398 lines
		
	
	
		
			18 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			398 lines
		
	
	
		
			18 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
| 
 | |
|             Frequently Asked Questions about ZLIB1.DLL
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| This document describes the design, the rationale, and the usage
 | |
| of the official DLL build of zlib, named ZLIB1.DLL.  If you have
 | |
| general questions about zlib, you should see the file "FAQ" found
 | |
| in the zlib distribution, or at the following location:
 | |
|   http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_faq.html
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  1. What is ZLIB1.DLL, and how can I get it?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - ZLIB1.DLL is the official build of zlib as a DLL.
 | |
|     (Please remark the character '1' in the name.)
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Pointers to a precompiled ZLIB1.DLL can be found in the zlib
 | |
|     web site at:
 | |
|       http://www.zlib.net/
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Applications that link to ZLIB1.DLL can rely on the following
 | |
|     specification:
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * The exported symbols are exclusively defined in the source
 | |
|       files "zlib.h" and "zlib.def", found in an official zlib
 | |
|       source distribution.
 | |
|     * The symbols are exported by name, not by ordinal.
 | |
|     * The exported names are undecorated.
 | |
|     * The calling convention of functions is "C" (CDECL).
 | |
|     * The ZLIB1.DLL binary is linked to MSVCRT.DLL.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     The archive in which ZLIB1.DLL is bundled contains compiled
 | |
|     test programs that must run with a valid build of ZLIB1.DLL.
 | |
|     It is recommended to download the prebuilt DLL from the zlib
 | |
|     web site, instead of building it yourself, to avoid potential
 | |
|     incompatibilities that could be introduced by your compiler
 | |
|     and build settings.  If you do build the DLL yourself, please
 | |
|     make sure that it complies with all the above requirements,
 | |
|     and it runs with the precompiled test programs, bundled with
 | |
|     the original ZLIB1.DLL distribution.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     If, for any reason, you need to build an incompatible DLL,
 | |
|     please use a different file name.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  2. Why did you change the name of the DLL to ZLIB1.DLL?
 | |
|     What happened to the old ZLIB.DLL?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - The old ZLIB.DLL, built from zlib-1.1.4 or earlier, required
 | |
|     compilation settings that were incompatible to those used by
 | |
|     a static build.  The DLL settings were supposed to be enabled
 | |
|     by defining the macro ZLIB_DLL, before including "zlib.h".
 | |
|     Incorrect handling of this macro was silently accepted at
 | |
|     build time, resulting in two major problems:
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * ZLIB_DLL was missing from the old makefile.  When building
 | |
|       the DLL, not all people added it to the build options.  In
 | |
|       consequence, incompatible incarnations of ZLIB.DLL started
 | |
|       to circulate around the net.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * When switching from using the static library to using the
 | |
|       DLL, applications had to define the ZLIB_DLL macro and
 | |
|       to recompile all the sources that contained calls to zlib
 | |
|       functions.  Failure to do so resulted in creating binaries
 | |
|       that were unable to run with the official ZLIB.DLL build.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     The only possible solution that we could foresee was to make
 | |
|     a binary-incompatible change in the DLL interface, in order to
 | |
|     remove the dependency on the ZLIB_DLL macro, and to release
 | |
|     the new DLL under a different name.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     We chose the name ZLIB1.DLL, where '1' indicates the major
 | |
|     zlib version number.  We hope that we will not have to break
 | |
|     the binary compatibility again, at least not as long as the
 | |
|     zlib-1.x series will last.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     There is still a ZLIB_DLL macro, that can trigger a more
 | |
|     efficient build and use of the DLL, but compatibility no
 | |
|     longer dependents on it.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  3. Can I build ZLIB.DLL from the new zlib sources, and replace
 | |
|     an old ZLIB.DLL, that was built from zlib-1.1.4 or earlier?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - In principle, you can do it by assigning calling convention
 | |
|     keywords to the macros ZEXPORT and ZEXPORTVA.  In practice,
 | |
|     it depends on what you mean by "an old ZLIB.DLL", because the
 | |
|     old DLL exists in several mutually-incompatible versions.
