I think that many people faced problems linked to some missing header file or library and find themselves with the compiler complaining about some undefined symbol or saying that some function has not been defined in the current scope...Furthermore, I think that reading and understanding others source code require at least grasping the used functions and thus the corresponding headers (as you may stumble upon "partial" code...).
I wonder whether reflection (or other features) offers the capability to dynamically introspect the imported headers within the current execution scope for a C++ source file?
(I'm targeting especially C++ interpreters like Cling or Ch, as interpreters do not allow full control over imported headers and many things are done in the background.)
Related
We have a lot of prebuilt libraries (via CMake mostly), built using Visual Studio 2017 v141. When we try to use these against a project using Visual STudio 2019 v142 we see errors like:
Error C1047 The object or library file
‘boost_chrono-vc141-mt-gd-x32-1_68.lib’ was created by a different
version of the compiler than other objects...
On the other hand, we also use pre-compiled .libs from 3rd-party vendors which are over a decade old and these have worked just fine when linked against our codebase.
What determines whether a library needs to be rebuilt, and why can some ancient libraries still be used when others that are only one version behind cannot?
ABI incompatibilities could cause some issues. Even though the C++ standard calls for objects such as std::vector and std::mutex and that they need to have specific public/protected members, how these classes are made is left to the implementation.
In practice, it means that nothing prevents the GNU standard library from having their data fields in another orders than the LLVM standard library, or having completely different private members.
As such, if you try to use a function from a library built with the LLVM libc++ by sending it a GNU libstdc++ vector it causes UB. Even on the same standard library, different versions could have changed something and that could be a problem.
To avoid these issues, popular C++ libraries only use C data structures in their ABIs since (at least for now) every compiler produces the same memory layout for a char*, an int or a struct.
These ABI issues can appears in two places:
When you use dynamic libraries (.so and .dll files) your compiler probably won't say anything and you'll get undefined behavior when you call a function of the library using incompatible C++ objects.
When you use static libraries (.a and .lib files) I'm not really sure, I'm guessing it could either print an error if it sees there's gonna be a problem or successfully compile some Frankenstein monster of a binary that will behave like the above point
I will try to answer some integral parts, but be aware this answer could be incomplete. With more information from peers we will maybe be able to construct a full answer!
The simples kind of linking is linking towards a C library. Since there is no concept of classes and overloading function names, the compiler creators are able to create entry points to functions by their pure name. This seems to be pretty much quasi-standardized since, I myself, haven't encountered a pure C library not at least linkable to my projects. You can select this behaviour in C++ code by prepending a function declaration with extern "C". (This also makes it easy to link against a library from C# code) Here is a detailed explanation about extern "C". But as far as I am aware this behaviour is not standardized; it is just so simple - it seems - there is just one sane solution.
Going into C++ we start to encounter function, variable and struct names repeating. Lets just talk about overloaded functions here. For that compiler creators have to come up with some kind of mapping between void a(); void a(int x); void a(char x); ... and their respective library representation. Since this process also is not standardized (see this thread) and this process is far more complex than the 1 to 1 mapping of C, the ABIs of different compilers or even compiler versions can differ in any way.
Now given two compilers (or linkers I couldn't find a resource wich specifies wich one exactly is responsible for the mangling but since this process is not standardized it could be also outsourced to cthulhu) with different name mangling schemes, create following function entry points (simplified):
compiler1
_a_
_a_int_
_a_char_
compiler2
_a_NULL_
_a_++INT++_
_a_++CHAR++_
Different linkers will not understand the output of your particular process; linker1 will try to search for _a_int_ in a library containing only _a_++INT++_. Since linkers can't use fuzzy string comparison (this could lead to a apocalypse imho) it won't find your function in the library. Also don't be fooled by the simplicity of this example: For every feature like namespace, class, method etc. there has to be a method implemented to map a function name to a entry point or memory structure.
Given your example you are lucky you use libraries of the same publisher who coded some logic to detect old libraries. Usually you will get something along the lines of <something> could not be resolved or some other convoluted, irritating and/or unhelpful error message.
Some info and experience dump regarding Visual Studio and libraries in general:
In general the Visual C++ suite doesn't support crosslinked libs between different versions but you could be lucky and it works. Don't rely on it.
Since VC++ 2015 the ABI of the libraries is guaranteed by microsoft to be compatible as drescherjm commented: link to microsoft documentation
In general when using libraries from different suites you should always be cautious as n. 1.8e9-where's-my-share m. commented here (here is your share btw) about dependencies to other libraries and runtimes. In general in general not having the control over how libraries are built is a huge pita
Edit addressing memory layout incompatibilities in addition to Tzigs answer: different name mangling schemes seem to be partially intentional to protect users against linkage against incompatible libraries. This answer goes into detail about it. The relevant passage from gcc docs:
G++ does not do name mangling in the same way as other C++ compilers. This means that object files compiled with one compiler cannot be used with another.
This effect is intentional [...].
Error C1047
This is caused by /GL Global optimization or /LTGC Link Time Code Generation
These use information in the .obj, to perform global optimizations. When present, VS looks at the compiler which generated the original .lib, and if they are different emits the error. These compilation switches are for code from a single compiler, and not intended for cross version usage.
The other builds which work, don't have the switches, so are compatible.
Visual studio has started to use a new #pragma detect_mismatch
This causes an old build to identify it is incompatible with a new build, by detecting the version change.
Very old builds didn't have / support the pragma, so had no checking.
When you build a lib, its dependencies are loaded and satisified by the linker, but this is not a guarantee of working. The one-definition-rule signs the developer up to a contract, that within a compiled binary, all implementations of the same named function are the same. If this came from different compilers, that may not be true, and so the linker can choose any, causing latent bugs, where mixtures of old and new code are linkeded into the binary.
