It's effectively mandatory. Microsoft provides about twelve different C Runtimes. But if you're building something like an open source library, you can't link two different C runtimes where you might accidentally malloc() memory with one and then free() with the other. If you want to be able to pass pointers around your dynamic link libraries, you have to link the one C runtime everyone else uses, which is MSVCRT. Also worth mentioning that on Windows 10 last time I checked ADVAPI32 links MSVCRT. So it's pretty much impossible to not link.
It isn't mandatory. I have never actively linked against MSVCRT on Windows. From my experience it's mostly software that isn't built with Visual Studio that uses MSVCRT, or software that that takes extreme care of its binary size (e.g. 64k intros). MSVCRT is not even an up-to-date C runtime library. You wouldn't be able to use it for writing software requiring C11 library features without implementing them somewhere on top of it.
It's true that you cannot just happily pass pointers around and expect someone else to be able to safely delete your pointer - but that is why any serious library with a C interface provides its own function to free objects you obtained from the library. Saying that this is impossible without MSVCRT implies that every software needs to be built with it, which is not even remotely the case. If I wanted, I could build all the C libraries I use with LLVM and still link against them in my application compiled with the latest MSVC runtime or UCRT.
The much bigger problem is mixing C++ runtimes in the same piece of software, there you effectively must guarantee that each library uses the same runtime, or chaos ensues.
If you're writing in C++ on Windows, expose only COM (or at least COM-style) interface called through virtual functions on an object pointer. Then you can use whatever C++ run-time you want, internally. What you don't want is the other library calling C++ functions by name. Like you pass it some ostream object and it calls ostream::put or whatever, where that symbolically resolves to the wrong one.
Another reasonable choice for some components would be to have a purely C api; everything extern "C", and only PODs (plain old datastructures) in the arguments.
Exactly. Using a pure C interface escapes COM's requirement to register every component (regsvr32) and its overblown "GUID for everything" model, and its baroque way of creating components (somewhat alleviated by various macros and templates, but still). Making an object oriented interface is slightly cumbersome, but you can do it by sending back and forth a cookie (void* or int) of your object as the first parameter.
This will also make your interface accessible to other languages, if the need arises, since the C ABI is a de-facto stable ABI on all platforms (disregarding library objects and issues).
Another alternative if you want to stick with C++: make up your own lightweight COM! I've done this successfully in my own code at work, it works great, and has been working for 8 years now.
This method allows people to write C++ components against my app without using COM and without having the exact same compiler versions and having symbol problems. It may seem like a lot of work but it really isn't.
1) Expose a pure virtual interface IFoo, that doesn't include any implementation. Once it is released, never touch it, only create new versions which inherit from it, IFoo2, IFoo3 etc.
2) Expose an extern "C" CreateFoo() that will return FooImpl : IFoo. Also a matching DeleteFoo(IFoo).
3) For all structs / classes you need to receive/send from IFoo methods, create another interface. This includes all C++ classes, including std::string, hide it behind IMyString or something. This is a minor inconvenience but it sidesteps all ABI incompatibilities.
4) Have all interfaces inherit from some IBaseXX which has a GetVersion() method
A component which uses this component could call this, and if it returns e.g. 2, then it can safely cast IFoo to IFoo2* and use IFoo2 methods. Else it can return an error message or use something from IFoo*
This relies on the fact that C++ vtable layout is essentially an ABI that will never change, at least under Windows, since the whole of COM relies on this and MS will never change it. Anything other than vtable layout in an object is subject to change, so the trick is to only have pure virtual interfaces.
I have no idea if this trick will also work on Linux, I don't know how stable GCC / Clang's vtable layout is from version to version, but I suspect it will.
This was taken from a CodeProject article I read a few years back, but I can't find it anymore... the closest I can find is [0] (DynObj - C++ Cross Platform Plugin Objects), but it is more complicated than what I read back then. I didn't use it, I wrote my own as I outlined above. Like I said, it isn't really that complicated.
> Using a pure C interface escapes COM's requirement to register every component (regsvr32) [...] Another alternative if you want to stick with C++: make up your own lightweight COM
Or you can combine both: use a pure C interface which returns COM objects. That way, you can keep using COM without having to register anything with regsvr32 or similar.
> I have no idea if this trick will also work on Linux, I don't know how stable GCC / Clang's vtable layout is from version to version
Recent (as in, since around the turn of the millennium) GCC and clang on Linux use a standard vtable layout, defined by the "Itanium ABI" (originally created for Intel's IA-64, but like UEFI and GPT, became a standard across all architectures), so it's also very stable.
Itanium ABI is somewhat stable. As in there exists a chance that two binary files compiled with exact same set of libraries and headers will be compatible, which is something that will get broken the moment two files were compiled with different switches in GCC that do not technically change things at Itanium ABI levels, but cause incompatibilities in various standard types.
Ah! Yeah, I've completely forgotten that the Itanium ABI also guarantees a standard vtable layout. Thanks!
