I have a static library *.lib created using MSVC on windows. The size of library is say 70KB. Then I have an application which links this library. But now the size of the final executable (*.exe) is 29KB, less than the library. What i want to know is :
Since the library is statically linked, I was thinking it should add directly to the executable size and the final exe size should be more than that? Does windows exe format also do some compression of the binary data?
How is it for linux systems, that is how do sizes of library on linux (*.a/*.la file) relate with size of linux executable (*.out) ?
-AD
A static library on both Windows and Unix is a collection of .obj/.o files. The linker looks at each of these object files and determines if it is needed for the program to link. If it isn't needed, then the object file won't get included in the final executable. This can lead to executables that are smaller then the library.
EDIT: As MSalters points out, on Windows the VC++ compiler now supports generating object files that enable function-level linking, e.g., see here. In fact, edit-and-continue requires this, since the edit-and-continue needs to be able to replace the smallest possible part of the executable.
There is additional bookkeeping information in the .lib file that is not needed for the final executable. This information helps the linker find the code to actually link. Also, debug information may be stored in the .lib file but not in the .exe file (I don't recall where debug info is stored for objs in a lib file, it might be somewhere else).
The static library probably contains several functions which are never used. When the linker links the library with the main executable, it sees that certain functions are never used (and that their addresses are never taken and stored in function pointers), it just throws away the code. It can also do this recursively: if function A() is never called, and A() calls B(), but B() is never otherwise called, it can remove the code for both A() and B(). On Linux, the same thing happens.
A static library has to contain every symbol defined in its source code, because it might get linked into an executable which needs just that specific symbol. But once it is linked into an executable, we know exactly which symbols end up being used, and which ones don't. So the linker can trivially remove unused code, trimming the file size by a lot. Similarly, any duplicate symbols (anything that's defined in both the static library and the executable it's linked into gets merged into a single instance.
Disclaimer: It's been a long time since I dealt with static linking, so take my answer with a grain of salt.
You wrote: I was thinking it should add directly to the executable size and final exe size should be more than that?
Naive linkers work exactly this way - back when I was doing hobby development for CP/M systems (a LONG time ago), this was a real problem.
Modern linkers are smarter, however - they only link in the functions referenced by the original code, or as required.
Additionally to the current answers, the linker is allowed to remove function definitions if they have identical object code - this is intended to help reduce the bloating effects of templated code.
#All: Thanks for the pointers.
#Greg Hewgill - Your answer was a good pointer. Thanks.
The answer i found out was as follows:
1.)During Library building what happens is if the option "Keep Program debug databse" in MSVC (or something alike ) is ON, then library will have this debug info bloating its size.
but when i statically include that library and create a executable, the linker strips all that debug info from the library before geenrating the exe and hence the exe size is less than that of the library.
2.) When i disabled the option "Keep Program debug databse", i got an library whose size was smaller than the final executable, which was what i thought is nromal in most situations.
-AD
Related
Sorry if the title is not very clear. I am using MinGW with GCC 6.3.0 to build a x86 32-bit DLL on Windows (so far). I'll spare you the details why I need hacky offsets amongst its sections accessible from code, so please do not ask if it's useful or not (because I don't want to bother explaining that).
So, if I can get the following testcase to work, I'm good. Here's my problem:
In a C++ file, I want to access a linker symbol as an absolute numeric value, not relocated, directly. Remember that I am building a 32-bit DLL which requires a .reloc section for relocations, but in this case I do NOT want relocation, in fact a relocation would screw it up completely.
Here's an example: retrieve the offset of say __imp__MessageBoxW#16 relative to __IAT_start__, in case you don't know what they are, __imp__MessageBoxW#16 is the relocated pointer to the actual function at runtime, and __IAT_start__ is a linker symbol in the default script file. Here's where it is defined:
.idata BLOCK(__section_alignment__) :
{
/* This cannot currently be handled with grouped sections.
