Is there an open source program for Windows that offers the same functionality as Linux' /lib/ld‑linux.so.2?
You might want to look at the ReactOS project.
They should have everything to load DLLs, and it is open-source.
The loader is a core part of the OS on Windows; there's no open-source alternative I'm aware of, and I'm not sure it'd be possible to do it correctly in any case - you have to handle the minefield of assumptions that kernel32/ntdll have regarding address space layout, support SxS, ASLR, hotpatching, and more.
Open-source linkers are common (e.g., gnu tools), but I gather that's not what you're after.
The Enhanced Dynamic Linking Library for MinGW under MS-Windows may be helpful. Take a look especially at the bottom for the edll solution.
You mean using dynamic libraries? In Windows that's automatic when you use LoadLibrary on a .DLL.
Related
I was wondering if it's possible somehow to use windows.pas on OS X with Lazarus?
I need to use special library in my project, and one of key-files uses windows.pas :( Any ideas?
Windows.pas only works on Windows. You will have to edit the library to put an IFDEF around it in the uses clause, and then provide alternatives for any functionality that is then broken. Or contact the library author and see if there is already a non-Windows version available.
You certainly cannot use Windows.pas under OSX. Because Windows.pas exposes the functionality of the Win32 library.
If you need to execute Win32 code on OSX pretty much your only option is Wine.
A more plausible solution is that you find an alternative to this "special" library to which you refer.
Windows.pas is mostly a wrapper around different DLLs contained in the Windows operating system. As it is unlikely that you will find those DLLs in OSX I guess you are out of luck.
You could check the library's source code and try to identify the constants, procedures and functions that are used in windows.pas. If it is not too much code you could try to modify the library so that it uses corresponding Carbon functions instead.
While the various answers are correct, and the vast bulk of unit windows is not portable, some functionality IS abstracted. Structures like interlockedincrement, Rect and ColorRef, and some message related functionality. Have a look at types and lcltype and the system unit interface of FPC.
A lot of Delphi code still uses Windows for that functionality, while e.g. unit types already exists since D6.
Some other things are abstracted, but not using the same (windows unit) calls. Better explain what exactly you need in a separate post.
Is there a way of using libraries built in Linux on Windows, without porting and rebuilding them?
The short answer is "No". Although there is a way of doing that vice-versa (via WINE).
That would require loading ELF binaries. Extending the loader in Windows seems to be difficult if not impossible, going by the answers to this question:
Is it possible to replace Loader of an OS? Any way to obtain the control over Loader?
I want to make an easy to deploy Windows application and was was wondering which programming systems can create totally self contained Windows .exe files?
As a plus, if the same can be done with MacOSX and Linux from the same source this would be a bonus. I took a look at Realbasic but they have since abandoned the single .exe concept.
update: i am looking for something that can run from Windows XP up to Windows 7, no matter what version of .NET is installed. Is this even possible?
Delphi compiles to one executable, and generates native windows executables. So no dependencies to any kind of framework. If you use Free Pascal (fpc) and the Lazarus IDE, you could even develop for Linux and Apple from the same source.
If your using external dll's this would become a bit more tricky, but you could pack them up in your resource file and still maintain the one exe property.
Update 2020: since #Vassilis & #Marco van der Voort commented on this, I would like to update my old andswer and add that go is a very good way to make self-contained executables. Even crossplatform compilation is realy simple.
You can certainly do this with C/C++. Technically the runtime libraries are required, but they should already be installed on any windows, mac or linux system.
With .NET you can compile to an EXE, but of course the .NET framework is required. For newer versions of windows it should be installed by default, but on older versions (XP or older?) it may or may not be there. And of course you couldn't expect mono to be there by default on linux or mac either.
For Windows the following languages are viable:
C (MS, gcc)
C++ (MS, g++, Digital Mars)
D (Digital Mars)
Delphi (Embarcadero??? how do you spell that? just trips off the tongue doesn't it?)
