I've introduced Boost.Container into my project which uses jemalloc as default allocator, looks like Boots.Container uses custom allocator which is dlmalloc and of course when linking I'm failing on "multiple definition" linkage error since two "XXXalloc" were introduced into object files. Turning the 'jemalloc' off is not an option but I cant find if it is possible to turn off the dlmalloc usage. Any idea how to solve this problem?
In reality, Boost Container is 99% header-only.
The documentation lists the DLMalloc extension as an extension: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/container/extended_allocators.html
This means you have apparently opted in to the extended allocator. If that's not what you wanted, you know what to remove.
A good hint is when you don't need to link Boost Container, as a quick inspection of the symbols exported didn't show me anything I recognize except allocator stuff.
Related
I've been writing a Python extension use the Python/C API to read data out of a .ROOT file and store it in a list of custom objects. The extension itself works just fine, however when I tried to use it on a different machine I ran into some problems.
The code depends upon several libraries written for the ROOT data manipulation program. The compiler is linking these libraries dynamically, which means I cannot use my extension on a machine that does not have ROOT installed.
Is there a set of flags that I can add to my compilation commands to make these libraries statically linked? Obviously this would make the file size much larger but that isn't much of an issue providing that the code runs at the same speed.
I did think about collating all of the ROOT libraries that I need into an 'archive' file. I'm not too familiar with this so I don't know if that's a good idea or not.
Any advice would be great, I've never really dealt with the static/dynamic library issue before.
Thanks, Sean.
I am aware that implicitly linking to libraries at load time can lead to performance increases and as such I was wondering if it was good practice to link in this way at compile time thus increasing executable size (admittedly this is only marginal) compared to linking explicitly at runtime. My question is when linking against Microsoft Windows dll files located in System32, is it 'better' to link at load time as you can be mostly certain that the libraries will be present or follow the explicit approach?
Language used is Delphi (pascal) and the library in question is the WTsAPI32.dll - Terminal Services.
EDIT: As pointed out - my choice of language was incorrect and has been amended. Also, due to having only really every extensively linked to libraries in Unix, my comments about executable size can be omitted, I believed at the time I WAS in fact referring to static linking which bundles the library code into the executable and I now realise this is impossible when using dll files (DUH!). Thanks all.
The two forms of DLL linking are perhaps better named implicit and explicit. Implicit linking is what you refer to as static linking. And explicit linking is what you refer to as runtime linking
For implicit linking the linker writes entries into the import table of the executable file. This import table is metadata that is used by the loader to resolve DLL imports at module load time. A stub function is included for each implicit import that is only a few bytes in size. The executable size implications of implicit linking are negligible.
With explicit linking the imported function's address is resolved by a call to GetProcAddress. This call is made when the programmer chooses. If the DLL or the function cannot be resolved, the programmer can code fall back behaviour. There are size implications to explicit linking that I estimate to be similar to implicit linking. If the function address is evaluated once and remembered between calls then the performance characteristics are similar to implicit linking.
My advice is as follows:
Prefer implicit linking. It is more convenient to code.
If the DLL may not be present, use explicit linking.
If the DLL must be loaded using a full path, use explicit linking.
If you want to unload the DLL during program execution, use explicit linking.
You specifically mention Windows DLLs. You can safely assume that they will be present. Don't try to code to allow your program to run in case user32.dll is missing. Some functions may not be present in older versions of Windows. If you support those older versions you'll need to use explicit linking and provide a fallback. Decide which version you support and use MSDN to be sure that a function is available on your minimum supported platform.
If your only two options are static linking and run-time dynamic linking, then the latter is the best choice for linking with Windows DLLs because it's your only choice. You cannot link statically to a DLL because DLLs are exclusively for dynamic linking; that's what the D stands for. Microsoft does not provide static libraries for the OS modules, so you cannot link to them statically.
But those typically aren't your only two options. There's a third, namely load-time dynamic linking.
In Delphi, you use load-time dynamic linking by marking a function declaration external and specifying the name of the DLL where the function resides. If you use the function, then an entry is created in your module's import table, and when the OS loads your module, it reads the table, loads the referenced DLL, looks up the address of the function, and stores the address in your program's memory image so that your program can call it directly.
