I am trying to link a C++ module using GCC, essentially like this:
gcc -c hello.c
g++ -c world.cpp
gcc -ohello -lstdc++ hello.o world.o
Note that I use -lstdc++ to link the C++ module in, so that I can use gcc instead of g++. The problem is that I'm getting the error:
undefined reference to `operator new(unsigned long)'
(Assuming that world.cpp contains at least one call to new.)
This error is fixed if I put -lstdc++ at the end of the linker line, like this:
gcc -ohello hello.o world.o -lstdc++
I am aware that this question has been asked many times here, but I have a special requirement. I am not directly calling GCC. I am using a build system for a different programming language (Mercury) which is calling GCC on my behalf, and I can't easily modify the way it calls GCC (though I can specify additional libraries using the LDFLAGS environment variable). So I have two additional requirements:
I cannot use g++ to link (only gcc) -- that is why I am doing the -lstdc++ trick above rather than simply linking with g++).
I don't think that I can control the order of the linker commands -- Mercury will put the .o files on the command-line after any libraries.
I understand the basic reason why the order is important, but what is baffling me is why did this break now? I just updated to Ubuntu 11.10 / GCC 4.6.1. I have been successfully compiling this program for years using precisely the above technique (putting -lstdc++ first). Only now has this error come up. An unrelated program of mine links against OpenGL using -lgl and that too broke when I upgraded and I had to move -lgl to the end of the command-line. I'm probably going to discover that dozens of my programs no longer compile. Why did this change? Is there something wrong with my new system or is that the way it is now? Note that these are ordinary shared libraries, not statically linked.
Is there anything I can do to make GCC go back to the old way, where the order of libraries doesn't matter? Is there any other way I can convince GCC to link libstdc++ properly without moving it after the .o files on the command-line?
If Mercury puts object files after libraries, Mercury is broken. Libraries belong after object files - always. You may sometimes get away with the reverse order, but not reliably. (Static libraries must go after the object files that reference symbols in the static library. Sometimes, a linker will note the symbols defined by a shared library even when none of the symbols are used; sometimes, the linker will only note the shared library symbols if the shared library provides at least one symbol.)
Related
When studying Scintilla's makefile for MinGW under windows, I noticed that it is passing -shared and -static together as LDFLAGS to gcc.
LDFLAGS=-shared -static -mwindows $(LDMINGW)
I googled, and only find some information from clang: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43811
[MinGW, CrossWindows] Allow passing -static together with -shared
In these combinations, link a DLL as usual, but pass -Bstatic instead of -Bdynamic to indicate prefering static libraries.
My question is: Would GCC do the same?
I haven't find any proof yet.
You can pass both -static and -shared in a GCC linkage. Their
combined effect is the same as you found described in your llvm link,
and this has always been the case for GCC.
-shared directs a GCC linkage to produce a shared library rather than a program,
which it achieves by passing on the option -shared to its invocation of
the linker.
-static directs a GCC linkage to ignore shared libraries when resolving
input library options -lname. By default -lname would be resolved by
searching the specified or default linker search directories for either
the shared library libname.so (on Windows, [lib]name.dll)
or the static library libname.a (on Windows also [lib]name.lib) and to prefer
the shared library if both of them are found in the same directory. -static
simply excludes all shared libraries from the search. GCC achieves this by passing the option -Bstatic
through to its invocation of the linker at a position in the generated linker
commandline that precedes all of the -lname options.
The GNU linker documentation of -Bstatic is explicit
that this option is consistent with -shared and that the effect is to produce a shared library
all of whose dependent libraries have been statically resolved.
-Bstatic
-dn
-non_shared
-static
Do not link against shared libraries. This is only meaningful on platforms for which shared libraries are supported.
The different variants of this option are for compatibility with various systems. You may use this option multiple times on the command line:
it affects library searching for -l options which follow it. This option also implies --unresolved-symbols=report-all.
This option can be used with -shared. Doing so means that a shared library is being created but that all of the library’s external references must be resolved by pulling in entries from static libraries.
(emphasis mine).