Fortran (Intel, Salford Software)
Visual Basic 6 (MS)
Lua (you'll need a special tool to do it, but it is doable)
C#, VB.Net, F#, J#, etc (assuming that you don't mind using .Net technology)
You can use Tcl/tk. The technology you should research is a "starpack", which combines a runtime executable (a starkit) with a platform-specific runtime (a "tclkit") to create a single-file executable. It's remarkable in the fact that it's not just compiled code, but an entire self-contained virtual filesystem that can include images, sound, data, etc.
This same technology works for many platforms from the same code base. The only thing that is different is the platform-specific runtime. You can even "cross compile" in that you can copy the runtime for multiple platforms onto your dev box and then build starpacks for each platform without having to actually be on each platform.
Tcl can do this, especially through producing starpacks. They can be produced for all platforms from the same code. Note that this also includes all the necessary runtime libraries (except for things like the C library, but you don't want to make that static under normal circumstances).
JavaFX 2.2 supports that. It allows creation of self-contained applications targeting Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.
Please follow this link for more information: http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/deployment/self-contained-packaging.htm.
I would recommend taking a look at AutoIt. It is an easy-to-use scripting language that will compile into an exe, so there are no runtimes needed. This would be for windows only though.
http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/index.shtml
From the website:
AutoIt v3 is a freeware BASIC-like
scripting language designed for
automating the Windows GUI and general
scripting. ... AutoIt is also very small,
self-contained and will run on all
versions of Windows out-of-the-box
with no annoying "runtimes" required!
c/c++
purebasic
delphi
vb6
i hope this help :)
Here's a good source for a number of basic-like programming languages that build small stand-alone EXEs. Some are cross-platform for Windows and Linux:
www.basic.mindteq.com
You can use Liberty Basic which is easy and cheap, you can easily make stand alone programs for windows but not possible to transfer to MacOS or Linux.
You can do this for Windows with .NET languages using ILMerge
ILMerge is a utility for merging multiple .NET assemblies into a single .NET assembly. It works on executables and DLLs alike and comes with several options for controlling the processing and format of the output. See the accompanying documentation for details.
However:
Currently, ILMerge works only on Windows-based platforms. It does not yet support Rotor or Mono.
QBasic can :-)
I wrote a few command line tools using it!
MSYS and UNIX-like build systems apart; why does Mingw exist? What I mean is, why isn't win32/64 just another target available in "vanilla GCC"? Are there technical reasons for this or are they "political"? It would seem to me that there isn't really anything special about the Windows platform that would make a GCC port to it "incompatible" with the original GCC.
Mingw isn't just the compilers - it's also the libraries and headers (and whatever other support files you might need).
GCC is just a compiler. Mingw is a full environment.
MingW is intended to allow easy porting of Posix apps to windows. It's simply a "thinner" layer than CygWin, so not everything might work where windows too different. CygWin allows provides enough insulation that even the scripting tools to build and generate code run.
Edit:
Microsoft is very fond of making there own standards, and want to put there own brand on things for which open standards already exist. i.e. OpenGL -> DirectX, Java -> .net, OpenCL is the next standard they want to spurn. This makes them a bit of a pain for non sponsored project to support them as a target. They have always turned away from anything that allows easy cross platform development, because they only want you to develop your app for there OS. It's a marketing strategy, control the brand, control the platform, and make it painful for people to support other OSes. MingW is required because GCC can generate x86 code, but even the most basic runtime support is different than Posix based OSes.
well, while you can use cross compiler to produce win32/64 binary codes from GCC, someone has to port all the C runtime libraries across though. Both Mingw and Cygwin are created for this purpose.
From MinGW's main site
Offered in easily installed binary package format, for native deployment on MS-Windows, or user-built from source, for cross-hosted use on Unix or GNU/Linux, the suite exploits Microsoft's standard system DLLs to provide the C-Runtime and Windows API.
I have a desktop program I downloaded and installed. It runs from an .exe file.
Is there some way from the .exe file to tell what programming language was used to write the program?
Are there any tools are available to help with this?
What languages can be determined and which ones cannot?
Okay here are two of the sort of things I'm looking for:
Tips to Determine Whether an App is Written in Delphi or Not
This "IsDelphi" program by Bruce McGee will find all applications built with Delphi, Delphi for .Net or C++ Builder that are on your hard drive.
