Reference this question about compiling. I don't understand how my program for Mac can use the right -arch, compile with those -arch flags, the -arch flags be for the system I am on (a ppc64 g5), and still produce the wrong object code.
Also, if I used a cross compiler and was on Linux, produced 10.5 code for mac, how would this be any different than what I described above?
Background is that I have tried to compile various apache modules. They compile with the -arch ppc, ppc64, etc. I get no errors and I get my mod_whatever.so. But, apache will always complain that some symbol isn't found. Apparently, it has to do with what the compiler produces, even though the file type says it is for ppc, ppc64, i386, x_64 (universal binary) and seems to match all the other .so mods I have.
I guess I don't understand how it could compile for my system with no problem and then say my system can't use it. Maybe I do not understand what a compiler is actually giving me.
EDIT: All error messages and the complete process can be seen here.
Thank you.
Looking at the other thread and elsewhere and without a G5 or OSX Server installation, I can only make a few comments and suggestions but perhaps they will help.
It's generally not a good idea to be modifying the o/s vendor's installed software. Installing a new Apache module is less problematic than, say, overwriting an existing library but you're still at the mercy of the vendor in that a Software Update could delete your modifications and, beyond that you have to figure out how the vendor's version was built in the first place. A common practice in the OS X world is to avoid this by making a completely separate installation of an open source product, like Apache, using, for instance, MacPorts. That has its cons, too: to achieve a high-level of independence, MacPorts will often download and build a lot of dependent packages for things which are already in OS X but there's no harm in that other than some extra build cycles and disk space.
That said, it should be possible to build and install apache modules to supplement those supplied by Apple. Apple does publish the changes it makes to open source products here; you can drill down in the various versions there to find the apache directory which contains the source, Makefile and applied patches. That might be of help.
Make sure that the mod_*.so you build are truly 64-bit and don't depend on any non-64 bit libraries. Use otool -L mod_*.so to see the dynamic libraries that each references and then use file on those libraries to ensure they all have ppc64 variants.
Make sure you are using up-to-date developer tools (Xcode 3.1.3 is current).
While the developer tool chain uses many open source components, Apple has enhanced many of them and there are big differences in OS X's ABIs, universal binary support, dynamic libraries, etc. The bottom line is that cross-compilation of OS X-targeted object code on Linux (or any other non-OS X platform) is neither supported nor practical.
Related
As far as I understand(Correct me if i'm wrong), the output of a compiler depends on the Architecture version used, Compiler, and operating system.
Lets say Im using ubuntu release 16.04 x84-64 and compiling a c file with gcc version 5.4(or any other mix of OS,arch,compiler for the example) .
As I understood it until now, if I were to compile the same c file but with a different ubuntu release, with the same arch and compiler version it should have produced the same assembly code.
After a few tries I have got the impression that this is incorrect, how is this possible?
Does the output of a compiler depend on the release of the specific OS?
One of the examples is compiling https://github.com/tbuktu/libntru on 2 different ubuntu versions and receiving different assembly.
The different OS's may have different versions of the default libraries installed (which get linked into your final application). Thus the end result may be slightly different.
If you are just doing a few ubuntu versions the odds of differences goes down as the overall architecture differences may not be reflected either in your test or may not change on the same os family with the same compiler family for long periods of time. Where you are more likely to see differences in a test like that is as you get older versions of the same distro, newer/newest versions of the compiler are not ported/supported directly as an apt-get. maybe you can get them to work by hand building but gcc in particular is really bad about that their code only builds with relatively recent prior or following versions get too far apart and gcc cant build gcc. What I would first expect to see is strictly due to gcc version differences you start to see differences in the compiler.
A better test is take a simple .c file and build for windows any version (using the same version of gcc built for that system) and ubuntu/linux any version. Should more quickly see differences.
Two different compilers should show differences for reasonably sized projects, or knowledge based targeted small code samples, llvm/clang vs gcc for example. Different versions of the same compiler or compiler family will somewhat by definition show differences over time, does 6.x vs 6.x+1 gcc show differences well yes if you know where to look but often not, but gcc 3.x vs gcc 7.x should and then depending on the test you can narrow in from there.
You have compiler to compiler differences on the same os and system that are expected to show differences.
You have various reasons why system to system differences with the same compiler will show differences.
And then combinations of the above would naturally also show differences.
The bigger question is why do you care, the educational information is that you shouldn't expect the same C source code to build the same way if you change the compiler, compiler settings, or operating system. It can have anywhere from no differences to huge differences based on any of the above. Starting quite simply with optimization and other tuning settings and going from there.
If I build a DLL with Rust language, does it require libgcc*.dll to be present on run time?
On one hand:
I've seen a post somewhere on the Internet, claiming that yes it does;
rustc.exe has libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll in its directory, and cargo.exe won't run without the dll when downloaded from the http://crates.io website;
On the other hand:
I've seen articles about building toy OS kernels in Rust, so they most certainly don't require libgcc dynamic library to be present.
So, I'm confused. What's the definite answer?
Rust provides two main toolchains for Windows: x86_64-pc-windows-gnu and x86_64-pc-windows-msvc.
The -gnu toolchain includes an msys environment and uses GCC's ld.exe to link object files. This toolchain requires libgcc*.dll to be present at runtime. The main advantage of this toolchain is that it allows you to link against other msys provided libraries which can make it easier to link with certain C\C++ libraries that are difficult to under the normal Windows environment.
The -msvc toolchain uses the standard, native Windows development tools (either a Windows SDK install or a Visual Studio install). This toolchain does not use libgcc*.dll at either compile or runtime. Since this toolchain uses the normal windows linker, you are free to link against any normal Windows native libraries.
If you need to target 32-bit Windows, i686- variants of both of these toolchains are available.
NOTE: below answer summarizes situation as of Sep'2014; I'm not aware if it's still current, or if things have changed to better or worse since then. But I strongly suspect things have changed, given that 2 years have already passed since then. It would be cool if somebody tried to ask steveklabnik about it again, then update below info, or write a new, fresher answer!
Quick & raw transcript of a Rust IRC chat with steveklabnik, who gave me a kind of answer:
Hi; I have a question: if I build a DLL with Rust, does it require libgcc*.dll to be present on run time? (on Windows)
I believe that if you use the standard library, then it does require it;
IIRC we depend on one symbol from it;
but I am unsure.
How can I avoid using the standard library, or those parts of it that do? (and/or do you know which symbol exactly?)
It involves #[no_std] at your crate root; I think the unsafe guide has more.
Running nm -D | grep gcc shows me __gc_personality_v0, and then there is this: What is __gxx_personality_v0 for?,
so it looks like our stack unwinding implementation depends on that.
I seem to recall I've seen some RFCs to the effect of splitting standard library, too; are there parts I can use without pulling libgcc in?
Yes, libcore doesn't require any of that.
You give up libstd.
Also, quoting parts of the unsafe guide:
The core library (libcore) has very few dependencies and is much more portable than the standard library (libstd) itself. Additionally, the core library has most of the necessary functionality for writing idiomatic and effective Rust code. (...)
Further libraries, such as liballoc, add functionality to libcore which make other platform-specific assumptions, but continue to be more portable than the standard library itself.
And fragment of the current docs for unwind module:
Currently Rust uses unwind runtime provided by libgcc.
(The transcript was edited slightly for readability. Still, I'll happily delete this answer if anyone provides something better formatted and more thorough!)
I have a set of more or less portable C/C++ sources sitting on a Linux development host that I would like to be able to:
compile for 32- and 64-bit Linux targets
cross-compile for 32- and 64-bit Windows targets
cross-compile for 32- and 64-bit Mac targets
and, ideally, without any runtime dependencies on other emulation DLL's like cygwin1.dll, MinGW, etc though I could use them if there's no other choice. If I have to use them, I'd prefer statically linking their functionality to my code.
The target binary that is desired is:
a shared library (.so) for Linux and Mac targets, and
a DLL for Windows.
I have no idea how to build a cross-compiler (and the associated toolchain) from scratch. I'm hearing that pre-built cross-compiler toolchains are available for various host-and-target combinations, but I don't know where to find them, or even how to use them without running into runtime crashes/coredumps later due to pointer model subtleties (LP64, LLP64, etc), specifying wrong or inadequate compiler switches, other misconfiguration, etc.
I've so far been unable to find the relevant and complete information on the above, and whatever little I've managed to find is scattered all over the place in so many bits and pieces that I'm not even sure if all that I've read is complete or even correct (applies fully, no more no less to my case).
I'm not a compilers expert, just their regular user. Would appreciate information achieving the above compilation goals.
I would like to cross compile a library for Mac OsX on Linux and I am considering imcross. The instructions in the site are simple, but everytime you setup a crosscompiling environment you have to fix a lot of things, so I won't expect that it will be straightforward. You can check in the website that there are some limitations to this project but it is the best I came across.
Not being a priority for me now (I have other stuff to do before performing this task) I didn't setup the crossenvironment yet. I am going to do that in few days time.
I intend to cross compile for Raspberry Pi, basically a small ARM computer. The host will be an i686 box running Arch Linux.
My first instinct is to use cross compiler provided by Arch Linux, arm-elf-gcc-base and arm-elf-binutils. However, every wiki and post I read seems to use some version of custom gcc build. They seem to spend significant time on cooking their own gcc. Problem is that they never say WHY it is important to use their gcc over another.
Can stock distro provided cross compilers be used for building Raspberry Pi or ARM in general kernels and apps?
Is it necessary to have multiple compilers for ARM architecture? If so, why, since single gcc can support all x86 variants?
If 2), then how can I deduce what target subset is supported by a particular version of gcc?
More general question, what general use cases call for custom gcc build?
Please be as technical as you can, I'd like to know WHY as well as how.
When developers talk about building software (cross compiling) for a different machine (target) compared to their own (host) they use the term toolchain to describe the set of tools necessary to build binary files. That's because when you need to build an executable binary, you need more than a compiler.
You need routines (crt0.o) to initialize runtime according to requirements of operating system and standard libraries. You need standard set of libraries and those libraries need to be aware of the kernel on target because of the system calls API and several os level configurations (f.e. page size) and data structures (f.e. time structures).
On the hardware side, there are different set of ARM architectures. Architectures can be backward compatible but a toolchain by nature is binary and targeted for a specific architecture. You can have the most widespread architecture by default but then that won't be too fruitful for an already constraint environment (embedded device). If you have the latest architecture, then it won't be useful for older architecture based targets.
When you build a binary on your host for your host, compiler can look up all the necessary bits from its own environment or use what's on the host - so most of the above details are invisible to developer. However when you build for a different target than your host type, toolchain must know about hardware, os and standard library details. The way you tell these to toolchain is... by building it according to those details which might require some level of bootstrapping. (or you can do this via extensive set of parameters if toolchain supports / built for it.)
So when there is a generic (stock) cross compile toolchain, it has already some target specifics set and that might not meet your requirements. Please see this recent question about the situation on Ubuntu for an example.
Been using Lua 5.0 in a Mac OS X universal binary app for some years. Lua scripts are compiled using luac and the compiled scripts are bundled with the app. They have worked properly in Tiger and Leopard, Intel or PPC.
To avoid library problems at the time, I simply added the Lua src tree to my Xcode project and compiled as is, with no problems.
It was time to update to a more modern version of Lua so I replaced my source tree with that of 5.1.4. I rebuilt luac using make macosx (machine is running Leopard on Intel).
Uncompiled scripts work properly in Tiger and Leopard, Intel and PPC, as always.
However, now compiled scripts fail to load on PPC machines.
So I rebuilt luac with the 'ansi' flag, and recompiled my scripts. Same error. Similarly, a build flag of 'generic' produced no joy.
Can anyone please advise on what I can do next?
Lua's compiled scripts are pretty much the raw bytecode dumped out after a short header. The header documents some of the properties of the platform used to compile the bytecode, but the loader only verifies that the current platform has the same properties.
Unfortunately, this creates problems when loading bytecode compiled on another platform, even if compiled by the very same version of Lua. Of course, scripts compiled by different versions of Lua cannot be expected to work, and since the version number of Lua is included in the bytecode header, the attempt to load them is caught by the core.
The simple answer is to just not compile scripts. If Lua compiles the script itself, you only have to worry about possible version mismatches between Lua cores in your various builds of your application, and that isn't hard to deal with.
Actually supporting a full cross compatibility for compiled bytecode is not easy. In that email, Mike Pall identified the following issues:
Endianess: swap on output as needed.
sizeof(size_t), affects huge string constants: check for overflow when
downgrading.
sizeof(int), affectsMAXARG_Bx and MAXARG_sBx: check for overflow when
downgrading.
typeof(lua_Number): easy in C, but only when the host and the target
follow the same FP standard; precision
loss when upgrading (rare case);
warn about non-integer numbers when
downgrading to int32.
From all the discussions that I've seen about this issue on the mailing list, I see two likely viable approaches, assuming that you are unwilling to consider just shipping the uncompiled Lua scripts.
The first would be to fix the byte order as the compiled scripts are loaded. That turns out to be easier to do than you'd expect, as it can be done by replacing the low-level function that reads the script file without recompiling the core itself. In fact, it can even be done in pure Lua, by supplying your own chunk reader function to lua_load(). This should work as long as the only compatibility issue over your platforms is byte order.
