[boost] [build] Problems with VC14 and MSPDB140.DLL (was: [testing][teeks] MSVC-14 errors about MSPDB140.DLL)

[Andrey Semashev]

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Hartmut Kaiser
<hartmut...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All tests for Boost.Log (and I suspect any other built libraries) on MSVC-
>> 14
>> are failing because of this error:
>>
>> LINK : fatal error LNK1101: incorrect MSPDB140.DLL version; recheck
>> installation of this product
>
> My workaround was to edit the 'Path' env variable in one of the temp files
> generated by bjam (b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall_amd64.cmd in your temp directory)
> not to point to the x64 cross compiler, but to the native one. For me this
> involved changing
>
> C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0\VC\BIN\amd64_x86
>
> To
>
> C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0\VC\BIN\amd64

I encountered the same problem with VC14 RTM on my VM. This was a
clean install of VC14 RTM, there were no CTPs or RCs installed on this
machine. I removed the b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall*.cmd scripts and ran b2
with address-model=64 to build my tests so that these scripts are
re-created from scratch, so it looks like there is a problem with how
these scripts are generated by b2.

I found 3 instances of mspdb140.dll on my system in these locations:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0\Common7\IDE
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0\VC\bin
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0\VC\bin\amd64

The last two are for 32 and 64-bit native compilers. The first one, I
assume, is for use by IDE. The problem is that the first path is
listed in b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall_x86_amd64.cmd in the "SET Path=..."
line prior to the compiler-specific paths. Removing it from the Path
solved the problem.

Could Boost.Build be adjusted so that the cmd files are generated
correctly in the first place?

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Tom Kent]

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes! I've been struggling with this all weekend trying to figure out what
was going wrong. I've don multiple re-installs of my VM thinking that I
might have gotten something corrupted. Your results seem to match what I
was seeing exactly.

Tom

[Tom Kent]

After experimenting a bit more, I've been able to exactly re-produce what
Andrey saw. I would consider this something that would be a blocking bug
for the 1.59.0 release, as it prevents any user from successfully building
64-bit binaries of boost with msvc-14.0....at least without the user going
into their temp directory and editing a file that was created by boost
build.

Looking at the boost-build code, this batch file is created in
build/src/tools/msvc.jam:744. This file will create the temp file in
question by grabbing the output of a run of the visual studio environment
setup routine (i.e. C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio
14.0\vc\vcvarsall.bat amd64). However, for the msvc-14.0 / address-model=64
case, it seems that it is combining the 32 bit and 64 bit variables into
one causing this issue (and other variables that shouldn't be set by the
amd64 run, such as FrameworkVersion32 and FrameworkVersion64...just running
the above command only sets FrameworkVersion64).

Is it possible that build is running the 32 bit variable file, then running
the 64 bit instance?

[Vladimir Prus]

Hi Tom,

On 28-Jul-15 3:44 AM, Tom Kent wrote:

> Looking at the boost-build code, this batch file is created in
> build/src/tools/msvc.jam:744. This file will create the temp file in
> question by grabbing the output of a run of the visual studio environment
> setup routine (i.e. C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 14.0\vc\vcvarsall.bat amd64). However, for the msvc-14.0 / address-model=64
> case, it seems that it is combining the 32 bit and 64 bit variables into
> one causing this issue (and other variables that shouldn't be set by the
> amd64 run, such as FrameworkVersion32 and FrameworkVersion64...just running
> the above command only sets FrameworkVersion64).
>
> Is it possible that build is running the 32 bit variable file, then running
> the 64 bit instance?

local original-vars = [ SPLIT_BY_CHARACTERS [ SHELL set ] : "\n" ] ;
local new-vars = [ SPLIT_BY_CHARACTERS [ SHELL "$(setup-script) $(setup-options)>nul && set" ] : "\n" ] ;
local diff-vars = [ set.difference $(new-vars) : $(original-vars) ] ;

So we should be capturing the changes that the particular setup script does to environment; it's not obvious
why this would start to fail with VS 14 - adding

ECHO $(diff-vars) ;

after the above lines might be illuminating. I'm installing VS 14 now, but it might take a day till
I get to debug.