See pe.em:sort_sections. */
KEEP (SORT(*)(.idata$2))
KEEP (SORT(*)(.idata$3))
/* These zeroes mark the end of the import list. */
LONG (0); LONG (0); LONG (0); LONG (0); LONG (0);
KEEP (SORT(*)(.idata$4))
__IAT_start__ = .;
KEEP (SORT(*)(.idata$5))
__IAT_end__ = .;
KEEP (SORT(*)(.idata$6))
KEEP (SORT(*)(.idata$7))
}
So far, no problem. Because GAS doesn't allow me to "subtract" two externally defined symbols (both symbols are defined in the linker), I have to define the symbol in the linker script, so at the end of the linker script I have this:
test_symbol = ABSOLUTE("__imp__MessageBoxW#16" - __IAT_start__);
Then in C++ I use this little inline asm to retrieve this relative difference which is supposed to be a fixed value once linked:
asm("movl $test_symbol, %0":"=r"(var));
Now var should contain that fixed number right? Wrong!
Because test_symbol is an "undefined" symbol as far as the assembler is concerned, it makes it relocated. Or I don't know why, but I tried so many things to force it to be an "absolute constant value symbol" instead of a "relocated symbol" to no avail. Even editing the linker script with many things like LD_FEATURE("SANE_EXPR") and others, doesn't work at all.
Its value is correct only if the DLL does not get relocated.
You see, either GNU LD or the assembler adds an entry in the .reloc section for that movl instruction, which is WRONG!
Is there a way to force it to treat an external/undefined symbol as a fixed CONSTANT and apply no relocation to it whatsoever? Basically, omit it from the .reloc section.
I am going crazy with this, please tell me there's something easy I overlooked, I searched for hours!
In other words, is there a way to use a Linker Symbol from within inline asm/C++ without having it relocated whatsoever? No entry to the .reloc section or anything, basically same as a constant like $1234. So if a DLL gets loaded into another base address, that constant would be the same everytime.
UPDATE: I forgot about this question but decided to bring an update, since it seems it's likely not possible as nobody even commented. For anyone else in the same boat as me, I presume this is a limitation of the COFF object format itself. In other words, external symbols are implicitly relocated, and it doesn't seem there's a way against this.
I didn't "fix" it the way I wanted, I did it in a very hacky way though. If anyone is interested, here's my ugly "hack":
First I put a special "custom" instruction in the inline assembly where I reference this external symbol from C++. This "custom" instruction holds a placeholder instruction that grabs the symbol (normal x86 asm instruction with a dummy constant, e.g. 1234) and a way to identify it. Then let GCC generate the assembly files (.S files), then I parse the assembly with a simple script and when I find that "custom" instruction I insert a label for the linker (make it .global) and at the same time add a directive to a custom "on-the-fly" generated linker script that gets included from my main linker script at the end.
This places data in a temporary section in the resulting DLL with absolute offsets to the custom instruction that I need, but without relocation.
Next, I parse the binary DLL itself, in particular that temporary section I added with all this hack. I take the offsets from there, convert them to file offsets, and modify the DLL's .text section directly where those offsets point (remember those placeholder instructions? it is replacing their immediate constants 1234 with the respective value from the linker's non-relocated constant). Then I strip the temporary section from the DLL, and it's done. Of course, all of this is done automatically by a helper program and script
It's an insane hack, but it works and it's fully automatic now that I got it going. If my assumption is correct that COFF doesn't support non-relocated external symbols, then it's really the only way to use linker constants from C++ without them being relocated, which would be a disaster.
I'm looking for a way to load and inspect .rlib binaries generated by rustc. I've hunted around the standard library without much luck. My assumption is that an .rlib contains all the type information necessary to statically type check programs that "extern crate" it. rustc::metadata is where my hunt ended. I can't quite figure out if the structures available at this point in the compiler are intended as entry points for users, or if they are solely intermediate abstractions depending on a chain of previously initialized data.
Alternatively, If there's a way to dump an .rlib to stdout in a parsable form then that's also fantastic. I tried /usr/bin/nm, but it seemed to be excluding function type signatures. Maybe I'm missing something.
Anyways, I'm working on an editor utility for emacs that I hope at some point will provide contextually relevant information such as available methods, module items and their types, etc. I'd really appreciate any hints anyone has.
The .rlib file is an ar archive file. You can use readelf to read its content.
Try readelf -s <your_lib>.rlib. The type name may be mingled/decorated by the compiler so it may not be exactly the same as in .rs file.
I have a huge project written in C++. It's all split into multiple static libraries that are eventually linked into one final shared library which has to export only a few simple functions.
