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.
Related
newbie here.
Want to ask for any advice on how to Publish/Export, CodeBlocks Application made by using wxWidgets. After some research, i discovered that i should use DLL, or something like that, but since I am really new into it, I am missing the logic on how I should actually implement that. Since CodeBlocks offers wxWidgets and DLL as separate projects. So I am not really sure how to properly combine. Thanks in advance.
If you used wxWidgets as .dll, to get a self-standing package you have to distribute all the requested libraries. The simplest way is just to copy them from their source folder (in your case [wxWidgets root]\lib\gcc_dll) in the same folder as your executable. There could be many of them, but usually only two or three are needed. For simplicity you can copy them all, or you can try repeatedly to start the program, and add each time the library indicated in the error message.
Please note that to distribute your application you will probably want to compile it in Release mode, and consequently you should ship the Release .dlls (i.e. beginning with wx...28_ instead of wx...28d_).
This might seem like a strange idea, but I need the same library linked into my code twice.
A bit of background: I am writing a bit of firmware with a bootloader and a application. Both bits of code need to use the comms library (spi) and some other system libs to run. I cannot replace those libraries in the bootloader if it is using those libraries to run. Hence I would like to include the lib twice, once for the bootloader, and once for the application.
Previously I have done this by making two programs and splicing the HEX files as part of the build process. This time I would like to make one elf that contains both application and bootloader (with debugging symbols for both). Then I can generate the boot load image by stripping it out in a post build step. This allows me to build a complete image and use the linker to avoid collisions etc without making my own tool, and means I can debug errors in the bootloader and the application easily, but the only stumbling block would having the lib multiple times
I figure a solution might be to make two separate static libs ie bootloader.a and application.a the both already contain the other lib, but this seems messy. Does anyone know a better solution?
I have a program do so some graphics. When I run it interactively, I want it to use OpenGL from the system to provide hardware accelerated graphics. When I run it in batch, I want to be able to redirect it to use the Mesa GL library so that I can use OSMesa functionality to render to an offscreen buffer. The OSMesa functionality is enabled by doing a LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress if the batch start up option is selected.
On Linux, its fairly easy to make this work. By using a wrapper script to invoke the program, I can do something like this:
if [ "$OPTION" = "batch" ]; then
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PATHTO/mesalibs:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
fi
It is possible to do something this in Windows?
When I try adding a directory to the PATH variable, the program continues to go to the system opengl32.dll. The only way I can get the program to use the Mesa GL/OSMesa shared libraries is to have them reside in the same directory as my program. However, when I do that, the program will never use the system opengl32.dll.
If I've understood what you're saying correctly, the wrong version of opengl32.dll is being loaded when your process starts up, i.e., load-time dynamic linking. There is probably no good way to solve your problem without changing this.
You say you can't use conveniently use run-time dynamic linking (LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress) for opengl32.dll because the calls to it are coming from the Qt library. I presume that the Qt library is itself dynamically linked, however, so you should be able to solve your problem by using run-time linking for it. In this scenario, provided you load opengl32.dll before you load the Qt library, you should be able to explicitly choose which version of opengl32.dll you want to load.
You might want to consider using delayed loading in order to simplify the process of moving from load-time to run-time linking. In this scenario, the first call into the Qt library causes it to be loaded automatically, and you'll just need to explicitly load opengl32.dll first.
There are a few ways you could handle this, depending on the libraries and their names/locations:
If both have the same name (opengl32.dll), then you need to add the Mesa DLL location to the search path such that it is searched before the system directory. The order directories are checked in is detailed here. As you can see, $PATH comes last, after system, so you can't just add the directory to that. However, you can make use of the second step ("The current directory") by setting the working directory to a path containing the mesa files. Generally this means starting the application using an absolute path while in the directory containing the files.
That's still not particularly pleasant, though. If you can, you should use LoadLibrary and check for an environment variable (OPENGL_LIBRARY_PATH) when your app starts up. Assuming the exports from opengl32.dll and Mesa's DLL are the same, you can do something like:
void LoadExports()
{
char location[MAX_PATH];
getenv("OPENGL_LIBRARY_PATH", location);
HMODULE oglLib = LoadLibrary(location);
function1 = GetProcAddress(oglLib, "glVertex2f");
...
}
This will work perfectly fine, doing almost exactly what you want.