 | |
|     You have to find out first what kind of calling convention is
 | |
|     being used in your particular ZLIB.DLL build, and to use the
 | |
|     same one in the new build.  If you don't know what this is all
 | |
|     about, you might be better off if you would just leave the old
 | |
|     DLL intact.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  4. Can I compile my application using the new zlib interface, and
 | |
|     link it to an old ZLIB.DLL, that was built from zlib-1.1.4 or
 | |
|     earlier?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - The official answer is "no"; the real answer depends again on
 | |
|     what kind of ZLIB.DLL you have.  Even if you are lucky, this
 | |
|     course of action is unreliable.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     If you rebuild your application and you intend to use a newer
 | |
|     version of zlib (post- 1.1.4), it is strongly recommended to
 | |
|     link it to the new ZLIB1.DLL.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  5. Why are the zlib symbols exported by name, and not by ordinal?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Although exporting symbols by ordinal is a little faster, it
 | |
|     is risky.  Any single glitch in the maintenance or use of the
 | |
|     DEF file that contains the ordinals can result in incompatible
 | |
|     builds and frustrating crashes.  Simply put, the benefits of
 | |
|     exporting symbols by ordinal do not justify the risks.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Technically, it should be possible to maintain ordinals in
 | |
|     the DEF file, and still export the symbols by name.  Ordinals
 | |
|     exist in every DLL, and even if the dynamic linking performed
 | |
|     at the DLL startup is searching for names, ordinals serve as
 | |
|     hints, for a faster name lookup.  However, if the DEF file
 | |
|     contains ordinals, the Microsoft linker automatically builds
 | |
|     an implib that will cause the executables linked to it to use
 | |
|     those ordinals, and not the names.  It is interesting to
 | |
|     notice that the GNU linker for Win32 does not suffer from this
 | |
|     problem.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     It is possible to avoid the DEF file if the exported symbols
 | |
|     are accompanied by a "__declspec(dllexport)" attribute in the
 | |
|     source files.  You can do this in zlib by predefining the
 | |
|     ZLIB_DLL macro.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  6. I see that the ZLIB1.DLL functions use the "C" (CDECL) calling
 | |
|     convention.  Why not use the STDCALL convention?
 | |
|     STDCALL is the standard convention in Win32, and I need it in
 | |
|     my Visual Basic project!
 | |
| 
 | |
|     (For readability, we use CDECL to refer to the convention
 | |
|      triggered by the "__cdecl" keyword, STDCALL to refer to
 | |
|      the convention triggered by "__stdcall", and FASTCALL to
 | |
|      refer to the convention triggered by "__fastcall".)
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Most of the native Windows API functions (without varargs) use
 | |
|     indeed the WINAPI convention (which translates to STDCALL in
 | |
|     Win32), but the standard C functions use CDECL.  If a user
 | |
|     application is intrinsically tied to the Windows API (e.g.
 | |
|     it calls native Windows API functions such as CreateFile()),
 | |
|     sometimes it makes sense to decorate its own functions with
 | |
|     WINAPI.  But if ANSI C or POSIX portability is a goal (e.g.
 | |
|     it calls standard C functions such as fopen()), it is not a
 | |
|     sound decision to request the inclusion of <windows.h>, or to
 | |
|     use non-ANSI constructs, for the sole purpose to make the user
 | |
|     functions STDCALL-able.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     The functionality offered by zlib is not in the category of
 | |
|     "Windows functionality", but is more like "C functionality".