You use run-time dyanmic linking by declaring a function pointer, and then using LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress to look up the function's address prior to calling it. In newer Delphi versions, you can also declare a function in the same style that load-time dynamic linking uses, but then mark it with delay. In that case, the Delphi run-time library will call LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress on your behalf the first time you call the function.
The size differences are negligible. Run-time dynamic linking requires your program to contain code to load and link to libraries, but load-time dynamic linking stores more function references in the import table.
Run-time dynamic linking offers more flexibility in the face of uncertain DLL availability. With load-time dynamic linking, if a DLL is missing, or if it doesn't have all the functions mentioned in your import table, then the OS will fail to load your program — none of your code will run. With run-time dynamic linking, however, you have the opportunity to recover from the problem. You can disable certain parts of your program that the missing DLL depends on, or you can search for DLLs in non-standard places, or you can provide alternative implementations of missing functions.
If the functions you're calling are integral to your program's ability to operate, and there's ample reason to expect the functions to be present wherever your program is installed, then you should choose to link at load time. It allows you to write simpler code. You can be confident that you'll have the required functions if they are available on a certain version of windows that you check for in your installer, or if they're provided by DLLs that you distribute with your program.
On the other hand, if the functions you're calling are optional, then you should prefer to link at run time. Use that for loading plug-ins, or for taking advantage of advanced OS features while maintaining backward compatibility. (For example, you might want to take advantage of Windows Vista theme support when it's present, but still allow your program to run on Windows XP.)
Why do you think that compile-time linking to dynamic libraries would increase EXE size ? I believe you are mislead by somewhat poor choice of terms, used in windows programming from far ago. Let us better use relative terms "early binding" and "late binding" instead for the choice who should search for procedure names, compiler/loader or programmer's custom code.
Using early binding (aka static linking against dynamic library) your EXE contains the values (in a special tables):
DLL1 Name:
procedure "aaaaa" into the variable $1234
procedure "bbbbb" into the variable $5678
.
DLL2 Name:
procedure "ccccc" into the variable $4567
...et cetera.
Now, when you turn this into runtime loading (dynamic linking against dynamic libraries) it would look like
VarH1 := SafeLoatLibrary(DLL1 Name);
if Error-Loading-DLL then do-error-handling;
Var1234 := GetProcAfdress(VarH1, "aaaaa");
if Error-Searching-For-Function then do-error-handling;
Var5678 := GetProcAfdress(VarH1, "bbbbb");
if Error-Searching-For-Function then do-error-handling;
et cetera.
Obviously in the latter case your EXE contains all those values like in the 1st case, but more so - it contains a lot of code to deal with those values, that was just absent before.
So, while EXE size difference is not really large for today memory sizes, it is still in favor of early binding (static compilation against dynamic library).
Then what are the benefits for late binding? For example you can load different DLLs from different paths, determined in runtime by configuration - the flexibility and avoiding of DLL Hell (funny, concept of avoiding DLL Hell is against concept of volume saving). You can make your application work with limited functionality, if DLL load failed while statically binded EXE would just not load - graceful degradation concept. And at least you may give user much better, full of semantics, error messages than Windows could ever do.
And the last word, where you got that concept of EXE size from. I believe you mistaken it from talks about - attention! - static linking against static libraries. That is when OBJ/LIB/DCU files are not the part of distribution, but are just temporary code containers, that ultimately takes its place inside the monolythic EXE. Then yes - then your EXE has all those libraries insideitself and thus grows larger. However this case have nothing about dynamic libraries - DLLs.
The wording chosen once ago overuses static/dynamic terms in two closely related topics: how the library is loaded (compile-time vs runtime) and how functions inside the library are located (or bound. By developer's custom codeing ro by some OS-provided or compiler-provided toolset way before 1st line of your sources started execution).
Due to that ambiguity those close but different concepts start overlapping and sometimes this leads to a total confusion.
Now, what more static linking may give you in modern Windows versions. That is WinSxS folder Novadays Windows tends to keep multiple versions of each system DLL and your program may ask for the specific version of it (while in System32 folder there would be the most recent version that your program may be not get used to. Then you can make a special MANIFEST resource and compile it into EXE asking windows to load not DLLs not be name, but by name+version instead. You can replicaty that functionality with dynamic loading as well, but using Windows-provided toolset it is much easier.
Now you can decide which of those options do or do not have importance for your particular case and make somewhat better informed choice.
HTH.
Consider a C++ API defined as a series of __options(declexport/import) classes.