The second is to patch the core itself to use a common representation for compiled scripts on all platforms. This has been described as possible by Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo:
....
I'm convinced that the best route to
byte order or cross-compiling is
third-party dump/undump pairs. The
files ldump.c and lundump.c are
completely replaceable; they export a
single, well-defined, entry point. The
format of precompiled chunks is not
sacred at all; you can use any format,
as long as ldump.c and lundump.c agree
about it. (For instance, Rici Lake is
considering writing a text format for
precompiled chunks.)
....
Personally, I'd recommend giving serious consideration to not pre-compiling the scripts and thus avoid the platform portability issues entirely.
Edit: I've updated my description of the bytecode header thanks to lhf's comment. I hadn't read this part of the Lua source yet, and I probably should have checked it before being quite so assertive about what information is or is not present in the header.
Here is the fragment from lundump.c that forms a copy of the header matching the running platform for comparison to the bytecode being loaded. It is simply compared with memcmp() for an exact match to the header from the file, so any mismatch will cause the stock loader (luaU_undump()) to reject the file.
/*
* make header
*/
void luaU_header (char* h)
{
int x=1;
memcpy(h,LUA_SIGNATURE,sizeof(LUA_SIGNATURE)-1);
h+=sizeof(LUA_SIGNATURE)-1;
*h++=(char)LUAC_VERSION;
*h++=(char)LUAC_FORMAT;
*h++=(char)*(char*)&x; /* endianness */
*h++=(char)sizeof(int);
*h++=(char)sizeof(size_t);
*h++=(char)sizeof(Instruction);
*h++=(char)sizeof(lua_Number);
*h++=(char)(((lua_Number)0.5)==0); /* is lua_Number integral? */
}
As can be seen, the header is 12 bytes long and contains a signature (4 bytes, "<esc>Lua"), version and format codes, a flag byte for endianness, sizes of the types int, size_t, Instruction, and lua_Number, and a flag indicating whether lua_Number is an integral type.
This allows most platform distinctions to be caught, but doesn't attempt to catch every way in which platforms can differ.
I still stand by the recommendations made above: first, ship compilable sources; or second, customize ldump.c and lundump.c to store and load a common format, with the additional note that any custom format should redefine the LUAC_FORMAT byte of the header so as to not be confused with the stock bytecode format.
You may want to use a patched bytecode loader that supports different endianness.
See this.
I would have commented on RBerteig's post, but I apparently don't have enough reputation yet to be able to do so. In working on bringing LuaRPC up to speed with Lua 5.1.x AND making it work with embedded targets, I've been modifying the ldump.c and lundump.c sources to make them both a bit more flexible. The embedded Lua project (eLua) already had some of the patches you can find on the Lua list, but I've added a bit more to make lundump a little more friendly to scripts compiled on different architectures. There's also cross-compilation support provided so that you can build for targets differing from the host system (see luac.c in the same directory as the links below).
If you're interested in checking out the modifications, you can find them in the eLua source repository:
http://svn.berlios.de/wsvn/elua/trunk/src/lua/lundump.c
http://svn.berlios.de/wsvn/elua/trunk/src/lua/lundump.h
http://svn.berlios.de/wsvn/elua/trunk/src/lua/ldump.c
Standard Disclaimer:
I make no claim that the modifications are perfect or work in every situation. If you use it and find anything broken, I'd be glad to hear about it so that it can be fixed.
Lua bytecode is not portable. You should ship source scripts with your application.
If download size is a concern, they are generally shorter than the bytecode form.
If intellectual property is a concern, you can use a code obfuscator, and keep in mind that disassembling Lua bytecode is anything but difficult.
If loading time is a concern, you can precompile the sources locally in your installation script.
I conjecture that you compiled the scripts on an Intel box.
Compiled scripts are wildly unportable. If you really want to precompile scripts, you'll need to include two versions of each compiled script: one for Intel and one for PPC. Your app will have to interrogate which program it's running on and use the correct compiled script.
I don't have enough reputation to comment, so I have to provide this as an answer instead even though it's not an appropriate answer to the question asked. Sorry.
There is an Lua Obfuscator available here:
http://www.capprime.com/CapprimeLuaObfuscator/CapprimeLuaObfuscator.aspx
Full disclosure: I am the author of the obfuscator and I am aware it is not perfect. Feedback is welcome and encouraged (there is a feedback page available from the above page).