How do I get assembly code instructions addresses using g++,
I can print the assembly code from g++ using the following command
g++ -S -masm=intel
I get the the assembly code but it doesn't include the instruction address.
The -S switch causes g++ to emit the assembly it sends to the assembler. This is not a dump of an object and thus doesn't have addresses.
To get a dump of the object g++ generates, first compile into an object file:
g++ -c foo.cpp
Then use objdump to dump the object file:
objdump -d -Mintel foo.o
Related
Can you pass your code directly into gcc? If so what is the command line option for it?
For example:
g++ -? 'int main(){return 0;}'
I need to know because I am using a system command and I rather not make files:
system("g++ -C "+code_string+" -o run.out");
Basile Starynkevitch solution worked, however I am getting compile errors when I use newlines:
echo '#include\nint main(){printf("Hello World"); return 0;}' | g++ -x c++ -Wall -o myprog /dev/stdin
Edit: fixed it
echo -e '#include\nint main(){printf("Hello World"); return 0;}' | g++ -x c++ -Wall -o myprog /dev/stdin
You could ask GCC to read from stdin. Read the Invoking GCC chapter of its documentation. Use its -x option with /dev/stdinor with -:
echo 'int main(){return 0;}' | g++ -x c++ -O -Wall -o myprog /dev/stdin
BTW, since int main(){return 0;} is a valid C program, you could use
echo 'int main(){return 0;}' | gcc -x c -O -Wall -o myprog -
Programatically, you should consider using popen(3) to get a some FILE* handle for a pipe(7) (so FILE* f = popen("g++ -x c++ -O -Wall -o myprog /dev/stdin", "w"); then check that f is not null) and fprintf into it then pclose it at last. Don't forget to test the status of pclose.
However, most of the time spent by GCC is not parsing (use -ftime-report developer option to find out). You often want to ask it to optimize (with -O2 -march=native or just -O for example), and you surely want to ask for all warnings (with at least -Wall and perhaps also -Wextra).
If you want to produce some plugin code in /tmp/someplugin.so from some emitted C++ code in /tmp/myemitted.cc to be dynamically loaded on Linux, compile it as position-independent code into a shared object dynamic library with e.g.
g++ -o /tmp/someplugin.so -fPIC -shared -Wall -O /tmp/myemitted.cc
etc.... then use dlopen(3) on /tmp/someplugin.so with dlsym(3) to fetch some loaded symbols. My GCC MELT is doing this.
Since parsing time is negligible, you could instead write C or C++ code in some temporary file (inside /tmp/ or /run which is often some fast tmpfs on most Linux systems, so writing into it does not require disk I/O).
At last, recent GCC (use at least GCC 6) also has GCCJIT (actually libgccjit). You could use it to build some representation of generated code then ask GCC to compile it.
See also this and that. Read the C++ dlopen mini howto and the Program Library HowTo, and Drepper's How To Write Shared Libraries
I rather not make files
Generating a temporary file (see mkstemp(3) etc... and you practically could also general some random file name under /tmp/ ending with .c, then register its removal with atexit(3) passed some function doing unlink(2)...) is really quick (but you should build some kind of AST in memory before emitting C++ or C code from it). And using some Makefile to compile the generated code with some make command has the advantage (for the advanced user) to be able to change compilers or options (by editing that Makefile to configure make).
So you are IMHO wrong in avoiding temporary files (notice that gcc & g++ are also generating and deleting temporary files, e.g. containing some assembler code). I would suggest on the contrary generating a temporary file (matching /tmp/mytemp*.cc) using some random numbers (see random(3); don't forget to seed the PRNG with e.g. srandom(time(NULL)); early in your main). It could be as simple as
char tmpbuf[80];
bool unique;
do { // in practice, this loop is extremely likely to run once
snprintf(tmpbuf, sizeof(tmpbuf), "/tmp/mytemp_%lx_p%d.cc",
random(), (int)getpid());
unique = access(tmpbuf, F_OK);
} while (unique);
// here tmpbuf contains a unique temporary file name
You coded:
system("g++ -C "+code_string+" -o run.out");
Beware, + is usually not string catenation. You might use snprintf(3) or asprintf(3) to build strings. Or use in C++ std::string. And if you use system(3) you should check its return code:
char cmdbuf[128];
snprintf(cmdbuf, sizeof(cmdbuf), "g++ -Wall -O %s -o run.out", tmpbuf);
fflush(NULL);
if (system(cmdbuf) != 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "compilation %s failed\n", cmdbuf);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
BTW, your example is wrong (missing <stdio.h>); it is C code, not C++ code. It should be
echo -e '#include <stdio.h>\nint main(){printf("Hello World"); return 0;}' \
| gcc -x c -Wall -O -o myprog -
PS. My answer is focused on Linux, but you could adapt it for your OS.