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Technically, STDCALL is not bad; in fact, it is slightly
 | |
|     faster than CDECL, and it works with variable-argument
 | |
|     functions, just like CDECL.  It is unfortunate that, in spite
 | |
|     of using STDCALL in the Windows API, it is not the default
 | |
|     convention used by the C compilers that run under Windows.
 | |
|     The roots of the problem reside deep inside the unsafety of
 | |
|     the K&R-style function prototypes, where the argument types
 | |
|     are not specified; but that is another story for another day.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     The remaining fact is that CDECL is the default convention.
 | |
|     Even if an explicit convention is hard-coded into the function
 | |
|     prototypes inside C headers, problems may appear.  The
 | |
|     necessity to expose the convention in users' callbacks is one
 | |
|     of these problems.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     The calling convention issues are also important when using
 | |
|     zlib in other programming languages.  Some of them, like Ada
 | |
|     (GNAT) and Fortran (GNU G77), have C bindings implemented
 | |
|     initially on Unix, and relying on the C calling convention.
 | |
|     On the other hand, the pre- .NET versions of Microsoft Visual
 | |
|     Basic require STDCALL, while Borland Delphi prefers, although
 | |
|     it does not require, FASTCALL.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     In fairness to all possible uses of zlib outside the C
 | |
|     programming language, we choose the default "C" convention.
 | |
|     Anyone interested in different bindings or conventions is
 | |
|     encouraged to maintain specialized projects.  The "contrib/"
 | |
|     directory from the zlib distribution already holds a couple
 | |
|     of foreign bindings, such as Ada, C++, and Delphi.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  7. I need a DLL for my Visual Basic project.  What can I do?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Define the ZLIB_WINAPI macro before including "zlib.h", when
 | |
|     building both the DLL and the user application (except that
 | |
|     you don't need to define anything when using the DLL in Visual
 | |
|     Basic).  The ZLIB_WINAPI macro will switch on the WINAPI
 | |
|     (STDCALL) convention.  The name of this DLL must be different
 | |
|     than the official ZLIB1.DLL.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Gilles Vollant has contributed a build named ZLIBWAPI.DLL,
 | |
|     with the ZLIB_WINAPI macro turned on, and with the minizip
 | |
|     functionality built in.  For more information, please read
 | |
|     the notes inside "contrib/vstudio/readme.txt", found in the
 | |
|     zlib distribution.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  8. I need to use zlib in my Microsoft .NET project.  What can I
 | |
|     do?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Henrik Ravn has contributed a .NET wrapper around zlib.  Look
 | |
|     into contrib/dotzlib/, inside the zlib distribution.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
|  9. If my application uses ZLIB1.DLL, should I link it to
 | |
|     MSVCRT.DLL?  Why?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - It is not required, but it is recommended to link your
 | |
|     application to MSVCRT.DLL, if it uses ZLIB1.DLL.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     The executables (.EXE, .DLL, etc.) that are involved in the
 | |
|     same process and are using the C run-time library (i.e. they
 | |
|     are calling standard C functions), must link to the same
 | |
|     library.  There are several libraries in the Win32 system:
 | |
|     CRTDLL.DLL, MSVCRT.DLL, the static C libraries, etc.
 | |
|     Since ZLIB1.DLL is linked to MSVCRT.DLL, the executables that
 | |
|     depend on it should also be linked to MSVCRT.DLL.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 10. Why are you saying that ZLIB1.DLL and my application should
 | |
|     be linked to the same C run-time (CRT) library?  I linked my
 | |
|     application and my DLLs to different C libraries (e.g. my
 | |
|     application to a static library, and my DLLs to MSVCRT.DLL),
 | |
|     and everything works fine.
