's.
If you have to install the runtime from the Internet, then use the web installer. It will take care of downloading and installing the correct version on the client. This way you can target AnyCPU (or x86) and be certain that the app will run regardless of the OS.
If you need to package .Net with your app, download the full file which has both 32/64bit versions included - http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/5/A/95A9616B-7A37-4AF6-BC36-D6EA96C8DAAE/dotNetFx40_Full_x86_x64.exe
Client profile web install
Client profile full install
Silent install can be done with the /q parameter and you might want to add /norestart as well and handle reboot yourself if necessary.
Check out this blog post and the MSDN documentation on what switches are available.
The .NET bootstrapper automatically installs both the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions of the .NET framework on a machine with a 64-bit operating system. Nothing you have to do to tell it to do so. Avoid distributing the .NET framework yourself, you'll have a hard time keeping up with the security updates. Just tick the option in the Setup project's Prerequisites to get the bootstrapper, that will download the latest and greatest during install on the target machine, if necessary. The option is automatically ticked when you create an installer for a managed program.
There is no 64-bit version of VS2010, no need to worry about that.
The Platform Target setting in the Project + Properties, Build tab for your EXE project is relevant. It defaults to x86 in a project that was created from scratch in VS2010. There is no great reason to change it to AnyCPU for the Release build unless you need the extra virtual memory space that a 64-bit process can provide. If you do change it then do make sure to test it thoroughly. I know you've been tinkering with unmanaged COM servers, x86 is probably a hard requirement.
Okay, here's my setup.
I have a c# app working perfectly on all 32-bit Windows XP-Vista-7 machine. I already have a verisign PFX to support the ClickOnce deployment and is using Atalasoft DotTwain 8.0 as the 3rd party scanner helper.
When I publish my application, I choose "Any CPU" as the Platform target. When I try to make it run on a Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium, my application crashes after the installation.
I tried re-publishing the work on a specific x64 platform but still failed.
Any ideas on what i'm doing wrong here? thanks so much~!
Choose 'x86' and I'll bet it will work;
You most likely have an 'x86' (32-bit) reference in your project, for example DotTwain. 'Any CPU' means that the .NET framework will run it as 'x64' because you've told it anything is OK. Then it tries to load a reference, finds it's 32-bit and gives a 'BadImageFormatException' (usually).
And so, you'd need a version of DotTwain that's not been 'ngen-ed', has a CPU reference of 'Any' too, or release a separate 64-bit version where all of your references are definitely not set to 'x86' (you'd want 'any' or 'x64').
(Experience this problem all the time; have several apps out there that run on 32-bit, 64-bit, and use DotTwain and other Atalasoft components)
Hope that helps!
My .NET 2.0 application imports unmanaged 32 bit dll.
The dll is loaded (first interop call happens) when user opens a file via a dialog within the application.
When I deploy the application via clickonce with target platform "Any", users on 64 bit windows get BadImageFormatException when trying to open files from the application (at the moment the unmanaged dll is loaded). I understand this is due to incompabible bitness of the 64 bit process and the 32 bit unmanaged dll.
I have redeployed the application using x86 as target platform. As I understand it, this should solve the bitness problem.
BUT
When I run the deployed application built for x86 on 64 bit system, I now get BadImageFormatException immediately before the application even starts. Tested on at least three 64 bit machines. On 32 bit machines, it works with no problem.
When I run the application directly from VS (or not directly, just a normal build, not going via ClickOnce), there is no problem on 64 bit windows when using x86 target platform. The application starts and user can load file - the interop call succeeds.
I have been debugging this for 2 days straight with no result - I have tried on different computers. It seems to consistentnly work on one of the computers I have tried. However, I do not have permanent access to this computer.
I have managed to build the ClickOnce deployment on my computer once and it worked on a 64 bit machine. This was single of maybe 100 tries! Nothing has changed, the only changed variable was that I did the successful build immediately after computer restart.
I did clean/rebuild/restart VS/restart windows MANY times. I have reinstalled VS 2008 and now also the whole OS, it did not help.
EDIT: I have just managed to get one good build (out of next 100 :)) and did comparison between the deployed directories.
The source of the problem is that ClickOnce generates the wrong target platform in the manifest of the main .exe:
<asmv1:assemblyIdentity name="app.exe" version="1.0.4.18" publicKeyToken=".token here." language="neutral" processorArchitecture="<b>msil</b>" type="win32" />
processorArchitecture should be x86.
So the question is how to consistently force VS to generate the correct processorArchitecture in the manifest when deploying.
Can anyone help please?
This was resolved by installing VS 2008 SP1 on 64 bit Windows 7. VS2008 SP1 on XP had the problem on two machines I have tried with.
I had this problem as well, using VS2008 SP1.
In my case I had a 32 bit DLL which had to be compiled as 32 bit and an application that was using it in the same solution.
Even though I specified X86 as the build target for the release build, when I published a 64bit application was compiled and included in the installer.
I found a slightly brutal solution to the problem:
Go into the configuration manager and remove all possible configurations except the one that you want it to build (Debug and release versions).
After doing this I found that the clickonce installer was generated with the correct application.
I hope this helps someone else, I have been battling this problem on and off for months.
I'd suggest to use Reflector to open the main exe deployed by ClickOnce and see the dependencies to make sure you are not deploying the 64 bit version of the dll by mistake.
You must resolve to run 32-Bit Applications in IIS 7. See http://www.fishofprey.com/2009/04/badimageformatexception-in-iis-70-on-64.html
Sometimes the ClickOnce publishing process seems to cache old files from previous Any CPU or x64 builds. Doing a Clean and Rebuild All didn't fix this problem for me. I needed to delete all of the bin and obj folders from my projects and reopen Visual Studio.
We ran into this problem and determined that the subdirectory of the user profile to which ClickOnce deployed our application must have become corrupted, because we were able to deploy the application successfully with ClickOnce when logged in as a different user on the same machine.
We were able to solve the problem simply by deleting the subdirectory of C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\Apps under which ClickOnce was deploying our application. In our case, this was C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\Apps\2.0.