Although static linkage of shared library is in principle just a linkage restricted
in the same way as static linkage of a program, in practice it frequently encounters
a snag on Unix and Linux because all the object code linked into an ELF shared library
libname.so must be Position Independent Code,
as produced by the GCC compilation option -fPIC, whereas object files that are destined to be
archived in static libraries are customarily not compiled with -fPIC. Linkages using
-shared ... -static are thus apt to fail because necessary static libraries contain
non-PIC object files.
You do not have this worry with GCC on Windows, however, because there
is no such distinction as PIC v. non-PIC in Windows PE
object code.
I have inherited a Makefile which builds a .so file. It is linking with -lcrypto from OpenSSL on Ubuntu with gcc 4.7.4. Critically, it is NOT linking with -lssl nor -ldl, and when I run nm -g thelib.so, it only has the ~15 symbols from openssl crypto. However, they are all U (undefined).
I'm refactoring the Makefile on another Ubuntu machine. When I link with -lcrypto, it fails due to undefined symbols needed from dl. When I add linking to -ldl, those errors go away and linking succeeds. However, my .so file is 1.5 MB bigger than the original, and there are at least a hundred symbols related to SSL, which are all T (defined), which seem to indicate that -lssl is happening implicitly somehow.
While it would seem prudent and good that they are all defined in my case, I need to figure out how to produce the same result just as it is.
So, my question is, how does one get GCC to allow the linking of a .so file and accept undefined references? I've compared our commands, and there are little differences which I've tried to eliminate, but nothing seems to work. I read that it might be related to -Wl,--no-as-needed, but i'm using that. Here's my linker flags.
g++ -shared -o mylib.so myobjs.o -fPIC -lstdc++ -lm -z defs -Wl,-soname,mylib -Wl,--no-as-needed -lpthread -lcrypto -lz
On the other system (the one with the larger result), OpenSSL has apparently not been built as a shared object, only as a static library (but maybe as PIC, so that you can link the result into a shared object). You will have to install the packages that provide the shared object and the corresponding .so symbolic link.
I'm attempting to do a release of some software and am currently working through a script for the build process. I'm stuck on something I never thought I would be, statically linking LAPACK on x86_64 linux. During configuration AC_SEARCH_LIB([main],[lapack]) works, but compilation of the lapack units do not work, for example undefiend reference to 'dsyev_' --no lapack/blas routine goes unnoticed.
I've confirmed I have the libraries installed and even compiled them myself with the appropriate options to make them static with the same results.
Here is an example I had used in my first experience with LAPACK a few years ago that works dynamically, but not statically: http://pastebin.com/cMm3wcwF
The two methods I'm using to compile are the following,
gcc -llapack -o eigen eigen.c
gcc -static -llapack -o eigen eigen.c
Your linking order is wrong. Link libraries after the code that requires them, not before. Like this:
gcc -o eigen eigen.c -llapack
gcc -static -o eigen eigen.c -llapack
That should resolve the linkage problems.
To answer the subsequent question why this works, the GNU ld documentation say this:
It makes a difference where in the command you write this option; the
linker searches and processes libraries and object files in the order
they are specified. Thus, foo.o -lz bar.o' searches libraryz' after
file foo.o but before bar.o. If bar.o refers to functions in `z',
those functions may not be loaded.
........
Normally the files found this way are library files—archive files
whose members are object files. The linker handles an archive file by
scanning through it for members which define symbols that have so far
been referenced but not defined. But if the file that is found is an
ordinary object file, it is linked in the usual fashion.
ie. the linker is going to make one pass through a file looking for unresolved symbols, and it follows files in the order you provide them (ie. "left to right"). If you have not yet specified a dependency when a file is read, the linker will not be able to satisfy the dependency. Every object in the link list is parsed only once.
Note also that GNU ld can do reordering in cases where circular dependencies are detected when linking shared libraries or object files. But static libraries are only parsed for unknown symbols once.