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - If a user library invokes only pure Win32 API (accessible via
 | |
|     <windows.h> and the related headers), its DLL build will work
 | |
|     in any context.  But if this library invokes standard C API,
 | |
|     things get more complicated.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     There is a single Win32 library in a Win32 system.  Every
 | |
|     function in this library resides in a single DLL module, that
 | |
|     is safe to call from anywhere.  On the other hand, there are
 | |
|     multiple versions of the C library, and each of them has its
 | |
|     own separate internal state.  Standalone executables and user
 | |
|     DLLs that call standard C functions must link to a C run-time
 | |
|     (CRT) library, be it static or shared (DLL).  Intermixing
 | |
|     occurs when an executable (not necessarily standalone) and a
 | |
|     DLL are linked to different CRTs, and both are running in the
 | |
|     same process.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Intermixing multiple CRTs is possible, as long as their
 | |
|     internal states are kept intact.  The Microsoft Knowledge Base
 | |
|     articles KB94248 "HOWTO: Use the C Run-Time" and KB140584
 | |
|     "HOWTO: Link with the Correct C Run-Time (CRT) Library"
 | |
|     mention the potential problems raised by intermixing.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     If intermixing works for you, it's because your application
 | |
|     and DLLs are avoiding the corruption of each of the CRTs'
 | |
|     internal states, maybe by careful design, or maybe by fortune.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     Also note that linking ZLIB1.DLL to non-Microsoft CRTs, such
 | |
|     as those provided by Borland, raises similar problems.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 11. Why are you linking ZLIB1.DLL to MSVCRT.DLL?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - MSVCRT.DLL exists on every Windows 95 with a new service pack
 | |
|     installed, or with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4 or later, and
 | |
|     on all other Windows 4.x or later (Windows 98, Windows NT 4,
 | |
|     or later).  It is freely distributable; if not present in the
 | |
|     system, it can be downloaded from Microsoft or from other
 | |
|     software provider for free.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     The fact that MSVCRT.DLL does not exist on a virgin Windows 95
 | |
|     is not so problematic.  Windows 95 is scarcely found nowadays,
 | |
|     Microsoft ended its support a long time ago, and many recent
 | |
|     applications from various vendors, including Microsoft, do not
 | |
|     even run on it.  Furthermore, no serious user should run
 | |
|     Windows 95 without a proper update installed.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 12. Why are you not linking ZLIB1.DLL to
 | |
|     <<my favorite C run-time library>> ?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - We considered and abandoned the following alternatives:
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * Linking ZLIB1.DLL to a static C library (LIBC.LIB, or
 | |
|       LIBCMT.LIB) is not a good option.  People are using the DLL
 | |
|       mainly to save disk space.  If you are linking your program
 | |
|       to a static C library, you may as well consider linking zlib
 | |
|       in statically, too.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * Linking ZLIB1.DLL to CRTDLL.DLL looks appealing, because
 | |
|       CRTDLL.DLL is present on every Win32 installation.
 | |
|       Unfortunately, it has a series of problems: it does not
 | |
|       work properly with Microsoft's C++ libraries, it does not
 | |
|       provide support for 64-bit file offsets, (and so on...),
 | |
|       and Microsoft discontinued its support a long time ago.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * Linking ZLIB1.DLL to MSVCR70.DLL or MSVCR71.DLL, supplied
 | |
|       with the Microsoft .NET platform, and Visual C++ 7.0/7.1,
 | |
|       raises problems related to the status of ZLIB1.DLL as a
 | |
|       system component.  According to the Microsoft Knowledge Base
 | |
|       article KB326922 "INFO: Redistribution of the Shared C
 | |
|       Runtime Component in Visual C++ .NET", MSVCR70.DLL and
 | |
|       MSVCR71.DLL are not supposed to function as system DLLs,
 | |
|       because they may clash with MSVCRT.DLL.  Instead, the
 | |
|       application's installer is supposed to put these DLLs
 | |
|       (if needed) in the application's private directory.
 | |
|       If ZLIB1.DLL depends on a non-system runtime, it cannot
 | |
|       function as a redistributable system component.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     * Linking ZLIB1.DLL to non-Microsoft runtimes, such as
 | |
|       Borland's, or Cygwin's, raises problems related to the
 | |
|       reliable presence of these runtimes on Win32 systems.
