I have a VS solution with many assemblies and third-party utilities. I need to force the app to run 32-bit when running on a 64-bit machine. The app runs just fine on a 32-bit machine. I forced the .exe file to be only 32-bit required and when run on the 64-bit machine, I am getting "an attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format" error. It was my understanding that changing the exe would force all the assemblies to load as 32-bit. What is going on?
I know this is an old question; maybe you already found your answer.
I'm not familiar with setting ILONLY and 32BITREQUIRED... usually choosing x86 instead of ANYCPU in the compiler drop-down box before compiling takes care of everything you need. You can verify that all your apps are set to compile to x86 in the configuration manager, as well.
Most likely, what you're running into is that one of your third-party utilities installed a 64-bit DLL on the 64-bit machine, and your forced-32-bit application is trying to load a 64-bit DLL. If a third-party DLL has a 32-bit and 64-bit version, chances are the installer is smart enough to know which one to lay down.
Two places you can go on the 64-bit machine to check:
If the program installed to C:\Program Files\, it's a 64-bit DLL; otherwise it would have been installed to C:\Program Files (x86)\
Navigate to the GAC from the command line: c:\Windows\assembly and look under GAC_32 vs. GAC_64. If you find it under GAC_64, you're trying to load the 64-bit DLL
HTH!
James
Related
I use SQLite and works fine on the developer machine (or machine with Visual Studio).
But it does not work on PCs without VS. I "installed" the SQLite manually (32 bit version, added to the references, Copy Local: True). I get "System.IO.FileNotFoundException" System.Data.SQLite.dll exception.
The System.Data.SQLite.dll is in the output folder.
But I can not get it to work only if I install the SQLite with this: https://system.data.sqlite.org/downloads/1.0.105.2/sqlite-netFx46-setup-bundle-x86-2015-1.0.105.2.exe
Dev PC: x64 Win 10, application: x86 only
Please let me know if you need any other information.
Check which dependencies has your executable file (and, maybe, System.Data.SQLite.dll) with Dependency Walker or similar program. Then put these libraries you found into executable's folder one by one, until your executable will work.
You need to make sure the 64 bit C++ runtime DLLs are getting installed. They'll often be on the developer's system but not as often installed by your installer on the target system. Even though this is a .NET assembly, it appears to have C++ underpinnings.
In VS2008, for example, I have an exe built as x86(32bit) because I want it runs in 32bit even on 64bit machine. This exe will dynamically load other dlls through reflection and invoke.
Now my question is, if I build my dll as "All CPU", instead of x86, and when I run the exe host on a 64 bit machine, once my dll gets loaded, or called, the dll will be treated as 64bit or 32bit?
(My test shows it is treated as 32bit, but I want to confirm with you all. I think in general, 32bit cannot access 64bit. Since the exe is 32bit, so the dlls will be always loaded as 32bit?)
Thanks
Yes, you are correct. Unless you jump through some serious hoops, every part of the process (at least the user code parts) will be 32-bit.
If the DLL to be loaded it also marked as AnyCPU then there won't be any problems.
If you have an AnyCPU EXE (for example) which is running on a 64-bit computer (so it's an x64 process) which then attempts to load an x86 DLL (which is not marked as AnyCPU) then it will fail with a runtime exception (BadImageFormatException)
I've got a VS2013 solution with several projects (a C# WPF application plus class libraries). Each project's "Platform Target" is set to "Any CPU". I was under the impression that the resulting EXE would run as a 64-bit application on a 64-bit PC, and a 32-bit application on a 32-bit PC. Is this correct? My dev PC is 64-bit, but when I run the application (either standalone or via VS debugging), it appears in task manager as "foo.exe *32". What's going on here?
We have a junior developer with a 32-bit machine. Will he still be able to open the solution and run it in VS?
Also, some of the projects reference a 3rd-party DLL. The vendor provides both a 32- and 64-bit version - which one should the projects be referencing? If I reference the 32-bit DLL will this prevent the application from running as a 64-bit application? And if I reference the 64-bit version, will this cause problems for the 32-bit developer? And what about end-users - will my installer need to check the OS version and copy across the appropriate DLL?
Finally, what about DLLs referenced via NuGet? Does NuGet install 32- or 64-bit versions of DLLs? How do I deal with 32- or 64-bit end-user installation?
I'm going to try to answer some of your questions since you've bundled so many into a single one..
We have a junior developer with a 32-bit machine. Will he still be able to open the solution and run it in VS?
Yes, as long as all projects are set to build for Any CPU and there are no external dependencies on 64bit assemblies or native DLLs.
If I reference the 32-bit DLL will this prevent the application from running as a 64-bit application?
Yes, if any of the assemblies, or COM components linked was specifically built against the 32bit CLR then it will require the whole project to run as a 32bit process. You always have to be careful about native code that your project may be dependant on.
And if I reference the 64-bit version, will this cause problems for the 32-bit developer?
Yes, the 32bit developer will not be able to run the project on his machine, if there are any 64bit assemblies.
As a final thought I'd like to add that it is very important whether the final executable project is built as Any CPU, or for a specific 32bit or 64bit target platform.
Usually I found that having the final executable built as Any CPU can cause all sorts of problems at runtime (of the Bad Image runtime exception variety) unless all assemblies linked are also targeted for Any CPU and there are no external, native, dependencies. This latter requirement is the hardest to ensure.
