In a tutorial I've encountered a new concept (for me), that I never thought is possible. Actually, I thought that compilation is an entirely pre-run-time process. This is the phrase from tutorial: "Compile time occurs before link time (when the output of one or more compiled files are joined together) and runtime (when a program is executed). In some programming languages it may be necessary for some compilation and linking to occur at runtime".
My questions are:
Is pre-run-time compilation and linking processes absolutely different from run-time compilation and linking? If yes, please explain the main differences.
How are code sections that need to be compiled(linked) during run-time marked and where is that information kept? (This may be different from language to language, if possible, please give a specific example).
Thank you very much for your time!
Runtime compilation
The best (most well known) example I'm personally aware of is the just in time compilation used by Java. As you might know Java code is being compiled into bytecode which can be interpreted by the Java Virtual Machine. It's therefore different from let's say C++ which is first fully (preprocessed) compiled (and linked) into an executable which can be ran directly by the OS without any virtual machine.
The Java bytecode is instead interpreted by the VM, which maps them to processor specific instructions. That being said the JVM does JIT, which takes that bytecode and compiles it (during runtime) into machine code. Here we arrive at your second question. Even in Java it can depend on which JVM you are using but basically there are pieces of code called hotspots, the pieces of code that are run frequently and which might be compiled so the application's performance improves. This is done during runtime because the normal compiler does not have (or well might not have) all the necessary data to make a proper judgement which pieces of code are in fact ran frequently. Therefore JIT requires some kind of runtime statistics gathering, which is done parallel to the program execution and is done by the JVM. What kind of statistics are gathered, what can be optimised (compiled in runtime) etc. depends on the implementation (you obviously cannot do everything a normal compiler would do due to memory and time constraints - guess this partly answers the first question? you don't compile everything and usually only a limited set of optimisations are supported in runtime compilation). You can try looking for such info but from my experience usually it's very badly documented and hard to find (at least when it comes to official sources, not presentations/blogs etc.)
Runtime linking
Linker is a different pair of shoes. We cannot use the Java example anymore since it doesn't really have a linker like C or C++ (instead it has a classloader which takes care of loading files and putting it all together).
Usually linking is performed by a linker after the compilation step (static linking), this has pros (no dependencies) and cons (higher memory imprint as we cannot use a shared library, when the library number changes you need to recompile your sources).
Runtime linking (dynamic/late linking) is actually performed by the OS and it's the OS linker's job to first load shared libraries and then attach them to a running process. Furthermore there are also different types of dynamic linking: explicit and implicit. This has the benefit of not having to recompile the source when the version number changes since it's dynamic and library sharing but also drawbacks, what if you have different programs that use the same library but require different versions (look for DLL hell). So yes those two concepts are also quite different.
Again how it's all done, how it's decided what and how should be linked, is OS specific, for instance Microsoft has the dynamic-link library concept.
Related
When I'm stepping into debugged program, it says that it can't find crt/crt_c.c file. I have sources of gcc 6.3.0 downloaded, but where is crt_c.c in there?
Also how can I find source code for printf and rand in there? I'd like to step through them in debugger.
Ide is codeblocks, if that's important.
Edit: I'm trying to do so because I'm trying to decrease size of my executable. Going straight into freestanding leaves me with a lot of missing functions, so I intend to study and replace them one by one. I'm trying to do that to make my program a little smaller and faster, and to be able to study assembly output a bit easier.
Also, forgot to mention, I'm on windows, msys2. But answer is still helpful.
How can I find source code for printf and rand in there?
They (printf, rand, etc....) are part of your C standard library which (on Linux) is outside of the GCC compiler. But crt0 is provided by GCC (however, is often not compiled with debug information) and some C files there are generated in the build tree during compilation of GCC.
(on Windows, most of the C standard library is proprietary -inside some DLL provided by MicroSoft- and you are probably forbidden to look into the implementation or to reverse-engineer it; AFAIK EU laws might mention some exception related to interoperability¸ but then you need to consult a lawyer and I am not a lawyer)
Look into GNU glibc (or perhaps musl-libc) if you want to study its source code. libc is generally using system calls (listed in syscalls(2)) provided by the Linux kernel.
I'd like to step through them in debugger.
In practice you won't be able to do that easily, because the libc is provided by your distribution and has generally been compiled without debug information in DWARF format.
Some Linux distributions provide a debuggable variant of libc, perhaps as some libc6-dbg package.
(your question lacks motivation and smells like some XY problem)
I intend to study and replace them one by one.
This is very unrealistic (particularly on Windows, whose system call interface is not well documented) and could take you many years (or perhaps more than a lifetime). Do you have that much time?
Read also Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces and look into OsDev wiki.
I'm trying to do so because I'm trying to decrease size of my executable.
Wrong approach. A debugger needs debug info (e.g. in DWARF) which will increase the size of the executable (but could later be stripped). BTW standard C functions are in some common shared library (or DLL on Windows) which is used by many processes.