 | |
|       It's easier to let the DLL build of zlib up to the people
 | |
|       who distribute these runtimes, and who may proceed as
 | |
|       explained in the answer to Question 14.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 13. If ZLIB1.DLL cannot be linked to MSVCR70.DLL or MSVCR71.DLL,
 | |
|     how can I build/use ZLIB1.DLL in Microsoft Visual C++ 7.0
 | |
|     (Visual Studio .NET) or newer?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Due to the problems explained in the Microsoft Knowledge Base
 | |
|     article KB326922 (see the previous answer), the C runtime that
 | |
|     comes with the VC7 environment is no longer considered a
 | |
|     system component.  That is, it should not be assumed that this
 | |
|     runtime exists, or may be installed in a system directory.
 | |
|     Since ZLIB1.DLL is supposed to be a system component, it may
 | |
|     not depend on a non-system component.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     In order to link ZLIB1.DLL and your application to MSVCRT.DLL
 | |
|     in VC7, you need the library of Visual C++ 6.0 or older.  If
 | |
|     you don't have this library at hand, it's probably best not to
 | |
|     use ZLIB1.DLL.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     We are hoping that, in the future, Microsoft will provide a
 | |
|     way to build applications linked to a proper system runtime,
 | |
|     from the Visual C++ environment.  Until then, you have a
 | |
|     couple of alternatives, such as linking zlib in statically.
 | |
|     If your application requires dynamic linking, you may proceed
 | |
|     as explained in the answer to Question 14.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 14. I need to link my own DLL build to a CRT different than
 | |
|     MSVCRT.DLL.  What can I do?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - Feel free to rebuild the DLL from the zlib sources, and link
 | |
|     it the way you want.  You should, however, clearly state that
 | |
|     your build is unofficial.  You should give it a different file
 | |
|     name, and/or install it in a private directory that can be
 | |
|     accessed by your application only, and is not visible to the
 | |
|     others (i.e. it's neither in the PATH, nor in the SYSTEM or
 | |
|     SYSTEM32 directories).  Otherwise, your build may clash with
 | |
|     applications that link to the official build.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     For example, in Cygwin, zlib is linked to the Cygwin runtime
 | |
|     CYGWIN1.DLL, and it is distributed under the name CYGZ.DLL.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 15. May I include additional pieces of code that I find useful,
 | |
|     link them in ZLIB1.DLL, and export them?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - No.  A legitimate build of ZLIB1.DLL must not include code
 | |
|     that does not originate from the official zlib source code.
 | |
|     But you can make your own private DLL build, under a different
 | |
|     file name, as suggested in the previous answer.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     For example, zlib is a part of the VCL library, distributed
 | |
|     with Borland Delphi and C++ Builder.  The DLL build of VCL
 | |
|     is a redistributable file, named VCLxx.DLL.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 16. May I remove some functionality out of ZLIB1.DLL, by enabling
 | |
|     macros like NO_GZCOMPRESS or NO_GZIP at compile time?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - No.  A legitimate build of ZLIB1.DLL must provide the complete
 | |
|     zlib functionality, as implemented in the official zlib source
 | |
|     code.  But you can make your own private DLL build, under a
 | |
|     different file name, as suggested in the previous answer.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 17. I made my own ZLIB1.DLL build.  Can I test it for compliance?
 | |
| 
 | |
|   - We prefer that you download the official DLL from the zlib
 | |
|     web site.  If you need something peculiar from this DLL, you
 | |
|     can send your suggestion to the zlib mailing list.
 | |
| 
 | |
|     However, in case you do rebuild the DLL yourself, you can run
 | |
|     it with the test programs found in the DLL distribution.
 | |
|     Running these test programs is not a guarantee of compliance,
 | |
|     but a failure can imply a detected problem.
 | |
| 
 | |
| **
 | |
| 
 | |
| This document is written and maintained by
 | |
| Cosmin Truta <cosmint@cs.ubbcluj.ro>
 | 