I use WinDowse (a small freeware utility written in Delphi) to spy the windows of the program.. for example if you look at the "Class" TabSheet you can discover the "Class" Name of the control..
For example:
TFormXX, TEditYY, TPanelZZZ for delphi apps
WindowsForms10.XXXX.yyy, for .NET apps
wxWindowsXXX for wxWindows apps
AfxWndXX for MFC/VC++ apps (I think)
I think this is the fastest way (although not the most accurate) to find information about apps..
I understand your curiosity.
You can identify Delphi and C++ Builder apps and their SKU by looking for a couple of specific resources that the linker adds. Specifically RC Data\DVCLAL and RC DATA\PACKAGEINFO. The XN Resource Editor makes this a lot easier, but it might choke on compressed EXEs.
EXE compressors complicate things a little. They can hide or scramble the contents of the resources. Programs compressed with UPX are easy to identify with a HEX editor because the first 2 sections in the PE header are named UPX0 and UPX1. You can use the app to decompress these.
Applications compiled with .Net aren't difficult to detect. Recent versions of Delphi even include an IsAssembly function, or you could do a little spelunking in the PE header. Check out the IsManaged function in IsDelphi.
Telling which .Net language was used is trickier. By default, VB.Net includes a reference to Microsoft.VisualBasic, and VCL.Net apps included Borland specific references. However, VCL.Net is defunct in favour of Delphi Prism, and you can add a reference to the VB assembly to any managed language.
I haven't looked at some of the apps that use signatures to identify the the compiler, so I don't know how well they work.
I hope this helps.
First, look to see what run time libraries it loads. A C program won't normally load Visual Basic's library.
Also, examine the executable for telltale strings. In most executables, this is near the end. If the program uses string constants, there might be a clue in how they are stored.
A good disassembler, plus of course an excellent understanding of the underlying CPU architecture, can often help you identify the runtime libraries that are in play. Unless the exe has been carefully "stripped" of symbols and/or otherwise masked, the names of symbols seen in runtime libraries will often provide you with programming-language hints, because different languages' standards specify different names, and vendors of compilers and accompanying runtime libraries usually respect those standards pretty closely.
Of course, you won't get there without knowledge of the various possible languages and their library standards -- and if the code's author was intent to mask the information, that's not too hard for them to do, either.
If you have available a large set of samples from known compilers, I should think this would be an excellent application for machine learning. I believe so-called "supervised learning" is relevant here. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about the topic—only that I have heard some impressive results presented at conferences.
You might dig through the proceedings of the Working Conference on Reverse Engineering to see if anyone else is interested in this problem.
Assuming this is an application for Windows...
Does Reflector recognize it as a .NET assembly? Then it's MSIL, 99% either VB or C#, but you'll likely never know which, nor does it matter.
Does it need an intrepreter (like Java?)? Then it's Java (or whatever the interpreter is.)
Check what runtime DLLs it requires.
Does it require the VB runtime dlls? Congratulations, VB from VisualStudio 6.0 or earlier.
Does it require the Delphi dlls? Congratulations, Delphi.
Did you make it this far? C/C++. Assume C++ unless it requires msys or cygwin dlls, in which case C has maybe a 25% chance.
Congratulations, this should come out correct for the vast majority of Windows software. This probably doesn't actually help you though, as a lot of the same things can be done in all of these languages.
IDA Pro Free (http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/idadownfreeware.htm) may be helpful. Even if you don't understand assembly language, if you load the EXE into IDA Pro then its initial progress output might (if there are any telltale signs) include its best guess as to which compiler was used.
Start with various options to dumpbin. The symbol names, if not carefully erased, will give you all kinds of hints as to whether it is C, C++, CLR, or something else.
Other tools use signatures to identify the compiler used to create the executable, like PEiD, CFF Explorer and others.
They normally scan the entry point of the executable vs the signature.
Signature Explorer from CFF Explorer can give you an understanding of how one signature is constructed.
It looks like the VC++ linker from V6 up adds a signature to the PE header which youcan parse.
i suggest PEiD (freeware, closed source). Has all of Delphi for Win32 signatures, also can tell you which was packer used (if any).