Further, assume that the caller is never permitted to call the ordinary operator new(size_t) on these classes. Either a static factory method does the new-ing or there is a class-specific operator new. And ditto marks on the delete size as needed (frequently just a virtual destructor).
Now, if you compile and link a DLL and an IMPLIB of with the tools from VS2010, can you hand that implib and DLL to a user of VS2005 and expect it to work?
MFC is not involved here at all.
I'd be particularly grateful to any reference to any relatively formal Microsoft statement on the subject.
So long as the name mangling on the C++ API is identical (they are), and does not use STL-type specific parameters, such as basic_string or std::map, whose implementation may have changed between releases of the compiler (and they have), then it should just work.
Of course, you'll want to make sure you either compiled your DLL using /MT mode (static linked runtimes), or include the redistributables for VS2010 runtimes with your supplied libraries and link targets.
EDIT: Expanding on "don't pass in types that have version-specific implementations". A partial list is most easily found by looking at the output of the exports of MSVC100P.DLL.
cd %VS100COMNTOOLS%\..\VC\redist\x86\Microsoft.VC100.CRT
DUMPBIN /exports MSVCP100.DLL
The next issue will be header-only implementations of things like map or set which have changed under the hood between versions of the compiler.
This is why it's highly recommended that only scalar types be passed across boundaries between memory arenas. And thus, simple tests will pass, and be reliable.
You have not mentioned if you have used MFC to create the DLL's .If you have, regular DLL's should work , but I dont think extension shall work as the latter links to the MFC dlls .I am including links for your reference.
http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/cpp/cpp_mfc/tutorials/article.php/c4017
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/System/Windows__Programming/MFC/Q_20385543.html
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/26h8x9sy%28v=VS.100%29.aspx
EDIT
If its a normal DLL, there should not be any problem.Also depends on the linkage type.
Is it possible to use a C++ static library (.lib) compiled using Visual Studio 6 in Visual Studio 2008?
It really depends. Does the lib expose only 'extern "C"' functions where memory is either managed by straight Win32 methods (CoTaskMemAlloc, etc) or the caller never frees memory allocated by the callee or vice-versa? Do you only rely on basic libraries that haven't changed much since VS 6? If so, you should be fine.
There are 2 basic things to watch for. Changes to global variables used by 3rd-party libraries, and changes to the structure of structs, classes, etc defined by those 3rd-party libraries. For example, the CRT memory allocator has probably changed its hidden allocation management structures between the 2 versions, so having one version of the library allocate a piece of memory and having another free it will probably cause a crash.
As another example, if you expose C++ classes through the interface and they rely on MS runtime libraries like MFC, there's a chance that the class layout has changed between VS 6 and VS 2008. That means that accessing a member/field on the class could go to the wrong thing and cause unpredictable results. You're probably hosed if the .lib uses MFC in any capacity. MFC defines and internally uses tons of globals, and any access to MFC globals by the operations in the .lib could cause failures if the MFC infrastructure has changed in the hosting environment (it has changed a lot since VS 6, BTW).
I haven't explored exactly what changes were made in the MFC headers, but I've seen unpredictable behavior between MFC/ATL-based class binaries compiled in different VS versions.
On top of those issues, there's a risk for functions like strtok() that rely on static global variables defined in the run-time libraries. I'm not sure, but I'm concerned those static variables may not get initialized properly if you use a client expecting the single-threaded CRT on a thread created on the multi-threaded CRT. Look at the documentation for _beginthread() for more info.
I shouldn't think why not - as long as you keep the usual CRT memory boundaries (ie if you allocate memory inside a library function, always free it from inside the library - by calling a function in the lib to do the freeing).
this approach works fine for dlls compiled with all kinds of compilers, statically linked libs should be ok too.
Yes. There should be no issues with this at all. As gbjbaanb mentioned, you need to mind your memory, but VS2008 will still work with it. As long as you are not trying to mix CLR, (managed) code with it. I'd recommend against that if at all possible. But, if you are talking about raw C or C++ code, sure, it'll work.
What exactly are you planning on using? (What is in this library?) Have you tried it already, but are having issues, or are you just checking before you waste a bunch of time trying to get something to work that just wont?
Sure it'll work.
Are you asking where in VS2008 to code the references?
If so, go to proj props -> Linker -> Input on Configuration properties on the property pages. Look for "additional dependencies" and code the .LIB there.