I'm on windows, msys2.
Bad choice. Windows is proprietary. Linux is made of free software (more than ten billions lines of source code, if you consider all useful packages inside a typical Linux distribution), whose source code you could study (even if it would take several lifetimes).
I want to install a driver for Ros (robot operating system), and I have two options the binary install and the compile and install from source. I would like to know which installation is better, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each one.
Source: AKA sourcecode, usually in some sort of tarball or zip file. This is RAW programming language code. You need some sort of compiler (javac for java, gcc for c++, etc.) to create the executable that your computer then runs.
Advantages:
You can see what the source code is which means....
You can edit the end result program to behave differently
Depending on what you're doing, when you compile, you could enable certain optimizations that will work on your machine and ONLY your machine (or one EXACTLY like it). For instance, for some sort of gfx rendering software, you could compile it to enable GPU support, which would increase the rendering speed.
You can create a version of an application for a different OS/Chipset (see Binary below)
Disadvantages:
You have to have your compiler installed
You need to manually install all required libraries, which frequently also need to be compiled (and THEIR libraries need to be installed, etc.) This can easily turn a quick 30-second command into a multi-hour project.
There are any number of things that could go wrong, and if you're not familiar with what the various errors mean, finding support online could be quite difficult.
Binary: This is the actual program that runs. This is the executable that gets created when you compile from source. They typically have all necessary libraries built into them, or install/deploy them as necessary (depending on how the application was written).
Advantages:
It's ready-to-run. If you have a binary designed for your processor and operating system, then chances are you can run the program and everything will work the first time.
Less configuration. You don't have to set up a whole bunch of configuration options to use the program; it just uses a generic default configuration.
If something goes wrong, it should be a little easier to find help online, since the binary is pre-compiled....other people may be using it, which means you are using the EXACT same program as them, not one optimized for your system.
Disadvantages:
You can't see/edit the source code, so you can't get optimizations, or tweak it for your specific application. Additionally, you don't really know what the program is going to do, so there could be nasty surprises waiting for you (this is why Antivirus is useful....although LESS necessary on a linux system).
Your system must be compatible with the Binary. For instance, you can't run a 64-bit application on a 32-bit operating system. You can't run an Intel binary for OS X on an older PowerPC-based G5 Mac.
In summary, which one is "better" is up to you. Only you can decide which one will be necessary for whatever it is you're trying to do. In most cases, using the binary is going to be just fine, and give you the least trouble. Sometimes, though, it is nice to have the source available, if only as documentation.
There is a device driver for a camera device provided to us as a .so library file by the vendor.
Only the header file with API's is available which provides the list of functions that we can work with the device. Our application is linked with the .so library file provided by the vendor and uses the interface functions provided for our objective.
When we wanted to measure the time taken by our application in handling different tasks, we have added GCC -pg flag and compiled+built our application.
But we found that using this executable built with -pg, we are observing random failure in the camera image acquire functions. Since we are using the .so library file, we do not know what is going wrong inside that function.
So in general I wanted to understand what could be the possible reasons of such a failure mode. Any pointers or documents that can help what goes inside profiling and its side effects is appreciated.
This answer is a helpful overview of how the gcc -pg flag profiler actually works. The take-home point is mostly to do with possible changes to timing. If your library has any kind of time-sensitivity in it, introducing profiler overheads might be changing the time it takes to execute parts of the code, and perhaps violating some kind of constraint.
If you look at the gprof documentation, it would explain the implementation details:
Profiling works by changing how every function in your program is
compiled so that when it is called, it will stash away some
information about where it was called from. From this, the profiler
can figure out what function called it, and can count how many times
it was called. This change is made by the compiler when your program
is compiled with the `-pg' option, which causes every function to call
mcount (or _mcount, or __mcount, depending on the OS and compiler) as
one of its first operations.
So the timing of your application would change quite a bit when you turn on -pg.
If you would like to instrument your code without significantly affecting the timings, you could possibly look at oprofile. It does not pose as significant an overhead as gprof does.
Another fairly recent tool that serves as a good lightweight profiling tool is perf.
The profiling tools are useful primarily in understanding the CPU bound pieces of your library/application and can help you optimize those critical pieces. Most of the time they serve to identify some culprit function/method which wastes CPU cycles. So do not use it as the sole piece for debugging any and all issues.
Most vendor libraries would also provide means to turn on extra debugging or dumping extra information during runtime. They include means such as environment variables, log files, /proc or /sys interfaces for drivers, etc. and sometimes even tools to increase debugging levels at runtime. See if you can leverage these.
If you have defined APIs in a library/driver, you should run unit-tests on them instead of trying to debug the whole application you've built.
If you find a certain unit-test fails, send the source code of the unit-test to your vendor, and ask them to fix the bug. If it is not a bug, your vendor would at least point you towards the right set of APIs or the semantics to use.
