SetProcessDPIAware function

1 out of 10 rated this helpful - Rate this topic

SetProcessDPIAware function

Applies to: desktop apps only

Sets the current process as dots per inch (dpi) aware.

Note SetProcessDPIAware is subject to a possible race condition if a DLL caches dpi settings during initialization. For this reason, it is recommended that dpi-aware be set through the application (.exe) manifest rather than by calling SetProcessDPIAware.

Syntax

BOOL WINAPI SetProcessDPIAware(void);

Parameters

This function has no parameters.

Return value

Type:

Type: BOOL

If the function succeeds, the return value is nonzero. Otherwise, the return value is zero.

Remarks

DLLs should accept the dpi setting of the host process rather than call SetProcessDPIAware themselves. To be set properly, dpiAware should be specified as part of the application (.exe) manifest. (dpiAware defined in an embedded DLL manifest has no affect.) The following markup shows how to set dpiAware as part of an application (.exe) manifest.

XML


<assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0" xmlns:asmv3="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3" >
 ...
  <asmv3:application>
    <asmv3:windowsSettings xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/SMI/2005/WindowsSettings">
      <dpiAware>true</dpiAware>
    </asmv3:windowsSettings>
  </asmv3:application>
 ...
</assembly>

For more information about application manifests, see Manifests (Side-by-Side Assemblies).

Requirements

Minimum supported client	Windows Vista
Minimum supported server	Windows Server 2008
Header	Winuser.h (include Windows.h)
Library	User32.lib
DLL	User32.dll

Send comments about this topic to Microsoft

Build date: 5/5/2012

Did you find this helpful? Yes No

Not accurate

Not enough depth

Need more code examples

(1500 characters remaining)

Community Additions ADD

Merging two manifest is not creating valid manifest

I ran in to issue while merging DPIAware manifest to my existing application manifest. when running the command::::::::::::: C:\ssaxena_view\ucc\Source\UCCClient\Aspect.UCC.SmartClient.Shell\bin\debug>mt.exe -manifest Aspect.UCC.SmartClient.Shell.exe.manifest DeclareDPIAware .manifest -out:Final.manifest Microsoft (R) Manifest Tool version 5.2.3790.2076 Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation 2005. All rights reserved. Aspect.UCC.SmartClient.Shell.exe.manifest : manifest authoring warning 81010002: Unrecognized Element "application" in namespace "urn:schemas-microsof t-com:asm.v2". DeclareDPIAware.manifest : manifest authoring warning 81010002: Unrecognized Element "application" in namespace "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The http://www.windows-api.com/microsoft/VC-MFC/31461243/vc2008-dpiaware-manifest.aspx says the warning is acceptable, and then I checked the Final.manifest which had nothing only the DeclareDPIAware.manifest contents... Any help would be appreciated........

Saurabh Saxena

2/6/2012

and for querying...

See: IsProcessDPIAware

downtowndave

7/10/2009

Recipe for XP SP2 Disaster

That <assembly> also has two schema properties. What does KB921337 have to say about that?

"The computer may restart ... in XP Service Pack 2"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/921337

"This problem occurs when Csrss.exe is loading an .exe file or a .dll file that contains a manifest that has Windows Vista extensions. When parsing the embedded manifest, its internal memory can be corrupted if it finds a single tag that has two schema properties."

DaveMethvin

5/13/2009

Linker doesn't like that manifest snippet

Adding the sample manifest fragment as indicated causes the Linker to warn "manifest authoring warning 81010002: Unrecognized Element "application" in namespace "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v3"." Is this is a documentation bug?

At first I thought it was because I was using VS 2005, which didn't know about it. But I've upgraded to VS 2008, and I get the same warning. It's not just a warning, it actually leaves the fragment out of the manifest, so I still have to use the SetProcessDPIAware function.

Thomas Lee

10/25/2008