hane 1.1.1 → 1.2.0

package/vendor/zlib/win32/DLL_FAQ.txt

@@ -1,381 +1,381 @@
-
-            Frequently Asked Questions about ZLIB1.DLL
-
-
-This document describes the design, the rationale, and the usage
-of the common 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:
-  https://www.zlib.net/zlib_faq.html
-
-
- 1. What is ZLIB1.DLL, and how can I get it?
-
-  - ZLIB1.DLL is the common build of zlib as a DLL.
-    (Please remark the character '1' in the name.)
-
-    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.
-
-**
-
-This document is written and maintained by
-Cosmin Truta <cosmint@cs.ubbcluj.ro>
+
+            Frequently Asked Questions about ZLIB1.DLL
+
+
+This document describes the design, the rationale, and the usage
+of the common 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:
+  https://www.zlib.net/zlib_faq.html
+
+
+ 1. What is ZLIB1.DLL, and how can I get it?
+
+  - ZLIB1.DLL is the common build of zlib as a DLL.
+    (Please remark the character '1' in the name.)
+
+    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.
+
+**
+
+This document is written and maintained by
+Cosmin Truta <cosmint@cs.ubbcluj.ro>