- Volodya

[Tom Kent]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Vladimir Prus <vladim...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Does anyone know if any progress has been made on this? I think that the
1.59 release is just around the corner, and I would consider this a
show-stopper as a user can't do a build for msvc-14.0 with address-model=64.

Tom

[Andrey Semashev]

+1, I agree with the 'show-stopper' here.

[John Maddock]

What are the steps to reproduce this? 64-bit msvc-14 builds seem to be
OK for me,

John.

[Andrey Semashev]

On 07.08.2015 19:09, John Maddock wrote:
> What are the steps to reproduce this? 64-bit msvc-14 builds seem to be
> OK for me,

I described my steps at the beginning of the thread:

http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/build-Problems-with-VC14-and-MSPDB140-DLL-was-testing-teeks-MSVC-14-errors-about-MSPDB140-DLL-td4678359.html

Did you remove the b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall* files in your temp directory?

[John Maddock]

On 07/08/2015 17:24, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 07.08.2015 19:09, John Maddock wrote:
>> What are the steps to reproduce this? 64-bit msvc-14 builds seem to be
>> OK for me,
>
> I described my steps at the beginning of the thread:
>
> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/build-Problems-with-VC14-and-MSPDB140-DLL-was-testing-teeks-MSVC-14-errors-about-MSPDB140-DLL-td4678359.html
>
>
> Did you remove the b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall* files in your temp directory?
>

Got it, can confirm it's an issue when building with 32-bit bjam (which
uses the cross compiler), if you build with 64-bit bjam then it uses the
native 64-bit compiler, and everything is OK.

IMO we should find a way to fix this. John.

[Andrey Semashev]

On 07.08.2015 21:21, John Maddock wrote:
>
>
> On 07/08/2015 17:24, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> On 07.08.2015 19:09, John Maddock wrote:
>>> What are the steps to reproduce this? 64-bit msvc-14 builds seem to be
>>> OK for me,
>>
>> I described my steps at the beginning of the thread:
>>
>> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/build-Problems-with-VC14-and-MSPDB140-DLL-was-testing-teeks-MSVC-14-errors-about-MSPDB140-DLL-td4678359.html
>>
>>
>> Did you remove the b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall* files in your temp directory?
>>
>
> Got it, can confirm it's an issue when building with 32-bit bjam (which
> uses the cross compiler), if you build with 64-bit bjam then it uses the
> native 64-bit compiler, and everything is OK.

I thought there's only one way to build bjam - by running
tools/build/src/engine/build.bat. That's how I've always been building
it anyway, and it always produced a 32-bit binary. How do you build a
64-bit bjam?

[Tom Kent]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Andrey Semashev <andrey....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 07.08.2015 21:21, John Maddock wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 07/08/2015 17:24, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>
>>> On 07.08.2015 19:09, John Maddock wrote:
>>>
>>>> What are the steps to reproduce this? 64-bit msvc-14 builds seem to be
>>>> OK for me,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I described my steps at the beginning of the thread:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/build-Problems-with-VC14-and-MSPDB140-DLL-was-testing-teeks-MSVC-14-errors-about-MSPDB140-DLL-td4678359.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you remove the b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall* files in your temp directory?
>>>
>>>
>> Got it, can confirm it's an issue when building with 32-bit bjam (which
>> uses the cross compiler), if you build with 64-bit bjam then it uses the
>> native 64-bit compiler, and everything is OK.
>>
>
> I thought there's only one way to build bjam - by running
> tools/build/src/engine/build.bat. That's how I've always been building it
> anyway, and it always produced a 32-bit binary. How do you build a 64-bit
> bjam?
>
>

This problem will occur (with msvc-14.0) when using the bootstrap.bat file
specified in the getting started directions.

[Edward Diener]

Do you mean that it is a problem if bootstrap.bat picks msvc-14.0 as the
"default" to use to bootstrap Boost build on Windows ?

Actually I have never really understand how bootstrap.bat picks a
default compiler in order to bootstrap Boost build. Do you know ?

[Marshall Clow]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, John Maddock <jz.ma...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 07/08/2015 17:24, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>
>> On 07.08.2015 19:09, John Maddock wrote:
>>
>>> What are the steps to reproduce this? 64-bit msvc-14 builds seem to be
>>> OK for me,
>>>
>>
>> I described my steps at the beginning of the thread:
>>
>>
>> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/build-Problems-with-VC14-and-MSPDB140-DLL-was-testing-teeks-MSVC-14-errors-about-MSPDB140-DLL-td4678359.html
>>
>> Did you remove the b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall* files in your temp directory?
>>
>>
> Got it, can confirm it's an issue when building with 32-bit bjam (which
> uses the cross compiler), if you build with 64-bit bjam then it uses the
> native 64-bit compiler, and everything is OK.
>
> IMO we should find a way to fix this. John.
>
>

Everyone --

What is the status of this issue?

-- Marshall

[Andrey Semashev]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, John Maddock <jz.ma...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 07/08/2015 17:24, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>
>>> On 07.08.2015 19:09, John Maddock wrote:
>>>
>>>> What are the steps to reproduce this? 64-bit msvc-14 builds seem to be
>>>> OK for me,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I described my steps at the beginning of the thread:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/build-Problems-with-VC14-and-MSPDB140-DLL-was-testing-teeks-MSVC-14-errors-about-MSPDB140-DLL-td4678359.html
>>>
>>> Did you remove the b2_msvc_14.0_vcvarsall* files in your temp directory?
>>>
>>>
>> Got it, can confirm it's an issue when building with 32-bit bjam (which
>> uses the cross compiler), if you build with 64-bit bjam then it uses the
>> native 64-bit compiler, and everything is OK.
>>
>> IMO we should find a way to fix this. John.
>>
>>
> Everyone --
>
> What is the status of this issue?

I don't remember anyone fixing it, and 1.59 RC2 indeed fails to
compile for me, so the problem persists. For the reference, this is
what I did:

1. Download and unpack RC2.
2. Run bootstrap.bat, it builds 32-bit bjam and b2.
3. Run bjam.exe -j 4 --build-type=complete toolset=msvc variant=debug
threading=multi debug-symbols=on link=shared runtime-link=shared
address-model=64 libs/log/test

[Andrey Semashev]

I have tried to add this echo and indeed it outputs the broken Path
already. Also, I tried to print %PATH% from the console (VS2015 x86
x64 Cross Tools Command Prompt) and it also has the %DevEnvDir% path
first there.

I inspected the vcvarsx86_amd64.bat script which sets up the
environment and I can see that in line 62 it indeed inserts
%DevEnvDir% before the paths to the compilers, so we have our culprit.
The question is what do we do about it?

[Andrey Semashev]

I created a Connect ticket about it:

https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/1651822/incorrect-mspdb140-dll-version-picked-in-x86-x64-cross-tools-environment

[Glen Fernandes]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> I created a Connect ticket about it:
> https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/1651822/incorrect-mspdb140-dll-version-picked-in-x86-x64-cross-tools-environment

Are bugs being deleted? I see it on Google's cache:
http://tinyurl.com/nvedtmd

But the Connect URL now says "Page Not Found".

Glen

[Stephan T. Lavavej]

[Andrey Semashev]

> I created a Connect ticket about it:
> https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/1651822/incorrect-mspdb140-dll-version-picked-in-x86-x64-cross-tools-environment

[Glen Fernandes]

> Are bugs being deleted? I see it on Google's cache:
> http://tinyurl.com/nvedtmd
> But the Connect URL now says "Page Not Found".

The link is also inaccessible to me, but it was successfully replicated to DevDiv#1209792 in TFS and remains active there.

STL

[Gavin Lambert]

On 11/08/2015 06:35, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> I have tried to add this echo and indeed it outputs the broken Path
> already. Also, I tried to print %PATH% from the console (VS2015 x86
> x64 Cross Tools Command Prompt) and it also has the %DevEnvDir% path
> first there.
>
> I inspected the vcvarsx86_amd64.bat script which sets up the
> environment and I can see that in line 62 it indeed inserts
> %DevEnvDir% before the paths to the compilers, so we have our culprit.
> The question is what do we do about it?

One question is why Boost is trying to load the cross tools rather than
the native x64 compiler.

While it's not unheard of to want to build 64-bit code from a 32-bit
build machine, the vast majority of cases will be the reverse, so the
native compilers should be preferred unless explicitly requested otherwise.

(Recent stats say that 92% of new Windows machines are 64-bit; older
machines have a higher percentage of 32-bit but it's very likely that
developers, at least, will have 64-bit machines by now.)

[Gavin Lambert]

Mere moments ago, quoth I:

> On 11/08/2015 06:35, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> I have tried to add this echo and indeed it outputs the broken Path
>> already. Also, I tried to print %PATH% from the console (VS2015 x86
>> x64 Cross Tools Command Prompt) and it also has the %DevEnvDir% path
>> first there.
>>
>> I inspected the vcvarsx86_amd64.bat script which sets up the
>> environment and I can see that in line 62 it indeed inserts
>> %DevEnvDir% before the paths to the compilers, so we have our culprit.
>> The question is what do we do about it?
>
> One question is why Boost is trying to load the cross tools rather than
> the native x64 compiler.
>
> While it's not unheard of to want to build 64-bit code from a 32-bit
> build machine, the vast majority of cases will be the reverse, so the
> native compilers should be preferred unless explicitly requested otherwise.
>
> (Recent stats say that 92% of new Windows machines are 64-bit; older
> machines have a higher percentage of 32-bit but it's very likely that
> developers, at least, will have 64-bit machines by now.)

Ok, examining msvc.jam I think I've found the issue. It defaults to
"x86_amd64" (cross compiler), and then swaps this to "amd64" (native
compiler) if the environment variable PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE is set to
AMD64.

However this will only be the case if the process executing the jam file
is also 64-bit. A 32-bit process running under WOW64 will see "x86" for
that environment variable, just like it would on 32-bit Windows.

So, either Boost.Build itself needs to be a 64-bit process, or it needs
to be more clever at detecting a 64-bit architecture even as a 32-bit
process. The simplest way of doing the latter is to read
PROCESSOR_ARCHITEW6432, which will be unset for native 32 or 64-bit and
set to AMD64 on 32-bit WOW64. (ie. the jamfile should assume native
64-bit if either of PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE or PROCESSOR_ARCHITEW6432 are
set to AMD64.)

[Gavin Lambert]

Mere moments ago, quoth I:

> Ok, examining msvc.jam I think I've found the issue. It defaults to
> "x86_amd64" (cross compiler), and then swaps this to "amd64" (native
> compiler) if the environment variable PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE is set to
> AMD64.
>
> However this will only be the case if the process executing the jam file
> is also 64-bit. A 32-bit process running under WOW64 will see "x86" for
> that environment variable, just like it would on 32-bit Windows.
>
> So, either Boost.Build itself needs to be a 64-bit process, or it needs
> to be more clever at detecting a 64-bit architecture even as a 32-bit
> process. The simplest way of doing the latter is to read
> PROCESSOR_ARCHITEW6432, which will be unset for native 32 or 64-bit and
> set to AMD64 on 32-bit WOW64. (ie. the jamfile should assume native
> 64-bit if either of PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE or PROCESSOR_ARCHITEW6432 are
> set to AMD64.)

