[PD-dev] removing pd/bin/msvr*.dll from Pd/win

[Miller Puckette]

Would this mean that anyone shipping a binary external for Windows would
have to put it in a separate directory with its own msvcrt.dll/msvcr90.dll?
Sounds like a nightmare to me.

I don't understand the issues yet... in particular, since pdlibbuilder uses
mingw on Windows, how does it work with Pd if mingw and msvcr*dll aren't
compatible?  Is pdlibbuilder/mingw statically linking in its own msvcr*?

cheers
Miller

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:51:45PM +0100, Christof Ressi wrote:
> I agree and I've already suggested this: https://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2018-09/021721.html
> 
> BTW, I got linker errors because of msvcrt.dll when I compiled Dan's pdfontloader. this left me scratching my head for quite a while. removing the DLL solved the problem.
> https://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2018-09/021709.html
> 
> Christof
> 
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Januar 2019 um 22:16 Uhr
> > Von: "IOhannes m zm??lnig" <zmoelnig at iem.at>
> > An: "PureData developer's list" <pd-dev at lists.iem.at>
> > Betreff: [PD-dev] removing pd/bin/msvr*.dll from Pd/win
> >
> > hi,
> > 
> > TL;DR: i'd like to suggest to remove the "msvcr90.dll" and " msvcrt.dll"
> > files from the pd\bin\ folder of all (future) windows releases.
> > 
> > rationale
> > =========
> > 
> > # usage by Pd
> > first of all, these files are not used by Pd at all.
> > they are only provided as a courtesy for externals that happen to
> > require a dyamically linked libc implementation but fail to provide one
> > themselves.
> > most likely this is a leftover from the days, where any dynamic
> > dependencies of an external would only be looked up in the Pd\bin\
> > folder (and not in the folder of the external itself), making it
> > impossible to ship externals in a self-contained folder.
> > luckily, these days are gone.
> > 
> > # incompatibility
> > for whatever reasons (personally i blame redmont, but i might be
> > biased), "msvcrt.dll" is not a well defined library. especially it does
> > not guarantee any binary compatibility.
> > in practice, the "msvcrt.dll" as shipped with Pd is *incompatible* with
> > msvcrt.dll as used by mingw when compiling. (it might also be
> > incompatible with a file of the same name shipped with the latest
> > release of MS Visual Studio, but i haven't checked).
> > 
> > that means: the provided msvcrt.dll simply will not work with any
> > mingw-compiled external.
> > if the
> > 
> > # compiling
> > i noticed that i cannot compile/link externals for windows/32bit using
> > mingw, if their build-system uses autotools/libtool.
> > 
> > the linking stage fails in catastrophic ways, only because the linker
> > picks up the
> > 
> > here's an example log-file of such a failed build:
> >   https://git.iem.at/pd/Gem/-/jobs/3230
> > 
> > <techdetails>
> > it took me a while to figure out what went wrong, because pd-lib-builder
> > based externals compile just fine.
> > it turned out, that the difference was that pd-lib-builder would link
> > against "${PDPATH}\bin\pd.dll" (that is: it uses the full path as the
> > library file to link against) whereas libtool based builds would link
> > against "pd.dll" and add "${PDPATH\bin\" to the library search path (the
> > actual linker flags being "-L${PDPATH}\bin\ -l:pd.dll").
> > since explicit library search paths take precedence over built-ins,
> > adding "-L${PDPATH}\bin\" would make the linker find the "msvcrt.dll"
> > file in ${PDPATH}\bin\, which happens to be incompatible with mingw, and
> > thus an error is raised.
> > </techdetails>
> > 
> > the *only* way i found to fix the linker flag, is by removing the
> > "msvcrt.dll" file from ${PDPATH}\bin\ before starting the build-process.
> > in practice i also removed the "msvcr90.dll" file.
> > 
> > incidentally, there are no problem with the w64 version of Pd, as this
> > ships 32bit versions of "msvcr*.dll", which will be ignored by the
> > compiler/linker/runtimelinker, because of a non-matching architecture.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > # conclusion
> > afaics, there are currently **no** benefits in shipping the msvcr*.dll
> > files.
> > however, they do create a number of issues.
> > (and in the case of Pd/W64 they are of the wrong architecture anyhow)
> > 
> > i don't see a reason to keep them.
> > 
> > fgmdsar
> > IOhannes
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-dev mailing list
> > Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev