I'm experimenting a bit with building DLLs on windows using MINGW.
A very good summary (in my opinion) can be found at:
https://www.transmissionzero.co.uk/computing/building-dlls-with-mingw/
There is even a basic project which can be used for the purpose of this discussion:
https://github.com/TransmissionZero/MinGW-DLL-Example/releases/tag/rel%2Fv1.1
Note there is a cosmetic mistake in this project which will make it fail out of the box: the Makefile does not create an "obj" directory - Either adjust the Makefile or create it manually.
So here is the real question.
How to change the Windows DLL name so it differs from the actual DLL file name ??
Essentially I'm trying to achieve on Windows, the effect which is very well described here on Linux:
https://www.man7.org/conf/lca2006/shared_libraries/slide4b.html
Initially I tried changing "InternalName" and ""OriginalFilename" in the resource file used to create the DLL but that does not work.
In a second step, I tried adding "-Wl,-soname,SoName.dll" on the command that performs the final link, to change the Windows DLL name.
However, that does not seem to have the expected effect (I'm using MingW 7.3.0, x86_64-posix-seh-rev0).
Two things makes me say that:
1/ The test executable still works (I would expect it to fail, because it tries to locate SoName.dll but can't find it).
2/ "pexports.exe AddLib.dll" produces the output below, where the library name hasn't changed:
LIBRARY "AddLib.dll"
EXPORTS
Add
bar DATA
foo DATA
Am I doing anything wrong ? Are my expectations wrong perhaps ?
Thanks for your help !
David
First of all, I would like to say it's important to use either a .def file for specifying the exported symbols or use __declspec(dllexport) / __declspec(dllimport), but never mix these two methods. There is also another method using the -Wl,--export-all-symbols linker flag, but I think that's ugly and should only be used when quick and dirty is what you want.
It is possible to tell MinGW to use a DLL filename that does not match the library name. In the link step use -o to specify the DLL and use -Wl,--out-implib, to specify the library file.
Let me illustrate by showing how to build chebyshev as a both static and shared library. Its sources consist of only only 2 files: chebyshev.h and chebyshev.c.
Compile
gcc -c -o chebyshev.o chebyshev.c -I. -O3
Create static library
ar cr libchebyshev.a chebyshev.o
Create a .def file (as it wasn't supplied and __declspec(dllexport) / __declspec(dllimport) wasn't used either). Note that this file doesn't contain a line with LIBRARY allowing the linker to specify the DLL filename later.
There are several ways to do this if the .def file wasn't supplied by the project:
3.1. Get the symbols from the .h file(s). This may be hard as sometimes you need to distinguish for example between type definitions (like typedef, enum, struct) and actual functions and variables that need to be exported;
echo "EXPORTS" > chebyshev.def
sed -n -e "s/^.* \**\(chebyshev_.*\) *(.*$/\1/p" chebyshev.h >> chebyshev.def
3.2. Use nm to list symbols in the library file and filter out the type of symbols you need.
echo "EXPORTS" > chebyshev.def
nm -f posix --defined-only -p libchebyshev.a | sed -n -e "s/^_*\([^ ]*\) T .*$/\1/p" >> chebyshev.def
Link the static library into the shared library.
gcc -shared -s -mwindows -def chebyshev.def -o chebyshev-0.dll -Wl,--out-implib,libchebyshev.dll.a libchebyshev.a
If you have a project that uses __declspec(dllexport) / __declspec(dllimport) things are a lot easier. And you can even have the link step generate a .def file using the -Wl,--output-def, linker flag like this:
gcc -shared -s -mwindows -o myproject.dll -Wl,--out-implib,myproject.dll.a -Wl,--output-def,myproject.def myproject.o
This answer is based on my experiences with C. For C++ you really should use __declspec(dllexport) / __declspec(dllimport).
I believe I have found one mechanism to achieve on Windows, the effect described for Linux in https://www.man7.org/conf/lca2006/shared_libraries/slide4b.html
This involves dll_tool
In the example Makefile there was originally this line:
gcc -o AddLib.dll obj/add.o obj/resource.o -shared -s -Wl,--subsystem,windows,--out-implib,libaddlib.a
I simply replaced it with the 2 lines below instead:
dlltool -e obj/exports.o --dllname soname.dll -l libAddLib.a obj/resource.o obj/add.o
gcc -o AddLib.dll obj/resource.o obj/add.o obj/exports.o -shared -s -Wl,--subsystem,windows
Really, the key seems to be the creation with dlltool of an exports file in conjunction with dllname. This exports file is linked with the object files that make up the body of the DLL and it handles the interface between the DLL and the outside world. Note that dlltool also creates the "import library" at the same time
Now I get the expected effect, and I can see that the "Internal DLL name" (not sure what the correct terminology is) has changed:
First evidence:
>> dlltool.exe -I libAddLib.a
soname.dll
Second evidence:
>> pexports.exe AddLib.dll
LIBRARY "soname.dll"
EXPORTS
Add
bar DATA
foo DATA
Third evidence:
>> AddTest.exe
Error: the code execution cannot proceed because soname.dll was not found.