I just got this error when compiling some plugins for my new toy (on gcc/g++ on Linux):
relocation R_X86_64_32 can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
I basically understand why PIC is needed but, within the CMake system, the solution seems to be this:
IF (CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR STREQUAL "x86_64")
SET_TARGET_PROPERTIES (${PLUGIN_BASE_LIB} PROPERTIES COMPILE_FLAGS "-fPIC")
ENDIF (CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR STREQUAL "x86_64")
I don't understand why this solution is conditional.
The follow-up seems to suggest that -fPIC should be used basically everywhere except 32-bit Linux, which suggests that the above is not portable.
Should I always use -fPIC? Will there be any adverse effects?
${PLUGIN_BASE_LIB} needs to be statically linked to both the main executable, and statically the various shared libraries which are the plugins.
Ideally you want to build two versions of code: one for the main executable and one for the library. The first will need to be compiled with -fPIE (which is default in modern distros) and the second with -fPIC. As you point out this does not depend on target architecture.
You can compile only one version with -fPIC but then main executable will be suboptimal because -fPIC forces compiler to obey symbol interposition rules which significantly limits it's ability to optimize code e.g. inline and clone functions.
I have been trying to produce a statically linked "single binary" version of my game for windows. I want to link with sdl, sdl_image and sdl_mixer which in turn pull in a few support libraries. Unfortunately I haven't found a way to get them all to compile and link using cygwin/mingw/gcc. As far as I can tell all existing public versions are only shared libraries / dlls.
Please note that I'm not talking about licencing here. The source will be open thus the GPL/LGPLness of sdl is not relevant.
When compiling your project, you need to make just a couple changes to your makefile.
Instead of sdl-config --libs, use sdl-config --static-libs
Surround the use of the above-mentioned sdl-config --static-libs with -Wl,-Bstatic and -Wl,-Bdynamic. This tells GCC to force static linking, but only for the libraries specified between them.
If your makefile currently looks like:
SDLLIBS=`sdl-config --libs`
Change it to:
SDLLIBS=-Wl,-Bstatic `sdl-config --static-libs` -Wl,-Bdynamic
These are actually the same things you should do on Unix-like systems, but it usually doesn't cause as many errors on Unix-likes if you use the simpler -static flag to GCC, like it does on Windows.
Via this SDL mailing list post it seems that the sdl development tools ship with a sdl-config script that you can use with the --static-libs flag to determine what linker flags you need to use.
Environment: VMWare Virtual Machine with Windows 7 x64 and Equipment we Dev c + + build 7.4.2.569, complilador g+ + (tdm-1) 4.6.1
Once, SDL2-2.0.3 API installed as configuration Dev c ++ is not very clear what I've done as tradition requires command line.
The first problem is that Windows 7 appears to have changed the methodology and they go to his ball. Inventory. Ref. https://stackoverflow.com/users/464581/cheers-and-hth-alf
After the first hurdle, SDL_platform.h is that bad, it's down another, I do not remember where I downloaded, but the next does not work in the indicated version.
We must put SDL2.h ls in the directory of the executable.
D:\prg_desa\zsdl2>g++ bar.cpp main.cpp -o pepe1 -ID:\SDL2-2.0.3\i686-w64-mingw32\include\SDL2 -LD:\SDL2-2.0.3\i686-w64-mingw32\lib -lmingw32 -lSDL2main -lSDL2 -mwindow
I've finally compiled and works SDL2 testing.
That's because the SDL libs are under the LGPL-license.
If you want to static link the libs (you can do that if your recompile them. It needs some hacking into the makefiles though) you have to place your game under some compatible open source license as well.
The SDL-libs come as shared libraries because most programs that use them are closed source. The binary distribution comes in a form that most people need.
On my system (Ubuntu) I have to use the following flags:
-Wl,Bstatic -lSDL_image `sdl-config --libs` -lpng12 -lz -ltiff -ljpeg -lasound -laudio -lesd -Wl,-Bdynamic `directfb-config --libs` -lpulse-simple -lcaca -laa -ldl
That links SDL, SDL_image, and many of their dependencies as static. libdl you never want static, so making a fully-static binary that uses SDL_image is a poor idea. pulse,caca,aa, and directfb can probably be made static. I haven't got far enough to figure them out yet.