PR for the latter workaround: https://github.com/boostorg/build/pull/87

[Andrey Semashev]

On 11.08.2015 01:18, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
> [Andrey Semashev]
>> I created a Connect ticket about it:
>> https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/1651822/incorrect-mspdb140-dll-version-picked-in-x86-x64-cross-tools-environment
>
> [Glen Fernandes]
>> Are bugs being deleted? I see it on Google's cache:
>> http://tinyurl.com/nvedtmd
>> But the Connect URL now says "Page Not Found".
>
> The link is also inaccessible to me, but it was successfully replicated to DevDiv#1209792 in TFS and remains active there.

I noticed that the Connect bug disappeared yesterday too and wrote a
Connect feedback about it. I got no answer, but the link is accessible now.

[Andrey Semashev]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Gavin Lambert <gav...@compacsort.com> wrote:
> Mere moments ago, quoth I:
>>
>> Ok, examining msvc.jam I think I've found the issue. It defaults to
>> "x86_amd64" (cross compiler), and then swaps this to "amd64" (native
>> compiler) if the environment variable PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE is set to
>> AMD64.
>>
>> However this will only be the case if the process executing the jam file
>> is also 64-bit. A 32-bit process running under WOW64 will see "x86" for
>> that environment variable, just like it would on 32-bit Windows.
>>
>> So, either Boost.Build itself needs to be a 64-bit process, or it needs
>> to be more clever at detecting a 64-bit architecture even as a 32-bit
>> process. The simplest way of doing the latter is to read
>> PROCESSOR_ARCHITEW6432, which will be unset for native 32 or 64-bit and
>> set to AMD64 on 32-bit WOW64. (ie. the jamfile should assume native
>> 64-bit if either of PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE or PROCESSOR_ARCHITEW6432 are
>> set to AMD64.)
>
>
> PR for the latter workaround: https://github.com/boostorg/build/pull/87

Thanks Gavin. I have tried this change and it fixes the problem (both
in develop and RC2), so we can use it at least as a workaround for
1.59.

I can understand the current Boost.Build behavior though. Normally you
build binaries for the same architecture the build tool is built for,
which is 32-bit x86 in case of 32-bit bjam. When you build for another
architecture, like amd64, this is a cross build, and it is logical to
use a cross-compiler for that. This approach also makes it possible to
build 64-bit binaries on a 32-bit machine, although in case of x86 I
doubt this is a highly demanded feature.

I wonder if we should be building a 64-bit bjam on a 64-bit Windows by
default though. It's not a change for 1.59 but still worth considering
for future releases.

[Gavin Lambert]

On 11/08/2015 16:55, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> I can understand the current Boost.Build behavior though. Normally you
> build binaries for the same architecture the build tool is built for,
> which is 32-bit x86 in case of 32-bit bjam. When you build for another
> architecture, like amd64, this is a cross build, and it is logical to
> use a cross-compiler for that.

On Linux, yes; things are a bit murkier on Windows.

On Linux it's common that installing the 64-bit variant will result in
almost all installed software also being 64-bit. As a result it's
reasonably safe (though not foolproof) to assume that whatever is
running is the native architecture.

On Windows it's still common for almost all software installed to be
32-bit regardless of whether the OS itself is 32-bit or 64-bit, and the
OS is quite good at pretending the world is 32-bit when running a 32-bit
app, for backwards compatibility reasons.

The Visual Studio IDE itself is 32-bit, regardless of whether it runs
the x86 or the amd64 native compilers, or some cross-compiler.

Generally Windows software only gets a 64-bit flavour if it needs to
integrate with something in the OS (eg. shell extensions, drivers) or if
it's expecting high memory usage.

> I wonder if we should be building a 64-bit bjam on a 64-bit Windows by
> default though. It's not a change for 1.59 but still worth considering
> for future releases.

That would be another way to solve it, yes. Although then the question
would be whether it should use the native x86 compiler or the amd64_x86
cross-compiler. (It is actually possible in some Windows versions to
remove the ability to run 32-bit code, although I would be quite
surprised if anyone actually does that, especially in a development
environment.)

