Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

64-bit Installer Issues


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 mje

mje

    The 500 club

  • Premium Member
  • 999 posts
  • Location:Milford MA USA
  • Version:LabVIEW 2013
  • Since:1997

Posted 26 April 2012 - 01:21 PM

Has anyone had issues creating installers for their 64-bit builds of LabVIEW in 2011 SP1 f1? I've spent a few days on this and this is what I've managed to pin down.

My 32-bit builds work fine, as do their installers. Distributing the 64-bit RTE with my installer though doesn't seem to work as some components always seem to be missing. After distributing my application, my startup VI runs and attempts to dynamically load the main VI for the project, failing with an error:

LabVIEW: The VI is not executable. Most likely the VI is broken or one of its subVIs cannot be located. Select File>>Open to open the VI and then verify that you are able to run it.


The same executable works on a system with the 64-bit IDE, or a system where I manually install the RTE. Here's the installer configuration.

installers.png

The interesting thing here is the RTE isn't labelled as SP1, despite me running the SP1f1 IDE.

about.png

Interesting...

I don't need all of those options, but I'm desperately trying to convince LabVIEW to include an entire RTE. In the end though it doesn't. When I manually download the RTE and install it, I get this:

missing components.png

I don't know what USI is, and I don't think I use the variable engine or datasockets (but given how hard it is to trace dependencies in LabVIEW, who knows?). Sure enough though, running through the installer makes my executable work.

I've tried running the executable through depends.exe and can spot no differences in the dependency tree when loading it in a "broken" versus "good" state.

I opened a ticket on this a few weeks ago but it went unresolved, mostly due to my inability to fully investigate. I'll be reopening it soon, but in the meantime I'm wondering if any one else has seen issues with this?

#2 asbo

asbo

    I have no idea what you're talking about... so:

  • V I Engineering, Inc.
  • 1,273 posts
  • Version:LabVIEW 2011
  • Since:2008

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:02 PM

USI is NI's Universal Storage Interface. Of the other items in the list, I'd be more interested in the Deployable Licenses entry - are you using remote panels? A missing license will break the VI as well. Both of these "should" be available under Additional Installers.

Is it possible to distribute debug-enabled applications through the installer and then attach to them after install? I've never tried, but it'd be really awesome if you could.
  • mje likes this

#3 mje

mje

    The 500 club

  • Premium Member
  • 999 posts
  • Location:Milford MA USA
  • Version:LabVIEW 2013
  • Since:1997

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:45 PM

Ah, thanks for the info on USI.

Debugging it would be good, except I'd expect any machine with the IDE has all the required components to run the executable so there would be no problem to debug! I'm definitely not using remote panels.

#4 mje

mje

    The 500 club

  • Premium Member
  • 999 posts
  • Location:Milford MA USA
  • Version:LabVIEW 2013
  • Since:1997

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:03 PM

OK bingo. It's the Deployable License. There's a separate entry in the additional installers that is not part of the RTE.

license.png

I have no idea why my 64-bit code requires the license but my 32-bit code does not. This is distressing, especially since I don't use remote panels. I'm now worried about our legal ability to distribute the code, having to distribute a license for an unknown reason doesn't leave me feeling particularly confident.

#5 asbo

asbo

    I have no idea what you're talking about... so:

  • V I Engineering, Inc.
  • 1,273 posts
  • Version:LabVIEW 2011
  • Since:2008

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:30 PM

Well, at least now you have a specific question to ask NI Support. I suggest something along the lines of, "WTF, guise?"

#6 mje

mje

    The 500 club

  • Premium Member
  • 999 posts
  • Location:Milford MA USA
  • Version:LabVIEW 2013
  • Since:1997

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:42 PM

Hah, indeed.

#7 rolfk

rolfk

    LabVIEW Aficionado

  • Premium Member
  • 2,274 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Version:LabVIEW 2011
  • Since:1992

Posted 28 April 2012 - 07:54 AM

Hah, indeed.


Please let us know what NI has to say about this. I'm going to be in this same spot soon and it would be nice to know why I need to distribute deployable licenses for a runtime app.