I just finished coding my c program in visual studio (VS) and what I had done is just drag the compiled .exe file out of the folder to run it on other computers, except on other computers for that to work I guess I need VS since it says the MSVCR110D.dll is missing which is from VS. So how can I run my program on other computers that don't have VS?
You can use IExpress which is used for distributing self-contained installation packages. It is there in every windows machine preinstalled. Using this utility you can make the executable .exe which will be incorporated with dependent dlls. You can see Step by step guide, to see how to use it.
Follow these steps
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3w7axy17.aspx
In your output window it will show you where you can find the exe file, usually something like "ProjectName/Debug/Release/"
If you have added any external libraries you will have to copy any DLL files in that folder with the exe (You can combine them with some applications if needed)
You will also have to make sure that you have the correct version of the .NET Framework on the PC that you are trying to run your program on
Related
I have a Visual Studio solution which I'm trying to build using the Incredibuild tool. Two of the projects in the solution work in tandem - the first project (we'll call it "Project A") builds an executable (foo.exe) which can parse a data file in the second ("Project B") to generate some header files.
Obviously there is a dependency on Project A defined in Project B. If I use Incredibuild's Rebuild Project option on Project B, it correctly builds Project A and foo.exe is successfully built. Project B has a custom build tool file which should cause foo.exe to be ran with a command-line argument to the file it's supposed to parse. However, trying to launch foo.exe in this way always returns an error:
CustomBuild:
Running Foo
'path to executable\foo.exe' is not recognized as an internal or
external command, operable program or batch file.
C:\Program Files
(x86)\MSBuild\Microsoft.Cpp\v4.0\V140\Microsoft.CppCommon.targets(171,5):
error MSB6006: "cmd.exe" exited with code 9009.
Interestingly, if I then use Incredibuild to build only Project B (i.e. using the Build Project option), everything is ok - it correctly picks foo.exe from the location it was built to on the previous, failed, build. This makes me think that the path, at least, must be ok.
Can anyone suggest why the executable cannot be ran as part of the rebuild? Is it a timing issue, e.g. Project B commences before foo.exe is known to the file system??
It all works under Visual Studio's regular (re)build. It's just the Incredibuild rebuild which fails. Note that I'm doing all of this through the Visual Studio IDE, not from a command line.
Edit: this is the freebie version of Incredibuild that I'm using (the one which comes with Visual Studio), so all of the build is on the local machine.
I contacted the Xoreax technical support about this in the end and they told me that this is a "rare but known issue that is related to one of our extra accelerating features".
Their first suggestion was writing an executable which simply sleeps "for a few milliseconds" and having that run as part of the custom build tool post-link. This did indeed solve the immediate problem, but the solution I'm building has numerous similar problems and adding this delay in everywhere quickly became tedious and didn't always work. It felt like a fudge anyhow.
So I asked if this behaviour can be toggled to off, and indeed it can. In Visual Studio the Incredibuild menu has an Agent Settings option, and from the invoked dialog's Visual Studio Builds|Advanced page it's a simple case of unchecking the Enhance throughput using out-of-order tasks spawning option.
Case closed.
There are options how to offload or intercept custom tools during your build process. Try to look onto "c:\program files (x86)\IncrediBuild\Samples"
I would like to setup an automatic software distribution process, preferably from Microsoft Visual Studio, which builds my projects in all the different configurations and platforms, and packages all the created objects in a predefined folder tree structure.
The software distribution packages would be for Windows libraries and WDM driver projects written in C/C++. Each library has several different configurations (i.e. Windows 7 Release, Windows XP Release, MT/MD runtime compilation flags) for different platforms (i.e. x86 and x64). A similar thing is with the drivers. Without any automatic process to create a software distribution package, it's necessary to build all the different configurations for each platform and then copy the created objects to a predefined folder structure and then zip the created folder giving it a release name and version. This process is quite time consuming and error prone. Therefore, my goal is to automate this process using a clean a nice solution.
I've been researching about this for a few weeks already and have actually implemented a few different solutions. However non of the solutions I implemented until now is flawless whatsoever. Hence since this should be a problem that I guess many developers have already encountered, I would like to hear different opinions on what would be a nice and efficient way to do it.
Up until now I've tried the following:
A batch script and a Makefile to be used by NMAKE. This is not so good because it makes difficult to set the same build parameters that are set on the visual studio project.