Compiling a program to bytecode instead of native code enables a certain level of portability, so long a fitting Virtual Machine exists.
But I'm kinda wondering, why delay the compilation? Why not simply compile the byte code when installing an application?
And if that is done, why not adopt it to languages that directly compile to native code? Compile them to an intermediate format, distribute a "JIT" compiler with the installer and compile it on the target machine.
The only thing I can think of is runtime optimization. That's about the only major thing that can't be done at installation time. Thoughts?
Often it is precompiled. Consider, for example, precompiling .NET code with NGEN.
One reason for not precompiling everything would be extensibility. Consider those languages which allow use of reflection to load additional code at runtime.
Some JIT Compilers (Java HotSpot, for example) use type feedback based inlining. They track which types are actually used in the program, and inline function calls based on the assumption that what they saw earlier is what they will see later. In order for this to work, they need to run the program through a number of iterations of its "hot loop" in order to know what types are used.
This optimization is totally unavailable at install time.
The bytecode has been compiled just as well as the C++ code has been compiled.
Also the JIT compiler, i.e. .NET and the Java runtimes are massive and dynamic; And you can't foresee in a program which parts the apps use so you need the entire runtime.
Also one has to realize that a language targeted to a virtual machine has very different design goals than a language targeted to bare metal.
Take C++ vs. Java.
C++ wouldn't work on a VM, In particular a lot of the C++ language design is geared towards RAII.
Java wouldn't work on bare metal for so many reasons. primitive types for one.
EDIT: As delnan points out correctly; JIT and similar technologies, though hugely benificial to bytecode performance, would likely not be available at install time. Also compiling for a VM is very different from compiling to native code.
Since the dynamically linked libraries have to be resolved at run-time, are statically linked executables faster than dynamically linked executables?
Static linking produces a larger executable file than dynamic linking because it has to compile all of the library code directly into the executable. The benefit is a reduction in overhead from no longer having to call functions from a library, and anywhere from somewhat to noticeably faster load times.
A dynamically linked executable will be smaller because it places calls at runtime to shared code libraries. There are several benefits to this, but the ones important from a speed or optimization perspective are the reduction in the amount of disk space and memory consumed, and improved multitasking because of reduced total resource consumption (particularly in Windows).
So it's a tradeoff: there are arguments to be made why either one might be marginally faster. It would depend on a lot of different things, such as to what extent speed-critical routines in the program relied on calls to library functions. But the important point to emphasize in the above statement is that it might be marginally faster. The speed difference will be nearly imperceptible, and difficult to distinguish even from normal, expected fluctuations.
If you really care, benchmark it and see. But I advise this is a waste of time, and that there are more effective and more important ways to increase your application's speed. You will be much better off in the long run considering factors other than speed when making the "to dynamically link or to statically link" decision. For example, static linking may be worth considering if you need to make your application easier to deploy, particularly to diverse user environments. Or, dynamic linking may be a better option (particularly if those shared libraries are not your own) because your application will automatically reap the benefits of upgrades made to any of the shared libraries that it calls without having to lift a finger.
EDIT: Microsoft makes the specific recommendation that you prefer dynamic linking over static linking:
It is not recommended to redistribute
C/C++ applications that statically
link to Visual C++ libraries. It is
often mistakenly assumed that by
statically linking your program to
Visual C++ libraries it is possible to
significantly improve the performance
of an application. However the impact
on performance of dynamically loading
Visual C++ libraries is insignificant
in almost all cases. Furthermore,
static linking does not allow for
servicing the application and its
dependent libraries by either the
application's author or Microsoft. For
example, consider an application that
is statically linked to a particular
library, running on a client computer
with a new version of this library.
The application still uses code from
the previous version of this library,
and does not benefit from library
improvements, such as security
enhancements. Authors of C/C++
applications are strongly advised to
think through the servicing scenario
before deciding to statically link to
dependent libraries, and use dynamic
linking whenever possible.
It depends on the state of your disk and whether or not the DLLs might be used in other processes. A cold start happens when your program and its DLLs were never loaded before. An EXE without DLLs has a faster cold start since only one file needs to be found. You would have to have a badly fragmented disk that's almost full to not have this case.
A DLL can start to pay off when it is already loaded in another process. Now the code pages of the DLL are simply shared, startup overhead is very low and memory usage is efficient.
A somewhat similar case is a warm start, a startup where the DLL is still available in the file system cache from a previous time it was used. The difference between a cold and a warm start can be quite significant on a sluggish disk. The one reason that everybody likes a SSD.
No, I don't think so. in most of the cases only a copy of the library in memory per program makes the overall system less memory. suppose you have 100 programs using the libc library statically, and libc is ~2-3MB, so it makes the size of the program increase.
But same in a dynamic we can share stuff, so fewer bytes in the memory means more bytes in Caches, More bytes in cache means faster.
Though it has loading overhead, your overall system performance is faster.