Go to proj props -> Linker -> General and code the libs path in "Additional Library Directories".
That should do it!!
There are cases were the answer is no, when we moved from VS6 to VS2k5 we had to rebuild all our libraries, as the memory model had changed, and the CRT functions where different.
There were a handful of breaking changes between VC6, VS2003, VS2005 and VS2008. Visual C++ (in VS2005) stopped support for single-threaded, statically linked CRT library. Some breaking changes enumerated here and here. Those changes will impact your use of VC6 built libs in later versions.
This I think is related to my use of the nlog C++ API (and my question on the nlog forum is here); the purpose of my asking this question here is to get a wider audience to my problem and perhaps to also get some more general ideas behind the VB6 IDE's failure to build in my particular scenario.
Briefly, the problem that I am having is that I am having trouble building VB6 components which reference unmanaged C++ components which have calls to nlog's C\C++ API (which is defined in NLogC.DLL). The build problems are not occurring during compile time, they are occurring when the binary is being built which suggests to me that it's some kind of linker type problem? Don't know enough about how VB6 binaries are produced to tell. The VB6 binary is produced, but it is corrupted and crashes shortly after it is invoked.
Has anyone had any similar experiences with VB6 (doesn't have to be related to nlog or C++)?
edit: Thanks for all the responses to this rather obscure problem. Still no headway unfortunately; my findings since I posted this:
'Tweaking' the compile options doesn't appear to help in this problem.
Adding a reference to the nlog-enabled C++ component from a 'blank' VB6 project doesn't crash it or cause weird build problems. So it isn't a 'native' VB6 issue, possibly an issue with the interaction between nlog and the various components and 3rd party libraries used by other referenced components?
As for C++ calling conventions: the nlog-enabled C++ component is - as far as I can see - compliant to these conventions and indeed works fine when referenced by VB6 as long as it is not making any nlog API calls. Not sure if the nlogc.DLL itself is VB6 compliant but I would have thought that that is immaterial since the API calls are being made from the C++ component; VB6 shouldn't know or care about what the C++ component is referencing (that's as far as my understanding on this goes...)
edit2: I should also note that the error message obtained during build is: "Errors during load. Please refer to "xxx" for details". When I bring up the log file, all that there is in there is: "Cannot load control xxx". Interestingly, all references to that particular control disappears from that particular project resulting in compile errors if I were to try to build again.
Got around the problem by using NLog's COM interface (NLog.ComInterop.DLL) from my unmanaged C++ code. Not as easy to do as the C\C++ API but at least it doesn't crash my VB6 components.
I would try tweaking some of the Compile options found in the Project, Properties menu, Compile panel to see if they yield any additional hints as to what is going wrong.
For example if you compile the executable to p-code rather than native code does it still crash on startup.
What error message do you get when you run your compiled binary?
I doubt the compiler/linker is the problem: project references in a VB6 project are not linked into the final executable. A project reference in VB6 is actually a reference to a COM type library (which may or may not be embedded in a .dll or other binary file type). Project references primarily serve two purposes:
The IDE extracts type information from the referenced type libraries which it then displays in the Object Browser (and in the Intellisense drop-down)
At compile-time, the compiler extracts the type information stored in the referenced libraries, including the CLSID of each class that you instantiate, and embeds this data into the executable. This allows your executable to create instances of classes contained in the libraries that you referenced.
Note that the compiled binary doesn't link to any code in the referenced libraries, and it doesn't even contain the filenames of the referenced libraries. The final executable only contains the CLSID's and other type information that it needs to instantiate COM objects at run-time.
It is much more likely that the issue is with NLog, or with how you are calling it from your code, rather than something gone awry in the VB6 compile process.
If you think it might be a linker problem, this should crash it the same way:
create a new standard project (of any kind)
add a new module and copy the "declare"-statements into it
compile
If it doesn't crash it is something else.
It would help an exact description of the error or a screenshot of what going on.
One thing to check is wherever NLogC.DLL or the C++ DLL you built have the correct calling convention defined. Basically you can't have the DLL function names mangled or use anything but the STDCALL calling convention. If the C++ DLL has not been created with those two things in mind then it will fail to work with VB6.
MSDN Article on Calling convention.
"Cannot load control xxx" errors can be caused by .oca files which were created from a different version of an .ocx than currently used. If that is the case, deleting the .oca files helps.