On the other hand, a final executable built for an explicitly specified 32bit or 64bit platform can happily incorporate other assemblies built for Any CPU
We have a junior developer with a 32-bit machine. Will he still be able to open the solution and run it in VS?
Yes, He can run.
If I reference the 32-bit DLL/ 64-bit will this prevent the application from running as a 64-bit/32-bit application?
The manual edition of the .csproj file(s). You also need separate directories for the different binaries, ideally siblings of each other, and with the same name as the platform you are targeting.
Refer Conditionally use 32/64 bit reference when building in Visual Studio
what about end-users - will my installer need to check the OS version and copy across the appropriate DLL?
Yes, you need to manage build process scripts to create specific version for different architecture..
References:
What does the Visual Studio "Any CPU" target mean?
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.
I have an app that relies on several managed libraries. These managed libraries in turn rely on some unmanaged libraries.
When I deploy the app to a machine running XP, it runs fine. When I do the same on a machine running Vista, I get a DLL not found exception.
I've tried both a VS2010 setup project and an NSIS installer to do the deployment and it's the same in both cases.
Why might this happen? What can I do to get around it?
Update - Further details
Both installers check for the installation of .NET 4.0 and install it if need be
The Vista computer is 64 bit, but the installation gets directed to the x86 program files folder as expected
In both cases I have an admin account
The DLLs are kept in the same directory as the executable
As far as I can tell, the files are getting copied to the right directory
Update 2
The full error is at http://pastebin.ca/2046487
The DLL is Audiere.Net.dll, which is one of mine and is a managed library.
I'm not sure if that error means that it can't find Audiere.Net.dll, or whether it can't load it because one of it's dependencies can't be found.
Update 3 - Stuff from Process Monitor
After running process monitor (thanks Mehrdad!) there are several entries which don't have a status of "SUCCESS". Some of these are "NAME NOT FOUND" and some are "PATH NOT FOUND". (It's even querying the PDB files, which I had thought were only used by a debugger.) It's really hard to see which entries might be the one leading to the actual failure. Anyway, I've uploaded the log (filtered to have a relevant path) in case it means something to anyone.
Update 4 - Added .pdb files
So I kinda got desperate and included the .pdb files to the output of the installer. I thought it would be useless, but it actually resulted in a more useful error. Rather than simply saying DLL not found, I now get a BadImageFormatException. Googling this tells me that this is a common problem for binaries compiled on x86 but being run on x64 (as the Vista machine is).
The suggested remedy is to force it to target x86, but Audiere.Net.dll already was. Could the fault lie with the library that it wraps?
Maybe there's some sort of redirection that's not actually letting your app install in the intended folder?
We'd need a bit more detail, but are you installing for the user or the machine? Are you an admin? Where is the DLL normally located?
Edit: Try using Process Monitor to monitor what file is actually being accessed.
If you are running a .Net application, do both computers have the proper Framework installed?
You mention that Audiere.Net.dll is targeted at x86, but what about your executable?
You can obviously recompile your program or use Corflags (part of the framework) to view the current setting on your exe.
Corflags ssd2.exe
Or to set or unset the flag
Corflags ssd2.exe /32BIT+
Corflags ssd2.exe /32BIT-
(Note, if your app is signed with a strong name it won't work unless you use /Force to remove the signature)
The solution turned out to be quite straightforward: one of the unmanaged DLLs needed to be recompiled for x64.
Key steps:
Check process monitor for likely sources of error. Look carefully at the error report that Windows offers to send when the app crashes.
Include the .pdb files for managed libraries. This seemed to result in more informative error messages.
These error messages not only specified which managed library was causing the error, but also indicated that it was a x86/x64 issue. (BadImageFormatException)
Following some sound advice, check that all of the unmanaged libraries are targeting x86. (Mine were, but it's good to be sure.)
Recompile the unmanaged dependencies of the troublesome managed library on an x64 machine.
Write an install script that copies the appropriate (x86 or x64) version of the DLL.
Profit!
Specifics:
The problem I had seemed to be with Audiere.Net.dll, but was actually caused by a problem with libaudieresharpglue.dll.
I use NSIS for installers. To accomplish the architecture specific DLL, I used a header called x64.nsh.
Usual reason is that the dll in question depends on other dlls which are not on the Vista machine (or possibly there but not registered.)
We ran into something simlar and found we needed to download the c++ Redistibuatable Package to get the program to run on windows 7 using 3rd party dlls.
I recall running into a similar issue with SQLite wrapper.
The source of the problem is the 32/64 bit issue of course, and it's the same scenario as the SQLite wrapper is a managed wrapper which makes it processor dependent.
I am guessing that while you're managed lib (Audiere.Net.dll) is compiled for 32 bits, you main application (ssd2.exe) is not.
The installation folder is determined by the configuration of the setup, but if the application project is not strictly configured to compile as a x86 project (usually targeting the default Any Cpu environment) then the application will launch as a 64 bit process, regardless of the installation path. This can be easily verified by looking at the process in task manager on a 64 bit machine, all 32 bit processes have an additional *32 on a 64 bit windows machine (they won't have it on a 32 bit machine).
EDIT: or more easily by looking at the project properties->Build-> Platform Target :)
Anyhow - you should change the project settings for the project that builds ssd2.exe to target x86 and you should be ok.