I want to merge unmanaged DLLs and image files with managed DLL. How I can do it? Is it possible?
It is quite possible. This can be done with bxilmerge
This solution can to merge unmanaged DLLs and images or another files with managed DLL
Related
so my question is relatively simple, can I create VB6 application that references a class in a dll, and then substitute that dll for another at runtime?
Now my intial guess is... no chance in VB6.
So my thoughts turned to a VB.net interop dll. Could I do it in here, and then call the interop dll from the VB?
Again, my guess would be no.... but I'd be happy if someone knew differently.
The only thing that I think would actually work would be DI in .Net, but I'm limited to .net 2, or 3.5 at a big push, so I dont know if that is possible.
So for the background....
I have a dll that a specific site uses, but we dont want to ship that out to everyone. Instead, we want to build a clone dll which just has the interfaces setup so that the VB6 build will complete.
When it gets to the site that needs it, they want to replace the dummy dll, and drop in their version instead.
Note: We do use RegFreeCOM when its gets installed, so I do have the manifest files that I could play around with if needed.
Any ideas would be much appreciated.
Nick
Its a COM dll so its not statically linked to the VB6 exe, so long as the clsids and interface ids are the same in the type library for both DLLs, you can swap them around as you see fit. (If its a VB6 dll this is trivial to do with the 'binary compatibility' build option)
You could also use late binding instead and instead of making a reference directly in your VB6 code, you would create an object and then set that object to an instance.
Examples and information:
MVPS
Microsoft
My program requires some function in a dll at runtime. How do I tell where the dll is? I can copy the dll into the program directory or system 32. Is there other neat way of doing this? Thank you. Also I am working in C++.
Are you using native code (C/C++/Delphi) or .NET? You should see my answer to Call Function from Dynamic Library for an example of how to do this with a native (not .NET) DLL.
When I was reading about DLLs on StackOverflow I came accross the word "Native DLLs" a lot of times. I found questions regarding them but I couldn't understand what a "Native DLL" actually is.
What is a native DLL?
Native DLL's are usually DLL's containing raw processor directly-executable code (such as that found in the Win32 API's) as opposed to, for example, managed (MSIL) which contain code that is consumed and JIT compiled to native processor instructions by a runtime such as the .NET CLR.
In .NET it is also possible to create mixed-mode DLL's that contain both native binary code and managed code.
this term came out when managed code that comes from .net assemblies was invented, to distinguish between managed and unmanaged =native code.
every .net assembly gets "nativied" by the JIT-compiler during execution. this means it gets translated to asm code that is "natively" understandable to the CPU.
The term native DLL was originally used before managed code existed. It was originally intended to refer to DLLs that are not COM DLLs. It is intended to refer to DLLs like the ones in Windows originally.
Note that Kev said "In .NET it is also possible to create mixed-mode DLL's that contain both native binary code and managed code." but that is not relevant; such a DLL is not a native DLL because it has CLI (.Net) metadata. Also, mixed-mode DLL's can only be developed using C++/CLI; no other language supports it.
See my article Native Windows Dynamic Link Libraries (DLLs) for more.
From what I understand a "Native DLL" will be a basic Win32 dll for example. A DLL that contains non managed code.
With .NET you write Managed assemblies. These will call the base level Windows code which is the same that a non-managed application will call.
A quick look through these MSDN search results will answer your question:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Search/en-US?query=define:%20native%20dll&ac=8
It's simple a DLL that contains machine code, rather than MSIL.
I am writing a C++/CLI which have access/"dependencies" to many DLL COM and DLL .NET libraries.
Is this possible to link/join all these libraries into my C++/CLI program and generate only one executable object in such a way that I never again have to consider these dependencies every time I have to move my object to another computer?
Thanks!!!
ILMerge is an option for collapsing several managed assemblies into one: ILMerge Best Practices
However ILMerge might not be an option:
You can't merge the COM DLLs without having source code to them
Since you mentioned COM, I'm guessing that your C++/CLI program isn't pure IL: ILMerge won't touch assemblies like this that contain native code. (If your C++/CLI program uses COM through COM interop, and it's otherwise pure .NET, you should be OK.)
I've got a lot of small DLLs which I would like to make into one big(er) DLL (as suggested here). I can do so by merging my projects but I would like a less intrusive way.
Can several DLLs be merged into one unit?
A quick search found this thread that claims this is not possible. Does anyone know otherwise?
Note that I'm talking about native C++ code not .NET so ILMerge is out.
I don't know about merging dlls, but I'm sure you can link the intermediate object files into one dll. This would only require changes in your build script.
As far as I know you cannot merge DLL files directly. But it should be possible with static libraries or object files. If it is possible for you to build static libraries of your projects you can merge them using the Library Manager by extracting object files from all libraries and packaging them into a new library.
Also, there was a product that made a .LIB out of .DLLs. You could then link your exe against that .LIB and get rid of the .DLLs altogether. Perhaps you could link a .DLL out of the .LIB - I'm not sure.
The product is here:
http://www.binary-soft.com/dll2lib/dll2lib.htm
I'm not sure, if it works anymore, if it's supported or even sold. It sure appears pricey, but it used to have (nag-enabled) free trial period.