Implemented a "deploy" target task (editing the .vcsproj files) which calls MSBuild of the project for each configuration/platform and copies the generated files to a distribution directory. This has the advantage that I can start the deploy activity from within visual studio but it also produces several environment variables problems, specially when building windows drivers.
Any ideas or suggested solutions will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Zion
If you haven't already, add a post-build step for each lib and driver which copies the built files into your specific tree and also zips them.
If you haven't already, create one Visual Studio solution (.sln file) which builds all these projects at once.
If you haven't already, set up Build configuration using the Build | Configuration Manager dialog. Now from the IDE, you should be able to specify a specific configuration and do a Build | Rebuild Solution and make sure all the projects are successfully built.
From the command-line, you can now automate #3 by opening a Visual Studio command line prompt (which sets up the environment variables appropriately). Start devenv.exe with appropriate command-line parameters.
I have inherited a Windows Forms application and I have found that a .EXE file gets generated into the obj\Debug folder everytime I compile.
I am more a Web Forms kind of developer so I am a little confused as to what is happening here. Why is it a .EXE and not a .DLL? What does this file actually represent? Is this the default behaviour for Windows Forms applications? Or, did my predecessor have to set it up up somehow?
As far as I can tell, the solution does not have a deployment project.
Their are many types of win application in delhpi. If u create windows form, .exe will be craeted in the debug folder similarly if you are creating Dynamic Link Liberary (DLL) .dll files will b created. These files are created each time when you compile the application.
Why this is a problem? Console application projects have exe file in the obj/Debug folder too. The obj folders are NOT used for running the application - they are used for creating the end binaries in the bin folders.
If the question is about exe vs dll then compiled exe file is used to run the application. In the web environment you used dll because ASP.NET new how to run code from it. But Windows knows how to run exe files, so any of your code actually can be compiled to an executable.
Every application be it web or windows would have an entry-point for execution. Anything in compiled form in .Net is an assembly which need not always be a DLL file. An EXE file is a .Net assembly with an entry point and few headers in the beginning of the file that identifies itself as a stand-alone executable to the windows operating system. In case of your web-application your asp.net pages are the entry points that users would type in a browser and start the application. In case of a stand-alone windows forms desktop application, it is an EXECUTABLE file, which user can click on run.
I am more a Web Forms kind of developer so I am a little confused as to what is happening here. Why is it a .EXE and not a .DLL?
Having said this, It is also important to note that, just like the asp.net is not the only platform to develop web-applications [you have php, jsp, etc.], .Net windows forms is also not the only way to create stand-alone executables. You can make EXEs in C, C++, VB, Delhpi, etc. only difference would be that they will not be .Net assemblies but all of them including .Net executables will have an entry-point to start execution from and the EXE header that identifies them as executables on the host windows operating system.
Why would it be a DLL? It's an application - it has to be launchable, unlike a website which lives "inside" a web server (effectively). The exe file is the application (along with any libraries it requires, of course). You double-click on it, it will launch the application. No problem.
Having said that, you should pretty much ignore the obj directory - it's just an intermediate directory. The bin directory is the one you should be taking build results from.
Suppose you have some source code that comes from the unix world. This source consists of a few files which will create a library and a lot of small .c files (say 20 or so) that are compiled into command-line tools, each with their own main() function, that will use the library.
On unixy systems you can use a makefile to do this easily but the most naive transformation to the windows / Visual Studio world involves making a separate project for each tool which, although it works, is a lot of work to set up and synchronize and more difficult to navigate at both the filesystem and project/solution level. I've thought about using different configurations where all but one .c file are excluded from the build but that would make building all the tools at once impossible.
Is there a nice way of building all the tools from a single "thing" (project, msbuild file, etc.)?
I'm really not interested in using cygwin's gcc/mingw or NAnt. I'd like to stick with the standard Windows toolchain as much as possible.
You don't HAVE to use visual studio to compile code. You can make your own batch file or Powershell script that simply calls the compiler on your source, just like a makefile.
So I've been looking into this for a while now and the solutions all leave much to be desired.
You can...
Create a lot of small projects by hand.
Use MSBuild and deal with its steep learning curve.
Use a build tool that does not integrate well with Visual Studio, like GNU make.