However, if you want to do that, you can't import opengl32.dll, which you're probably doing, you have to dynamically link throughout. Make sure not to link against opengl32.lib and you should be fine. Depending on how many functions you use, it may be a pain to set up, but the code can easily be scripted and only needs done once, you can also use static variables to cache the results for the lifetime of the program. It's also possible to use different function names for different libraries, although that takes a bit more logic, so I'll leave the details to you.
Though this should be possible in the cmd window, it seems you're having no luck.
Try: set a variable in your script (RUNNING_IN_SCRIPT=Y) and then parse for that variable in your executable and LoadLibrary from the absolute path of installation - be sure to clear the variable when you exit.
Windows used to search different paths for dynamic libraries, but due to security consideration, the system path is searched first.
You could, however use Delay Load Imports to get a workaround:
If you're using MSVC, you could single-out the DLLs you're interested in loading on your own with /DELAYIMPORT flag to the linker.
Then, override the delay load helper function and use LoadLibrary to find the proper DLL (and not trust it to the system).
After loading the correct DLL, have your helper function just call the original one that will do all the GetProcAddress business by itself.
I'm still not 100% sure with the framework linking process, but from what I've seen here before nobody has asked a similar question, perhaps because this could be a silly question, but I'll give it a go anyway.
In my current X-Code project, I'm using a custom framework, say example.framework. At the moment, as far as I'm aware of, in order for the program to function with the framework, I need to have it either in /Library/Frameworks, or I need to have it copied into the bundle resources in the build phase.
Would anybody know about adding a framework to a project in a way that it gets compiled into the executable, so I don't have to include the raw framework with the app? I'd rather not share the whole framework...
Thank you in advance! Any suggestions are also welcome!
A Mac OS X framework is basically a shared library, meaning it's a separate binary.
Basically, when your main executable is launched, the OS will load the framework/dylib into memory, and map the symbols, so your main executable can access them.
Note that a framework/dylib (bundled into the application or not), does not need to contain the header files, as those are only needed at compilation time.
With Xcode, you can actually decide whether or not to include the header files, when you are copying the framework to its installation directory (see your build phases).
If you don't copy header files, people won't be able to use your framework/dylib (unless they reverse-engineer it, of course).
If you still think a framework is not suitable for your needs, you may want to create a static library instead.
A static library is a separate object file (usually .a) that is «included» with your final binary, at link time.
This way, you only have a single binary file, containing the code from the library and from your project.
In Java when you compile a .java file which defines a class, it creates a .class file. If you provide these class files to your coworkers then they cannot modify your source. You can also bundle all of these class files into a jar file to package it up more neatly and distribute it as a single library.
Does Ruby have any features like these when you want to share your functionality with your coworkers but you don't want them to be able to modify the source (unless they ask you for the actual .rb source file and tell you that they want to change it)?
I believe the feature you are looking for is called "trust" (and a source code control repository). Ruby isn't compiled in the same way that Java is, so no you can't do this.
I have to say your are in a rough position, not wanting to share code with a coworker. However, given that this is an unassailable constraint perhaps you could change the nature of the problem.
If you have a coworker that needs access to some service provided by a library of yours, perhaps you could expose it by providing a web/rest service instead of as a .rb file.
This way you can hide your code behind a web server, and if there is a network architecture that allows for low latency making these service calls, you can effectively achive the same goal.
Trust is a lot easier though.
edit:
Just saw this on HN: http://blog.astrails.com/2009/5/12/ruby-http-require, allows a ruby file to include another file through http instead of the filesystem.
Ruby is
A dynamic, interpreted, open source programming language with a focus on simplicity and productivity.
So like all interpreted languages, you need to give the source code to anyone who want's to execute your program/script.
By the way searching "compiled ruby" on google returned quiet a few results.
I don't think there is one. Ruby is purely an interpreted language, which means ruby interprets your source code directly in order to run it. Java is compiled, so there's an intermediate bytecode (the .class). You can obfuscate your ruby if you really wish, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
Just to make sure you realize, however, upwards of 95% of Java can be decompiled back into source using various free utilities, so in reality, Java's compilation isn't much better than distributing Ruby source.
This is not a language specific problem and one that can be managed more effectively through source control software.
There is a library called ruby2c that compiles a subset of Ruby into C code (which you can then compile into native code, if you want).
It was actually originally written as a Ruby code obfuscator (but has since been used for lots of other stuff, including Ruby Arduino development).