Working with Visual Studios C++ manifest files

Question

I have written some code that makes use of an open source library to do some of the heavy lifting. This work was done in linux, with unit tests and cmake to help with porting it to windows. There is a requirement to have it run on both platforms.

I like Linux and I like cmake and I like that I can get visual studios files automatically generated. As it is now, on windows everything will compile and it will link and it will generate the test executables.

However, to get to this point I had to fight with windows for several days, learning all about manifest files and redistributable packages.

As far as my understanding goes:

With VS 2005, Microsoft created Side By Side dlls. The motivation for this is that before, multiple applications would install different versions of the same dll, causing previously installed and working applications to crash (ie "Dll Hell"). Side by Side dlls fix this, as there is now a "manifest file" appended to each executable/dll that specifies which version should be executed.

This is all well and good. Applications should no longer crash mysteriously. However...

Microsoft seems to release a new set of system dlls with every release of Visual Studios. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I am a developer trying to link to a third party library. Often, these things come distributed as a "precompiled dll". Now, what happens when a precompiled dll compiled with one version of visual studios is linked to an application using another version of visual studios?

From what I have read on the internet, bad stuff happens. Luckily, I never got that far - I kept running into the "MSVCR80.dll not found" problem when running the executable and thus began my foray into this whole manifest issue.

I finally came to the conclusion that the only way to get this to work (besides statically linking everything) is that all third party libraries must be compiled using the same version of Visual Studios - ie don't use precompiled dlls - download the source, build a new dll and use that instead.

Is this in fact true? Did I miss something?

Furthermore, if this seems to be the case, then I can't help but think that Microsoft did this on purpose for nefarious reasons.

Not only does it break all precompiled binaries making it unnecessarily difficult to use precompiled binaries, if you happen to work for a software company that makes use of third party proprietary libraries, then whenever they upgrade to the latest version of visual studios - your company must now do the same thing or the code will no longer run.

As an aside, how does linux avoid this? Although I said I preferred developing on it and I understand the mechanics of linking, I haven't maintained any application long enough to run into this sort of low level shared libraries versioning problem.

Finally, to sum up: Is it possible to use precompiled binaries with this new manifest scheme? If it is, what was my mistake? If it isn't, does Microsoft honestly think this makes application development easier?

Update - A more concise question: How does Linux avoid the use of Manifest files?

Answer 1

All components in your application must share the same runtime. When this is not the case, you run into strange problems like asserting on delete statements.

This is the same on all platforms. It is not something Microsoft invented.

You may get around this 'only one runtime' problem by being aware where the runtimes may bite back. This is mostly in cases where you allocate memory in one module, and free it in another.

a.dll     dllexport void* createBla() { return malloc( 100 ); }  b.dll     void consumeBla() { void* p = createBla(); free( p ); } 

When a.dll and b.dll are linked to different rumtimes, this crashes, because the runtime functions implement their own heap.

You can easily avoid this problem by providing a destroyBla function which must be called to free the memory.

There are several points where you may run into problems with the runtime, but most can be avoided by wrapping these constructs.

For reference :

• don't allocate/free memory/objects across module boundaries
• don't use complex objects in your dll interface. (e.g. std::string, ...)
• don't use elaborate C++ mechanisms across dll boundaries. (typeinfo, C++ exceptions, ...)
• ...

But this is not a problem with manifests.

A manifest contains the version info of the runtime used by the module and gets embedded into the binary (exe/dll) by the linker. When an application is loaded and its dependencies are to be resolved, the loader looks at the manifest information embedded in the exe file and uses the according version of the runtime dlls from the WinSxS folder. You cannot just copy the runtime or other modules to the WinSxS folder. You have to install the runtime offered by Microsoft. There are MSI packages supplied by Microsoft which can be executed when you install your software on a test/end-user machine.

So install your runtime before using your application, and you won't get a 'missing dependency' error.

---

(Updated to the "How does Linux avoid the use of Manifest files" question)

What is a manifest file?

Manifest files were introduced to place disambiguation information next to an existing executable/dynamic link library or directly embedded into this file.

This is done by specifying the specific version of dlls which are to be loaded when starting the app/loading dependencies.

(There are several other things you can do with manifest files, e.g. some meta-data may be put here)

Why is this done?

The version is not part of the dll name due to historic reasons. So "comctl32.dll" is named this way in all versions of it. (So the comctl32 under Win2k is different from the one in XP or Vista). To specify which version you really want (and have tested against), you place the version information in the "appname.exe.manifest" file (or embed this file/information).

Why was it done this way?

Many programs installed their dlls into the system32 directory on the systemrootdir. This was done to allow bugfixes to shared libraries to be deployed easily for all dependent applications. And in the days of limited memory, shared libraries reduced the memory footprint when several applications used the same libraries.

This concept was abused by many programmers, when they installed all their dlls into this directory; sometimes overwriting newer versions of shared libraries with older ones. Sometimes libraries changed silently in their behaviour, so that dependent applications crashed.

This lead to the approach of "Distribute all dlls in the application directory".

Why was this bad?

When bugs appeared, all dlls scattered in several directories had to be updated. (gdiplus.dll) In other cases this was not even possible (windows components)

The manifest approach

This approach solves all problems above. You can install the dlls in a central place, where the programmer may not interfere. Here the dlls can be updated (by updating the dll in the WinSxS folder) and the loader loads the 'right' dll. (version matching is done by the dll-loader).

Why doesn't Linux have this mechanic?

I have several guesses. (This is really just guessing ...)

• Most things are open-source, so recompiling for a bugfix is a non-issue for the target audience
• Because there is only one 'runtime' (the gcc runtime), the problem with runtime sharing/library boundaries does not occur so often
• Many components use C at the interface level, where these problems just don't occur if done right
• The version of libraries are in most cases embedded in the name of its file.
• Most applications are statically bound to their libraries, so no dll-hell may occur.
• The GCC runtime was kept very ABI stable so that these problems could not occur.