I have compiled armv7 static libraries (lib*.a) and i'm going to compile iPad Air app (arm64).
I'm getting linker warning and then linker error:
$ lipo -info /Users/user/Documents/dev/src/iOS_Projects/iProject/libMyLib.a
input file /Users/user/Documents/dev/src/iOS_Projects/iProject/libMyLib.a is not a fat file
Non-fat file: /Users/user/Documents/dev/src/iOS_Projects/iProject/libMyLib.a is architecture: armv7
Ld: warning: ignoring file /Users/user/Documents/dev/src/iOS_Projects/iProject/libMyLib.a, file was built for archive which is not the architecture being linked (arm64): /Users/user/Documents/dev/src/iOS_Projects/iProject/libMyLib.a ignoring file
It's undesirable (and can be impossible) to recompile static libs for arm64. How can i use them?
With difficulty.
You can only switch between AArch32 state and AArch64 state at an exception boundary, so whilst e.g. 64-bit kernel/32-bit userspace is possible, it's impossible to use both in a single process. Since it's an entirely different instruction set/register layout/exception model/etc. there's no 32/64-bit interworking in the style of ARM/Thumb (which are essentially just different encodings of the same instructions).
In general (I'm not familiar with iOS specifics, but I assume it supports "legacy" AArch32 processes as Linux does):
If the libraries are completely integral to your code, your best bet is to simply give in and compile your app as 32-bit.
If you have super-crucial-absolutely-must-be-64-bit code but the library calls are not in the fast path, you could compile them into a 32-bit helper program that you spawn as an additional process and call via some form of IPC.
Otherwise you're looking at the ridiculously impractical prospect of some form of binary translation.
I gather that iOS offers no support for IPC, which rather rules out the second option in this particular case.
Related
I try to understand this whole "compiling" topic in a way more detailed than all those "what is a compiler (doing)?" articles out there.
One big question to me is processor- and os-platform dependency when compiling directly to machine code (e.g. C). I try to formulate concrete questions that needs to be resolved in order to get my picture clearer:
I compile my C code via gcc on a Linux distribution... :
Can I run the resulting executable on any other Linux Distribution?
Is that executable bound the processor platform compiled on? Do I need to search for another e.g. power-pc gcc when I am running a x86 distro?
Can I somehow execute this on windows? I know executables differs but the binary code is the same, isn't it?
So in the end my questions aims on: Is compiling about targeting a specifiy OS paltform, processor platform or both?
Thanks!
Compiling targets both, OS, and Architecture.
The OS needs to be targeted because:
The format of what is an "executable" file is different among operating systems.
Programs call the operating system even for common tasks like writing to the console, reading from a file, or terminating cleanly (standards like POSIX mitigate OS dependencies by defining a common layer between the program and the OS).
The CPU architecture must be targeted because the CPU instructions are different, even among different generations of the "same architecture".
Can I run the resulting executable on any other Linux Distribution?
In general, Yes, but on specific cases it may depend on the type of program (f.i. GUI) and the services assumed available on the OS.
Is that executable bound the the processor platform compiled on? Do I need to search for another e.g. power-pc gcc when I am running a x86 distro?
I don't understand what you mean by "search", but, Yes, you can cross-compile from, say, x86 targeting PPC.
Can I somehow execute this on Windows? I know executables differ but the binary code is the same, isn't it?
These days Windows has Ubuntu integration, and that allows for some kind of exceptions, but the general answer is No, because of the above.
I noticed on mac that some of my shared objects (dylib) are binaries with two architectures. I believe this can be achieved by separately compiling for i386 and x86_64, then using the lipo utility to create the universal executable
$ file /usr/lib/libpoll.dylib
/usr/lib/libpoll.dylib: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/usr/lib/libpoll.dylib (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library x86_64
/usr/lib/libpoll.dylib (for architecture i386): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library i386
However as far as I have spot checked .dll files on my windows system, they are all of one architecture. Here are some ways to check the architecture a .dll was compiled for
Is there a way I can compile a single .dll file for two different architectures (ex. both x86_64 and i386)?
In Mac OS you can compile what is know as a fat binary or a multi architecture binary. That is not available in Windows. Unmanaged PE executable files are either 32 bit or 64 bit, but never both.
On the other hand, .net assemblies can be compiled for AnyCPU and will adapt to the bitness of their host.
But for unmanaged modules, it is one or the other.
Is it possible for gcc, installed on fedora 16, to cross compile for a different CPU, say SPARC?
I have build a certain understanding, need some expert to correct me if I am wrong. Different operating systems differ by the system calls they use to access the kernel or entirely by the kernel they use. IS THIS CORRECT? different kernels understands different systems calls for accessing underlying hardware. binaries or executables or programs are nothing but a bunch of system calls only. therefore every OS has its own executable. an executable meant to run to on windows wound not run on linux. by cross compiling the source code of any windown's executable we can generate executable for other OSs. word PLATFORM means operating system. POSIX are certain design standards for UNIX-like OSs.
we usually cross compile for different OSs. BUT can we cross compile for different hardware too? for example, in case of a microcontroller which does not have an OS?
