A very simple C++ question that is more aimed at the compilers:
Suppose I create a static library (.lib) or a dynamic linked library (.dll) with the latest Microsoft Visual C++ compiler.
Can I also use such a library directly in GNU C++ compiler projects (within the same operating system) if the header files are available?
That's not compatible with each other, is it? (I'm thinking first of a different ABI etc.)
Many Thanks.
PS: I have an unknown 3rd party library (lib) available. Can I find out here which compiler was used to generate it?
Related
Whether I use gcc or clang, I can just link to to the same system wide libQt5Core.so.5. Yet C++ doesn't have a standardized ABI, and you are supposed to compile the .so files with the same compiler (and compiler version) as your main executable, if the libraries use a C++ API. How is it possible that I don't have to do it in this case?
I am having a difficult time configuring an iOS project which uses a static library linked against the old libstdc++ that gcc used. That library is 32 and 64-bit.
There are 6 libraries (libssl.a for example) that are 32-bit and must be updated. If I compile those libraries from source, they will be automatically linked with libc++, which will result in my linker complaining.
Therefore, here are my questions:
1) Is there any way to have a single static library inside the project use libstdc++, and have the others use libc++?
2) How can I compile libraries from source (like libcrypto and libssh) and force them use the old libstdc++ standard library?
3) Is there any other way out of this mess?
1) Yes, you can certainly mix and match which C++ runtimes your C++ code uses so long as those separate modules don't actually pass objects between each-other. For example, if you have two modules in your app which just expose C APIs but internally use C++, then each can use whichever C++ runtime they want. Problems occur when trying to share objects between the runtimes.
2) You can use the '--stdlib=libstdc++' or '--stdlib=libc++' command line argument when compiling and linking to specify which C++ library to use. If your final executable needs to link against both, you'll need to manually specify the other one (eg: --stdlib=libc++ -lstdc++).
3) Yep, but note that libstdc++ was deprecated years ago and isn't even available on watchOS nor tvOS, so your best bet is to just get everything over to libc++.
As long as you don't mix objects (like passing a string from one library into a function that expects a different kind of string), you can do it by including both libraries when you build the top-level app.
In my case, it worked by setting the standard C++ lib to the GNU version and then adding libc++ as I would any other system library.
Is it possible to distribute a library that will work for any compiler the user wants to build/link with? (assuming it understands c++ standard). If so, could it .dlls/.so or would it have to be a header-only library?
Basically I'd like my library to be easily usable to people on windows using Visual Studio and people on linux using gcc, and other platforms too.
I have two scenarios. Suppose I have 3 shared libraries that export C++ symbols, each built with VS7.1, VS8, and VS9. I compile all 3 in VS9. For some reason, this works. I do not need to recompile the first 2 libraries in VS9 for VS9 linker to successfully find the symbols and link against them.
Now, if I have a library that only exports symbols using C syntax (extern "C"), is this the same? I've heard people say that the ABI for C is standardized, so there is somewhat of a guarantee that you can use a C library compiled in Visual Studio 8 in all versions of Visual Studio.
Basically, the combination of all of these things is confusing. I'm not sure of what guarantees I have between linking against both C++ and C based shared libraries (using their corresponding import libraries) between different versions of Visual Studio. I'd like to hear the general consensus on both forward/backward compatibility of both C AND C++ import or static libraries on any other version of Visual Studio.
The reason this has come up for me is because there are closed-source libraries I'm using that were compiled in Visual Studio .NET 2003 (VS7.1). My team thinks that this locks us to the VS 7.1 compiler, however I've gone out and tested these libraries in both VS8 and VS9, even VS2010 and they link just fine. However, I'm not sure of the inherent danger in this. Note that the library in question has a C variant and a C++ variant. Basically, the C variant is standard-C exports, and the C++ library is an abstraction over the C library and exports classes.
The issue may be not only in ABI differences (calling conventions, etc.) between these VS versions, but also in removed/changed symbols in system DLL libraries. See this table for the detailed comparison of system DLL libraries between VS8 (2005, Windows SDK 5.0) and VS9 (2008, Windows SDK 6.0).
See also compatibility matrix for Windows SDKs.
extern "C" exported symbols are different from C++ symbols. C++ has name mangling (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_mangling).
The mangling of C++ symbols may vary from compiler version to compiler version, so in your VS7/8/9 setup, the same C++ method name may be mangled to different names.
Basically, your team seems to be right - you will be locked in the same major version of the compiler that was used to compile your library.
I am creating a open-source C++ library using Visual Studio 2005. I would like to provide prebuilt libs along with the source code. Are these libs, built with VS2005, also going to work with newer versions of Visual Studio (esp VS Express Edition 2008)? Or do I need to provide separate libs per VS version?
Not normally, no. Libraries built with the VS tools are linked into the 'Microsoft C Runtime' (called MSVCRT followed by a version number) which provides C and C++ standard library functions, and if you attempt to run a program that requires two different versions of this runtime then errors will occur.
On top of this, different compiler versions churn out different compiled code and the code from one compiler version frequently isn't compatible with another apart from in the most trivial cases (and if they churned out the same code then there would be no point having different versions :))
If you are distributing static libraries, you may be able to distribute version-independent libraries, depending on exactly what you are doing. If you are only making calls to the OS, then you may be OK. C RTL functions, maybe. But if you use any C++ Standard Library functions, classes, or templates, then probably not.
If distributing DLLs, you will need separate libraries for each VS version. Sometimes you even need separate libraries for various service-pack levels. And as mentioned by VolkerK, users of your library will have to use compatible compiler and linker settings. And even if you do everything right, users may need to link with other libraries that are somehow incompatible with yours.
Due to these issues, instead of spending time trying to build all these libraries for your users, I'd spend the time making them as easy to build as possible, so that users can can build them on their own with minimal fuss.
Generally it's not possible to link against libraries built with different compilers, different versions of the same compiler, and even different settings of the same compiler version and get a working application. (Although it might work for specific subsets of the language and std library.) There is no standard binary interface for C++ - not even one for some common platform as there are in C.
To achieve that, you either need to wrap your library in a C API or you will have to ship a binary for every compiler, compiler version, and compiler setting you want to support.
If your library project is a static library, then, you'll have to supply a build for every Visual Studio version that you want your users to be in. In the example you gave, that equates to providing both a VS2005 and a VS2008 library.
If your library project is a dynamic library, then, you evade the problems somewhat, but, it means that users will need to make sure that they use the 'Microsoft C Runtime' that's compatible with your build environment. You can eliminate that criteria should you statically link the 'Microsoft C Runtime' into your dynamic library.