On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:41:26 -0000, Marco Leise <[email protected]> wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:19:09 -0000
schrieb "Regan Heath" <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:13:20 -0000, Marco Leise <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Am Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:30:25 -0000
> schrieb "Regan Heath" <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:27:13 -0000, Hugo Florentino <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:23:00 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> >> On 2013-12-16 17:46, Marco Leise wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hehe, I guess the whole purpose of the launcher is to run in
>> >>> 32-bit and detect at runtime if the 64-bit main executable can
>> >>> be run or the 32-bit version must be used.
>> >>
>> >> The only advantage of that is that only a 32bit launcher needs to
be
>> >> distributed. Perhaps that's the whole idea.
>> >
>> > It is. :)
>>
>> "Process Explorer" by sysinternals, now distributed by M$ does
something
>> similar.
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
>>
>> It is a 32 bit exe, which detects the OS bit width and if it's 64 bit
>> extracts a 64 exe from within itself to run. When you quit that 64
bit
>> exe, it deletes the file it extracted from disk. It's quite a neat
>> solution.
>>
>> R
>>
>
> Only if your executable is self-contained. If you already have
> external DLLs or assets you can as well have a launcher and 2
> actual binaries.
I don't see why that changes things? Sure, you cannot extract your
*static* dependent dlls (those linked at compile time with libs), those
have to exist before you can execute your 32 bit launcher. But, if you
really wanted to, you could extract and runtime load dlls no problem.
R
That's my point. If you really wanted, you could do that but
you can as well have a launcher and 2 application binaries and
avoid this repeated file extraction/deletion and save
yourself some troubles at the end of the day.
Sure, but having a self contained exe is useful and *cool* :)
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