If I do objdump of that final .so I see all my internal names etc. Because it uses long class names and namespaces these strings become excessively long and as a result final binary is big.
So, my question is how do I do it properly with GCC to make sure that all these internal functions do not show up in the final binary?
I'm aware about all these GCC-specific visibility modifiers, I use -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden, I use -Wl,--no-whole-archive. I disable c++ exceptions and rtti (-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti) but i still can't get GCC to generate my final .so that doesn't contain names of my namespaces and classes that aren't supposed to be there at all!
I tried to use -Wl,--version-script= to control which functions should be visible, but still I see lot's of internal names in final stripped shared object. I read multiple similar entries on SO, but don't see anything that does the job.
Note: I compile for multiple platforms (Linux, Windows, iPhone etc) and only on windows in VS I don't have any problems.
thanks
You might want to try the --retain-symbols-file linker option when linking the final .so file (-Wl,--retain-symbols-file=filename) to specify JUST the symbols you want to keep (export) and delete everything else. The file is just a text file with symbols (one per line) to keep.
Is there any way to tell the compiler (gcc/mingw32) when building an object file (lib*.o) to only expose certain functions from the .c file?
The reason I want to do this is that I am statically linking to a 100,000+ line library (SQLite), but am only using a select few of the functions it offers. I am hoping that if I can tell the compiler to only expose those functions, it will optimize out all the code of the functions that are never needed for those few I selected, thus dratically decreasing the size of the library.
I found several possible solutions:
This is what I asked about. It is the gcc equivalent of Windows' dllexpoort:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gcc/Code-Gen-Options.html (-fvisibility)
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Visibility
I also discovered link-time code-generation. This allows the linker to see what parts of the code are actually used and get rid of the rest. Using this together with strip and -fwhole-program has given me drastically better results.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gcc/Optimize-Options.html (see -flto and -fwhole-program)
Note: This flag only makes sense if you are not compiling the whole program in one call to gcc, which is what I was doing (making a sqlite.o file and then statically linking it in).
The third option which I found but have not yet looked into is mentioned here:
How to remove unused C/C++ symbols with GCC and ld?
That's probably the linkers job, not the compilers. When linking that as a program (.exe), the linker will take care of only importing the relevant symbols, and when linking a DLL, the __dllexport mechanism is probably what you are looking for, or some flags of ld can help you (man ld).
I am trying to save space in my executable and I noticed that several functions are being added into my object files, even though I never call them (the code is from a library).
Is there a way to tell gcc to remove these functions automatically or do I need to remove them manually?
If you are compiling into object files (not executables), then a compiler will never remove any non-static functions, since it's always possible you will link the object file against another object file that will call that function. So your first step should be declaring as many functions as possible static.
Secondly, the only way for a compiler to remove any unused functions would be to statically link your executable. In that case, there is at least the possibility that a program might come along and figure out what functions are used and which ones are not used.
The catch is, I don't believe that gcc actually does this type of cross-module optimization. Your best bet is the -Os flag to optimize for code size, but even then, if you have an object file abc.o which has some unused non-static functions and you link statically against some executable def.exe, I don't believe that gcc will go and strip out the code for the unused functions.
If you truly desperately need this to be done, I think you might have to actually #include the files together so that after the preprocessor pass, it results in a single .c file being compiled. With gcc compiling a single monstrous jumbo source file, you stand the best chance of unused functions being eliminated.
Have you looked into calling gcc with -Os (optimize for size.) I'm not sure if it strips unreached code, but it would be simple enough to test. You could also, after getting your executable back, 'strip' it. I'm sure there's a gcc command-line arg to do the same thing - is it --dead_strip?
In addition to -Os to optimize for size, this link may be of help.
Since I asked this question, GCC 4.5 was released which includes an option to combine all files so it looks like it is just 1 gigantic source file. Using that option, it is possible to easily strip out the unused functions.
More details here
IIRC the linker by default does what you want ins some specific cases. The short of it is that library files contain a bunch of object files and only referenced files are linked in. If you can figure out how to get GCC to emit each function into it's own object file and then build this into a library you should get what you are looking.
I only know of one compiler that can actually do this: here (look at the -lib flag)