When I run:
/opt/local/bin/arm-elf-gcc-4.7 test.c -o test
gcc decides to use as -o test.o test.s instead of the cross compiler's assembler. How do I specify the correct assembler to use?
Use -B PREFIX to set the correct assembler.
I use the following LLVM tools to convert a cpp project which is written in multiple files into "ONE" single assembly file.
clang *.cpp -S -emit-llvm
llvm-link *.s -S -o all.s
llc all.s -march=mips
Is there any way of doing this in GCC? In particular, is there any way of linking GCC generated assembly files into one assembly file? i.e., what is the equivalent of LLVM-LINK?
Perhaps LTO (Link Time Optimization) is what you want.
Then, compile each compilation unit with gcc -flto e.g.
gcc -flto -O -Wall -c src1.c
g++ -flto -O -Wall -c src2.cc
and use also -flto (and the same optimizations) to link them:
g++ -flto -O src1.o src2.o -lsomething
LTO works in GCC by putting, in each generated assembly file and object file, some representation of the internal GCC representations (like Gimple). See its documentation
You might want to use MELT to customize GCC (or simply use its probe to understand the Gimple, or try just gcc -fdump-tree-all).
How can I tell, with something like objdump, if an object file has been built with -fPIC?
The answer depends on the platform. On most platforms, if output from
readelf --relocs foo.o | egrep '(GOT|PLT|JU?MP_SLOT)'
is empty, then either foo.o was not compiled with -fPIC, or foo.o doesn't contain any code where -fPIC matters.
I just had to do this on a PowerPC target to find which shared object (.so) was being built without -fPIC. What I did was run readelf -d libMyLib1.so and look for TEXTREL. If you see TEXTREL, one or more source files that make up your .so were not built with -fPIC. You can substitute readelf with elfdump if necessary.
E.g.,
[user#host lib]$ readelf -d libMyLib1.so | grep TEXT # Bad, not -fPIC
0x00000016 (TEXTREL)
[user#host lib]$ readelf -d libMyLib2.so | grep TEXT # Good, -fPIC
[user#host lib]$
And to help people searching for solutions, the error I was getting when I ran my executable was this:
root#target:/# ./program: error while loading shared libraries: /usr/lib/libMyLi
b1.so: R_PPC_REL24 relocation at 0x0fc5987c for symbol 'memcpy' out of range
I don't know whether this info applies to all architectures.
Source: blogs.oracle.com/rie
I assume, what you really want to know is whether or not a shared library is composed from object files compiled with -fPIC.
As already mentioned, if there are TEXTRELs, then -fPIC was not used.
There is a great tool called scanelf which can show you the symbols that caused .text relocations.
More information can be found at HOWTO Locate and Fix .text Relocations TEXTRELs.
-fPIC means that code will be able to execute in addresses different form the address that was compile for.
To do it , disasambler will look like this....
call get_offset_from_compilation_address
get_offset_from_compilation_address: pop ax
sub ax, ax , &get_offset_from_compilation_address
now in ax we have an offset that we need to add to any access to memory.
load bx, [ax + var_address}
readelf -a *.so | grep Flags
Flags: 0x50001007, noreorder, pic, cpic, o32, mips32
This should work most of the time.
Another option to distinguish whether your program is generated wit -fPIC option:
provided that your code has -g3 -gdwarf-2 option enabled when compiling.
other gcc debug format may also contains the macro info:
Note the following $'..' syntax is assumes bash
echo $' main() { printf("%d\\n", \n#ifdef __PIC__\n__PIC__\n#else\n0\n#endif\n); }' | gcc -fPIC -g3
-gdwarf-2 -o test -x c -
readelf --debug-dump=macro ./test | grep __PIC__
such a method works because gcc manual declares that if -fpic is used, PIC is defined to 1, and
if -fPIC used, PIC is 2.