Were starting to convert my app from a Windows-only app to a cross platform one, so this makes me happy that my "COM lite" scheme would also be stable on linux.
As for returning pure COM objects through a C interface: Yeah, I've considered that, but like I wrote in my comment below to pjmlp, I don't like COM personally, and I want to simplify writing the components' code as much as possible, since the team which writes them isn't a team of software developers but rather in a supporting role. They do know basic C++/C# but don't know COM.
Also getting rid of COM would be the first thing done for cross platform support, anyway.
Due to experience trying to link some code, especially C++, I'd probably rather start by implementing a simplified COM system first rather than dealing with extern C
I was aware of registration free COM, and I did consider it, in fact I tried it out several times during the last decade.
However in my experience it was always hard to get working properly, and it was always poorly documented. I'm talking primarily about the XML assembly manifest, which is very easy to get wrong.
In fact I remember vaguely the only complete documentation & example I could find at the time was an article in MSDN magazine, but now I can't find it, only bits and pieces of information scattered around, nothing in MSDN except a vague article. Most references I can find are for consuming dotnet COM objects and I also need to consume components written in C++. So the situation has gotten worse, documentation-wise.
Another couple of points:
1) Personally I don't want to use COM at all, I think it's too complex. I think it's really a brilliant idea but wrapped with over-engineered, idiosyncratic idioms and API. I tried to distill it to the minimum required by me for my "COM lite" above.
2) I'm not the one creating those components, I'm in charge of the consuming application. The people creating those components (in house) are essentially my support people, they're not really professional developers, and get confused with anything slightly more complex than plain C++ code. None of them has ever learned anything about COM, I'm the only one who knows all about it. Meaning I have to support them when things go wrong with COM registration or when they compile their code and it doesn't work. So I'm on a mission to get rid of all COM dependencies in my application, and replace them either with plain DLLs with C API, or (in one specific case) with my "COM-Lite" I outlined above.
For in-process DLL-based servers, you could try to implement CoCreateClass (IIRC) manually and bypass GUID-to-server lookup and go directly for loading a DLL and calling the method for getting the object from it.
Probably, although I tend to stay away of such solutions, as they eventually turn into headaches to sort out in some machine, where the hack doesn't work as expected.
C applications targeting Windows must provide their own C library with malloc and free (if they are using the "hosted implementation" features of C).
MSVCRT.DLL isn't the library "everyone" uses; just Microsoft programs, and some misguided freeware built with MinGW.
Even if ADVAPI32.DLL uses MSVCRT.DLL, it's not going to mistakenly call the malloc that you provide in your application; Windows DLL's don't even have that sort of global symbol resolution power.
I would be very surprised if any public API in ADVAPI32 returns a pointer that the application is required to directly free, or accept a pointer that the application must malloc. If that were the case, you'd have to attach to MSVCRT.DLL with LoadLibrary, look up those functions with GetProcAddress and call them that way.
Windows has non-malloc allocators for sharing memory that way among DLL's: the "Heap API" in KERNEL32. One component can HeapAlloc something which another can HeapFree: they have to agree on the same heap handle, though. You can use GetProcessHeap to get the default heap for the process.
It may be that the MSVCRT.DLL malloc uses this; or else it's based on VirtualAlloc directly.
> MSVCRT.DLL isn't the library "everyone" uses; just Microsoft programs, and some misguided freeware built with MinGW.
There's a third set of users: programs built with old enough versions of the Microsoft compiler. Before Microsoft decided that every single version of its C compiler should use a different C runtime (and much later they changed their mind again), all Microsoft C and C++ compilers linked their output with MSVCRT.DLL. In fact, that's probably the reason MinGW chose to use MSVCRT.DLL: to increase compatibility with the Microsoft compilers, by using the same C runtime.
MinGW chose MSVCRT.DLL because it meets the definition of "System Library" referred to in the GNU Public License. There is a special exception that GPLed programs can be linked to a proprietary, closed-source component if it is a system library; i.e. something always installed and always present on a certain type of system to which that program is ported. Without that, you couldn't have GNU utilities as replacements for Unix utilities on a proprietary Unix, linking with its libc.
> Before Microsoft decided that every single version of its C compiler should use a different C runtime (and much later they changed their mind again).
It is... not as simple as that[1]. MSVCRT itself is the fifth version of a Win32 C runtime, after CRTDLL (used to ship with the OS but no longer), MSVCRT10, MSVCRT20, and MSVCRT40. It’s just that both the toolchains linking with MSVCRT and the OSes shipping it (and nothing newer) endured for a very long time while Microsoft went on a collective .NET piligrimage.
Of course, “NT OS/2” started the same year ANSI C was ratified (and Win32 only a couple of years later), so some degree of flailing around was inevitable. But the MSVCRT Garden of Eden story is not true.
Our programs ship their DLL dependencies in their own installer anyway, like most others on Windows. Just ship your FOSS library with a CMake configuration and let the users build it with whatever runtime they want.