Although the desired effect is achieved, this still seems to be some sort of workaround. My understanding (but I could well be wrong) is that the gcc option "-Wl,-soname" should achieve exactly the same thing. At least it does on Linux, but is this broken on Windows perhaps ??
Related
I have just begun reading the book Advanced Programming in Unix Environment and try to compile the first example code, just the same as in this question.
Although the problem for the compilation is solved using the command,
gcc -o myls myls.c -I SCADDRESS/include/ -L SCADDRESS/lib/ -lapue
I looked it up in the GCC manual, but what does the GCC option -lxxx mean? Where xxx stands for the base name of a header file (in this case, it's apue.h). According to the manual, xxx should be some library files, either end with .so for shared object files, or with .a for static libraries.
This is documented in ยง2.13 "Options for Linking" in the GCC manual:
-llibrary
Search the library named library when linking.
It makes a difference where in the command you write this option; the
linker searches processes libraries and object files in the order they
are specified. Thus, `foo.o -lz bar.o' searches library `z'
after file `foo.o' but before `bar.o'. If `bar.o' refers
to functions in `z', those functions may not be loaded.
The linker searches a standard list of directories for the library,
which is actually a file named `liblibrary.a'. The linker then uses this file as if it had been specified precisely by name.
The directories searched include several standard system directories
plus any that you specify with `-L'.
Normally the files found this way are library files--archive files
whose members are object files. The linker handles an archive file by
scanning through it for members which define symbols that have so far
been referenced but not defined. But if the file that is found is an
ordinary object file, it is linked in the usual fashion. The only
difference between using an `-l' option and specifying a file name is that `-l' surrounds library with `lib' and `.a'
and searches several directories.
The -l option tells GCC to link in the specified library. In this case, the library is apue, and that it happens to line up with the name of a header file is just how the apue coders designed their project.
In reality, the -l option has nothing to do with header files. Like cas says in the comments, read the man page; it'll give you much more information.
I would like to create a symbol definition table to be used in a separate application during linking. ARM's armlink linker has the following flag but I'm using arm-eabi:
--symdefs=filename
The GNU objcopy utility has an option --extract-symbol that may do what you want. It generates an object file with only symbol data - no actual code or data.
It is specifically intended to generate a .sym file for use in the VxWorks RTOS which has a command shell and dynamic linker/loader that uses this information. It is also used by the VxWorks host shell and source-level debugger.
The binutils nm utility on the other hand generates output very similar to armlink's --symdefs which you might easily post-process into exactly the form you need.
-Wl,-Map -Wl,mapfile -Wl,--cref
added to the final gcc (link) command line should do the trick.
This the correct answer from arm gnu launchpad:
Do you intend to load the symdef file with the GNU toolchain or with armcc one? If the former I think using nm on the object file and then linking with -R <filename> would work. So you would do arm-none-eabi-nm -D ./prog > ./prog.defsym after linking prog and then arm-none-eabi-gcc -Wl,-R,./prog.defsym when you want to use this.
I am (was) using the __FILE__ and __LINE__ macros for printing diagnostic messages out of my code. This works quite well when you use GCC with make, the file is as short as you specified it on the command line. I recently switched to using CodeLite which uses fully qualified file names (at least under windows) when building. Suddenly my diagnostic output is almost not readable.
It there a way to get only the file component of the filename in the preprocessor? I can live with a non portable GCC specific solution. (I will fallback to plain __FILE__ other cases.)
Sure I can pass the contents of __FILE__ through a function and extract only the file component, but string operations was not what I had in mind for diagnostic messages that should not change runtime behavior...
NOTE: I use the filename the way GNU uses it. A Path is collection of filenames and a filename is either a relative or absolute identifier of a file. A filename can be made up of a directory component and file component.
If you are using GNU Make then you can simply pass -D BASE_FILE_NAME=\"$*.c\" in on the preprocessing stage of compilation (if you're doing them separately, or at compilation if in a single stage, which is the norm).