Note that currently a 64-bit bjam *won't* use the cross-compiler; I
think it just operates on a "by default we're running x86" assumption
rather than trying to follow the native architecture like you suggested
above. Comments near the code I patched seem to support this. :)

[Andrey Semashev]

I'm not the author of that code but I suspect the reason for that is
that the amd64_x86 cross-compiler was not shipped until VS2015; there
was only the native x86 compiler. I think it is safe to keep using it
(the x86 compiler) since we know every 64-bit Windows is able to run
32-bit programs. The other way around is not true though - not every
Windows that manifests itself as 32-bit is able to run 64-bit
programs.

[Gavin Lambert]

On 11/08/2015 19:11, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> That would be another way to solve it, yes. Although then the question
>> would be whether it should use the native x86 compiler or the amd64_x86
>> cross-compiler. (It is actually possible in some Windows versions to remove
>> the ability to run 32-bit code, although I would be quite surprised if
>> anyone actually does that, especially in a development environment.)
>>
>> Note that currently a 64-bit bjam *won't* use the cross-compiler; I think it
>> just operates on a "by default we're running x86" assumption rather than
>> trying to follow the native architecture like you suggested above. Comments
>> near the code I patched seem to support this. :)
>
> I'm not the author of that code but I suspect the reason for that is
> that the amd64_x86 cross-compiler was not shipped until VS2015; there
> was only the native x86 compiler. I think it is safe to keep using it
> (the x86 compiler) since we know every 64-bit Windows is able to run
> 32-bit programs. The other way around is not true though - not every
> Windows that manifests itself as 32-bit is able to run 64-bit
> programs.

I agree that it's probably safe to continue using the native x86
compiler -- although note as above that it *is* possible (though very
unlikely) to encounter an x64 system that can't run x86.

Also the amd64_x86 compiler does appear to be present in VS2013 (not
sure if it was in RTM or one of the updates, but it is absent in VS2012).

It might be interesting to do some performance tests of x86 vs.
amd64_x86 on some large libraries, however -- it's possible one might be
noticeably better than the other, though I'm not sure which way to bet.

[Adam Merz]

Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> I created a Connect ticket about it:
>
>
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/1651822/incorr
ect-mspdb140-dll-version-picked-in-x86-x64-cross-tools-environment
>

This ticket appears to be set to private; would you mind editing it to
public
visibility so that we may upvote it?

Regards,

[Andrey Semashev]

On 12.08.2015 04:10, Adam Merz wrote:
> Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> I created a Connect ticket about it:
>>
>>
> https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/1651822/incorr
> ect-mspdb140-dll-version-picked-in-x86-x64-cross-tools-environment
>>
>
> This ticket appears to be set to private; would you mind editing it to
> public
> visibility so that we may upvote it?

I set it to public when I created it. And the link is not accessible for
me again. This is so frustrating... :(

[Marshall Clow]

The 1.59.0 RC3 that I built this afternoon contains a fix for this problem
Please try it out and let me know if it solves it.

Thanks!

-- Marshall

[Andrey Semashev]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 1.59.0 RC3 that I built this afternoon contains a fix for this problem
> Please try it out and let me know if it solves it.

Yes, RC3 solves the problem. Thanks.

[Stephan T. Lavavej]

I see it as Public, but the link is inaccessible again (no idea why). In TFS, it has been resolved as a duplicate, with a comment that we're planning to fix it in Update 1. The primary bug is DevDiv#1205485. (Apparently, the problem is that mspdbcore.dll and mspdbsrv.exe need to be installed next to mspdb140.dll, i.e. the command prompts aren't screwed up.)

STL

[Tom Kent]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey....@gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The 1.59.0 RC3 that I built this afternoon contains a fix for this
> problem
> > Please try it out and let me know if it solves it.
>
> Yes, RC3 solves the problem. Thanks.
>

I concur, it solved it on my setup as well.