The above answers by checking the GOT is the better way. Because the prerequest of -g3 -gdwarf-2 I guess seldom being used.
From The Linux Programming Interface:
On Linux/x86-32, it is possible to create a shared library using
modules compiled without the –fPIC option. However, doing so loses
some of the benefits of shared libraries, since pages of program text
containing position-dependent memory references are not shared across
processes. On some architectures, it is impossible to build shared
libraries without the –fPIC option.
In order to determine whether an existing object file has been
compiled with the –fPIC option, we can check for the presence of the
name _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ in the object file’s symbol table, using
either of the following commands:
$ nm mod1.o | grep _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
$ readelf -s mod1.o | grep _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
Conversely, if either of the following equivalent commands yields any
output, then the specified shared library includes at least one object
module that was not compiled with –fPIC:
$ objdump --all-headers libfoo.so | grep TEXTREL
$ readelf -d libfoo.so | grep TEXTREL
However, neither above quoting nor any answer of this question works for x86_64.
What I've observed on my x86_64 Ubuntu machine is that, whether specifying -fPIC or not, it would generate fPIC .o. That is
gcc -g -Wall -c -o my_so.o my_so.c // has _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
gcc -g -Wall -fPIC -c -o my_so_fpic.o my_so.c // has _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
readelf -s my_so.o > 1.txt && readelf -s my_so_fpic > 2.txt && diff 1.txt 2.txt
has no difference and both my_so.o and my_so_fpic.o can be used to create a shared library.
In order to generate non fpic object file, I found a gcc flag called -fno-pic in the first comment of How to test whether a Linux binary was compiled as position independent code? .
This works,
gcc -g —Wall -fno-pic -c -o my_so_fnopic.o my_so.c // no _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
and
gcc -g -Wall -shared -o libdemo.so my_so_fnopic.o
gives error:
/usr/bin/ld: my_so_fnopic.o: relocation R_X86_64_32 against `.rodata' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
can not create a shared library with non pic .o.
I was trying to do something like this in a makefile:
program.exe: ui.o main.o
gcc ......etc
ui.o: window1.o window2.o
gcc -c window1.o window2.o -o ui.o #this doesn't want to work
window1.o: window1.c window1.h window1_events.c window1_controls.c ...
gcc -c window1.c window1_events.c window1_controls.c... -o window1.o
window2.o: ...
gcc ...
main.o: ...
gcc ...
but when I compile like this, it gives the error "input file unused because linking not done," and then I get a bunch of unresolved externs, etc--problems which are resolved by changing
program.exe: ui.o main.o
gcc ...
to
program.exe: window1.o window2.o main.o
gcc ...
so is it possible to just link object files together, to avoid having mile-long lines in a makefile and break down the build process a little more?
Yes: to merge several object files into one, use ld -r or ld -Ur:
From "man ld" on Linux:
-r
--relocatable
Generate relocatable output---i.e., generate an output file that can
in turn serve as input to ld. This is often called partial linking.
As a side effect, in environments that support standard Unix magic
numbers, this option also sets the output file’s magic number to
"OMAGIC".
If this option is not specified, an absolute file is produced.
When linking C++ programs, this option will not resolve references to
constructors; to do that, use -Ur.
You could also do this with gcc:
gcc -Wl,-r foo.o bar.o -o foobar.o -nostdlib
Merging object files like this has some advantages over using an archive library: if merged files change very infrequently (compared to say main.c), your final executable links will be faster.
OTOH, with archived library, the linker will only use what it needs, so your executable may end up being smaller if e.g. window2.c ends up not being necessary.
I bunch of object files is a library. You can create a library with the ar
utility. The following example creates a library called mylib.a containing the files foo.o and bar.o
ar rvs mylib.a foo.o bar.o
You can then link with it by using it on the compiler command line:
gcc -o myexe main.c mylib.a
To create a library:
ar rvs somelib.a file1.o file2.o file3.o
To link it:
gcc -o program.exe file4.o somelib.a