I was actually trying to really hard not to offend with my original post.

Sorry, didn't mean to get defensive. You didn't offend, I just wanted to say why it needed the DLL, then I defended my reasons.

Truth is, the fact that I have to defend my reasons at all, makes me really pissed at the way Microsoft has handled Visual Basic in the last few revisions. Once upon a time, you could write a VB program that worked with a single tiny runtime DLL: "vbrun300". You could even drop vbrun into the directory with your application and it would work. Heck, my first couple shots at the logo editor even did it this way. I only ported it from VB3 to VB6 because there were certain bugs I couldn't correct in that older 16-bit code.

Now VB is a bloated mass of OLE libraries and useless crap that's unnecessary 99 percent of the time. If I had access to Delphi, I'd be all over it.

than spend half a day reloading windows on a computer that is not mine if that DLL screws up something.

One of my assumptions was that by "testing machine" you meant a PC that can be re-formatted whenever the mood strikes you. That's what "testing machine" means where I work. We've set up systems with DriveImage where you simply have to run one batch file, and 60 seconds later, you've got a freshly-installed, brand-spanking new installation of Windows ready to mess it up. The whole purpose of our testing machines is to deliberately allow anything to be installed onto them in an attempt to break them.

I think that's why I didn't understand your reluctance to install a DLL. But now that you've explained it, I understand completeley. I know if it weren't my PC, I wouldn't install any DLLs on it, either.

Back to the original question: Even if that link to the C sources is missing, you should be able to cobble something together pretty quick by looking at my pseudo-code example and the description of the file format.