No. You can't use native machine (x86) gcc for compiling program files for a different architecture. For that you require a cross-compiler-gcc that is specific to that processor architecture.
Your understanding about system calls for OS is correct. Each OS has its own set of system call which is been used by library. These libraries at the end will be translated into machine language for the processor.
Each Processor Architecture has its own set of instruction know as Instruction Set Architecture(ISA). So when a program written in high-level-language (like C) is compiled, it should be converted into machine language from its ISA. This job is done by the compiler(gcc). A compiler will be specific to only one processor architecture. For example gcc is for x86 processor. So if you want a compiler for different processor in you x86 machine you should go for a cross-compiler of that processor.
You would have to build such a version. That's part of the process of porting gcc to a new platform. You build a version that cross-compiles, then you cross-compile that version, then you test that version on the new platform, debug, rinse, and repeat.
I made a cross compiling toolchain for arm-gcc, configuring binutils, newlib, gcc and gdb for the arm-elf target. The problem I am having is, when I compile a program with arm-elf-gcc on my Mac, it generates a 32 bit executable with cannot be executed in the 64 bit environment.
What is the easiest way to circumvent this? I could place the 32 bit executables to an arm environment, but I am interested to know if I could execute the file in my Mac in any way?
--Added--
I should have done this before, but let me inform that the target of my program is a Beagleboard, and I was expecting that I would compile and generate the objects using arm-gcc on my Mac OS X and transfer the *.o to the Beagleboard to view output. Alas, it gives the same error on the Beagleboard as well when I do a ./hello.o.
Thanks,
Sayan
There are several issues preventing you from running your executable on a Mac.
1) Architecture. Your Mac is probably an x86/x86_64 machine (or PowerPC) but your binary is compiled for ARM architecture (which is the whole point of using a cross-compiler). These instruction sets are not compatible.
2) Your binary is linked as an ELF object file, whereas Macs use the Mach-O object file format. Your OS cannot load this executable format.
3) Your executable is linked against newlib (for some target which is probably not Mac OS) instead of the Mac OS libc. Your system calls are not correct for this platform.
If your program is a standard unix executable, you may be able to simply compile it with the standard system gcc and it will run. Otherwise, you can run it in an ARM emulator, though this may be pretty complicated to set up.
The fact that it's 32-bit is irrelevant - you can't execute ARM code on a Mac (unless you can find some kind of ARM emulator).
what is cross compilation?
Cross-compilation is the act of compiling code for one computer system (often known as the target) on a different system, called the host.
It's a very useful technique, for instance when the target system is too small to host the compiler and all relevant files.
Common examples include many embedded systems, but also typical game consoles.
A cross-compiler is compiles the source code from one architecture to another architecture.
For example: hello.c
gcc hello.c (gcc is a compiler for x86 architecture.)
arm-cortexa8-linux-gnueabihf-gcc hello.c
(arm-....-gcc is a compiler for the arm architecture.) This you are compiling on the host pc for a target board (e.g rpi, beaglebone, wega board). In this example arm-cortexa8-linux-gnueabihf-gcc is called the 'cross compiler'.
This process is called cross compilation.
see the link for more info cross compilation
To "cross compile" is to compile source on say a Linux box with intent on running it on a MAC or Windows box. This is usually done using a cross compilation plugin, which are readily available from various web servers across the net. If one is to install a cross compilation plugin onto their Linux box that is designed to compile for Windows boxes. Then they may compile for either a Linux/*NIX box as well as have the option to compile and link a Windows-ready executable. This is extremely convenient for a freelance programmer whom has access to no more than a single Linux/Windows/MAC box. Note that various cross compilation plugins will allow for multitudes of applications, some of which you may or may not perceive as useful, thus a thorough perusal of the plugin's README file.
Did you have a particular project in mind that you would like to apply the method of cross compilation to?
In a strict sense, it is the compilation of code on one host that is intended to run on another.
Most commonly it is used with reference to compilation for architectures that are not binary-compatible with the host -- for instance, building RISC binaries on a CISC CPU platform, or 64-bit binaries on a 32-bit system. Or, for example, building firmware intended to run on embedded devices (perhaps using the ARM CPU architecture) on Intel PC-based OSs.
A Cross Compiler is a compiler capable of creating executable code for a platform other than the one on which the compiler is running.
For e.g. a compiler that runs on a Windows 7 PC but generates code that runs on Android smartphone is a cross compiler.
A cross compiler is necessary to compile for multiple platforms from one machine.
A platform could be infeasible for a compiler to run on, such as for the microcontroller of an embedded system because those systems contain no operating system.
In paravirtualization one machine runs many operating systems, and a cross compiler could generate an executable for each of them from one main source.