You can't even make a project template like you can with .NET projects! Well, you can make a wizard if you want to wade through the docs on doing that I suppose. Personally, I have decided to go with the "many small projects" solution and just deal with it. It turns out it can be less horrible than I had thought, though it still sucks. Here's what I did in Visual Studio 2008:
Create your first Win32 command line tool project, get all your settings down for all platforms and make sure it works under all circumstances. This is going to be your "template" so you don't want to edit it after you've made 20 copies.
(optional) I set up my paths in the visual studio project files so that everything is built in the project directory, then I have a post-build step copy just the dll/exe/pdb files I need to $(SolutionDir)$(OutDir). That way you can jump into a single directory to test all your tools and/or wrap them up for a binary distribution. VS2008 seems to be insane and drops output folders all over the place, with the default locations of Win32 and x64 output differing. Spending a few minutes to ensure that all platforms are consistent will pay off later.
Clean up your template. Get rid of any user settings files and compiler output.
Copy and paste your project as many times as you need. One project per tool.
Rename each copied project folder and project file to a new tool name. Open up the project file in a text editor like Notepad++. If you have a simple, 1-file project you'll need to change the project name at two places at the beginning of the file and the source code file name(s) at the end of the file. You shouldn't need to touch the configuration stuff in the middle.
You will also need to change the GUID for the project. Pop open guidgen.exe (in the SDK bin directory) and use the last radio button setting. Copy and paste a new GUID into each project file at the top. If you have dependencies, there will be one or more GUIDs at the bottom of the file near the source code. Do NOT change them as they are the GUIDs from the dependencies and have to match!
Go into Visual Studio, open up your main solution and add your tool projects.
Go into the configuration manager and make sure that everything is correct for all supported platforms, then test your build.
It's not beautiful, but it works and it's very much worth the setup time to be able to control your builds from the GUI. Hopefully VS2010 will be better about this, but I'm not too hopeful. It looks like MS is giving a lot more love to the .NET community than the C/C++ community these days.
If you have a makefile you can use a 'makefile' project in Visual Studio (which in misnamed - it simply allows you to specify custom build/debug commands), and use it to invoke GNU make.
You will need to change the makefile to use the VC++ command line tools instead of cc or gcc or whatever it uses, but often these are specified by macros at the top of the makefile.
If the makefile uses other Unix specific commands (such as rm), you may need to make modifications, or create bath files to map commands to Windows equivalents. Another option is to install any necessary tools from GNUWin32 to make it work.
If the build is very complex or involves configure scripts, then you have a harder task. You could generate the makefile from a configure script using MSYS/MinGW, and then modify it as above to make it work with VC++.
Makefile projects will not be as tightly integrated in Visual Studio however. All the build management is down to you and the makefile.
If you're really using Visual Studio, I would suggest creating a project for each tool, and adding these projects to a single solution. From Visual Studio, it's easy to build a complete solution all at once, and MSBuild knows how to build .sln files as well.
msbuild myslnfile.sln
or even:
msbuild
... will build your solution.
I am developing on a Windows machine using Eclipse in C code.
All the files are physically located on a Linux server.
I am using Eclipse only for editing and code browsing.
When I want to compile, I open a terminal and telnet to the Linux server from which I call a file that sets up few variables and eventually invoke a "make" command.
The server is pretty busy.. I would then like to be able to compile locally [and then just ftp these executable files back to the Linux machine so that I can execute them.. unless Eclipse can do that on its own :) ].... any idea how can that be done? I am not well versed in Eclipse or OS usage.... so if you could answer and explain what I should do.. I would really appreciate...
I changed the Build Command under Project Properties menu by just calling the script file on the server I usually invoke to compile... That looked fairly simple.. well... that was too good to be true... and of course.. it didn't work! I am getting this error if I use the default "make" (Cannot run program "make": Launching failed).... while getting (Cannot run program "T:\compile": Launching failed) if I try to invoke my script file that I use to compile...
thanks,
You should take a look at running a crosstool-ng setup on your windows box inside cygwin. And then have eclipse use that compiler. This will allow you to develop for your target Linux platform easily.
Here's some slides
It sounds like you're developing for a desktop/server platform, so you'll have to make sure you set up your crosstool-ng with the same versions of standard libs as your server has (libc, libstdc++, etc). You also want to make sure your crosstool-ng has the same version of gcc as the target as well.
If you don't want to mess with getting all that setup, you could always install Linux as a virtual machine on your windows box and work inside there.