This depends upon the way you have your file names determined. Mine come from a list of plain file names and are prefixed with directories using functions in the makefile at a later stage.
IE, this works well for me, but your mileage may vary! :-)
A simplified version of my make "code" :
CLASSES = main.c init.c
PREPROCESSED = $(patsubst %.c,$(PPCDIR)/%.pp.c,$(CLASSES))
$(PREPROCESSED): $(PPCDIR)/%.pp.c: %.c $(ALLH)
$(GCC) $(GCCOPTS) -D BASE_FILE_NAME=\"$*\" -E $< > $#
The simply use BASE_FILE_NAME in your code as you like :-)
There is no known preprocessor macro that provides the functionality. Passing __FILE__ through a function seams like the only sensible option.
In reply to FredCooke above, you can exchange this line:
-D BASE_FILE_NAME=\"$*.c\"
With:
-D BASE_FILE_NAME=\"$(<F)\"
This will give you proper file name expansion, for .cpp as well.
As has already been mentioned in other answers, the only portable way to do this is by passing in a define from the compiler, there are however compiler spesific extensions:
Clang: __FILE_NAME__
GCC: __BASE_FILE__
In this episode of "let's be stupid", we have the following problem: a C++ library has been wrapped with a layer of code that exports its functionality in a way that allows it to be called from C. This results in a separate library that must be linked (along with the original C++ library and some object files specific to the program) into a C program to produce the desired result.
The tricky part is that this is being done in the context of a rigid build system that was built in-house and consists of literally dozens of include makefiles. This system has a separate step for the linking of libraries and object files into the final executable but it insists on using gcc for this step instead of g++ because the program source files all have a .c extension, so the result is a profusion of undefined symbols. If the command line is manually pasted at a prompt and g++ is substituted for gcc, then everything works fine.
There is a well-known (to this build system) make variable that allows flags to be passed to the linking step, and it would be nice if there were some incantation that could be added to this variable that would force gcc to act like g++ (since both are just driver programs).
I have spent quality time with the gcc documentation searching for something that would do this but haven't found anything that looks right, does anybody have suggestions?
Considering such a terrible build system write a wrapper around gcc that exec's gcc or g++ dependent upon the arguments. Replace /usr/bin/gcc with this script, or modify your PATH to use this script in preference to the real binary.
#!/bin/sh
if [ "$1" == "wibble wobble" ]
then
exec /usr/bin/gcc-4.5 $*
else
exec /usr/bin/g++-4.5 $*
fi
The problem is that C linkage produces object files with C name mangling, and that C++ linkage produces object files with C++ name mangling.
Your best bet is to use
extern "C"
before declarations in your C++ builds, and no prefix on your C builds.
You can detect C++ using
#if __cplusplus
Many thanks to bmargulies for his comment on the original question. By comparing the output of running the link line with both gcc and g++ using the -v option and doing a bit of experimenting, I was able to determine that "-lstdc++" was the magic ingredient to add to my linking flags (in the appropriate order relative to other libraries) in order to avoid the problem of undefined symbols.
For those of you who wish to play "let's be stupid" at home, I should note that I have avoided any use of static initialization in the C++ code (as is generally wise), so I wasn't forced to compile the translation unit containing the main() function with g++ as indicated in item 32.1 of FAQ-Lite (http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/mixing-c-and-cpp.html).
I'd be curious to understand if there's any substantial difference in specifying libraries (both shared and static) to gcc/g++ in the two following ways (CC can be g++ or gcc)
CC -o output_executable /path/to/my/libstatic.a /path/to/my/libshared.so source1.cpp source2.cpp ... sourceN.cpp
vs
CC -o output_executable -L/path/to/my/libs -lstatic -lshared source1.cpp source2.cpp ... sourceN.cpp
I can only see a major difference being that passing directly the fully-specified library name would make for a greater control in choosing static or dynamic versions, but I suspect there's something else going on that can have side effects on how the executable is built or will behave at runtime, am I right?
Andrea.
Ok, I can answer myself basing on some experiments and a deeper reading of gcc documentation:
From gcc documentation: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Link-Options.html
[...] The linker handles an archive file by scanning through it for members which define symbols that have so far been referenced but not defined. But if the file that is found is an ordinary object file, it is linked in the usual fashion. The only difference between using an -l option and specifying a file name is that -l surrounds library with lib' and.a' and searches several directories
This actually answers also to the related doubt about the 3rd option of directly specifying object files on the gcc command line (i.e. in that case all the code in the object files will become part of the final executable, while using archives, only the object files that are really needed will be pulled in).