If the definition or implementation of std::string has changed, it may link, but have code which is flawed.
This new compiler check, causes a fail early, which I thoroughly approve of.
I'am new to c++ programming and I'm a little confused about how the compiler includes standard libraries in c++ program. Say for example I want to use the sqrt() function. I know that I have to include the math.h header file in my source code, but the math library contains many functions other than sqrt(). So my question is are all this functions source code added to the program, whitch is unnecessary, or just the function that I need?
I hope my question was clear and thanks in advance.
Functions that are NOT templates (and not so trivial that they are just one or two lines) are compiled separately, and then stored in a "libary" (which is not the header file, it just contains double sqrt(double); or some such).
The compiler will (given the right compile-time flags) link to the C library that contains those functions. The linker [called upon by the compiler] will then introduce the code that was compiled when the library was built. So, typically, the source is not compiled when you build your program - it was done some other time.
The linker understands what functions are needed by the code you are building, so will only add those functions to your program, not ALL of the functions [but it may pull in some other functions than the precise one that you asked for, for example there may be some helper functions and perhaps some generic error handling functions that are needed by sqrt].
No, linking means that the linker figures out which symbols (functions and data objects) from your library are necessary to build your program, and then only includes these that are.
In fact, with dynamic linking, it wouldn't even include the function itself, but just the reference to the function and how to load the library containing it.
Generally, libraries that are linked with your executables aren't source code, but binary objects, which already have been translated to machine language ("compiled").
You have a confusion between libraries and header files. Libraries are the implementations. Header files contain the declarations.
You use #include for a library file so that the compiler can find the syntax and semantics of the function you use.
All the declarations (unless blocked by preprocessor directives), are parsed by the compiler and stored in a dictionary. The only issue about you not using a declaration is that it takes up room in the compiler's dictionary. Usually this is not an issue (modern compilers have large capacity dictionaries).
As far as adding functions to your program, that is handled during the Linking phase (usually by a linker application). This is compiler dependent. Fundamentally, only functions that are used by your program are pulled from the library (static libraries only) and placed into your executable. Some compiler may speed up the build process and include groups of functions that are popular, but you may not use. This speeds up the build processor but makes your executables larger.
Some library functions may use other library functions. This means that a library function may add a lot more code into your executable. One example is printf. The printf function requires a lot of support, more than puts, because of all the formatting specifiers. So the printf may include other (internal) library functions.
I wanted to write a unicode version of std::exception and std::runtime_error.
So I thought what better way then to just take implementations from the C++ Standard Library and alter them to support unicode.
So I pulled up the exception and stdexcept headers in Visual C++, copied the code, made my changes.
The thing is I couldn't get it to link unless I removed the _CRTIMP_PURE.
I also removed the _EXCEPTION_INLINE __CLR_OR_THIS_CALL prefix from all the member functions.
It's working but I'm very curious what all those things did.
_EXCEPTION_INLINE it literally defined right above it as #define _EXCEPTION_INLINE, and my googling skills can't find any documentation on what they do.
So, does anyone know what these are meant to do? And why it wound't link until I removed the _CRTIMP_PURE prefix from the class?
These aren't really anything mysterious (but it might be a bit pf a pain to track down where they're defined - but only a little). They're defined in headers that are part of the library, and they take on different definitions depending on how the compiler is configured for the current run. In particular, these macros seem to be concerned mostly with whether or not the current run is configured for /clr:pure.
_CRTIMP_PURE is defined to __declspec(dllimport) if you're linking against the DLL version of the C runtime (and not building with /clr:pure), and defined to nothing otherwise.
If your library isn't a DLL (or if it won't necessarily be a DLL whenever the DLL runtime is configured), then you shouldn't use it. You probably shouldn't use it anyway, because you'd need to define it differently when building your library than when your library is being used (that's what Microsoft does when they build the C runtime libraries).
__CLR_OR_THIS_CALL is used by Microsoft's libraries to declare a function with __clrcall if you're building with /clr:pure (indicating these functions will only be called by managed code - the compiler can perform certain optimizations in that case it seems).
Finally, _EXCEPTION_INLINE is used to make the member functions of class exception inline if building with /clr:pure.
So the bottom line is, don't use __CLR_OR_THIS_CALL or _EXCEPTION_INLINE unless you plan to support /clr for your library, and you probably shouldn't use _CRTIMP_PURE in your implementation, but probably should use something similar of your own making and under your own control.
Standard library implementation code often uses compiler-specific extensions for performance/documentation/reliability reasons. You should not use these extensions in your own code, because they can break in subsequent versions of the compiler.
There's no problem in duplicating the interface of std::exception and friends, and you can look at Visual Studio's implementation for inspiration. But your implementation should only use publically documented language/library features.
I've been reading about the C++ modules proposal (latest draft) but I don't fully understand what problem(s) it aims to solve.
Is its purpose to allow a module built by one compiler to be used by any other compiler (on the same OS/architecture, of course)? That is, does the proposal amount to standardizing the C++ ABI?
If not, is there another proposal being considered that would standardize the C++ ABI and allow compilers to interoperate?
Pre-compiled headers (PCH) are special files that certain compilers can generate for a .cpp file. What they are is exactly that: pre-compiled source code. They are source code that has been fed through the compiler and built into a compiler-dependent format.
PCHs are commonly used to speed up compilation. You put commonly used headers in the PCH, then just include the PCH. When you do a #include on the PCH, your compiler does not actually do the usual #include work. It instead loads these pre-compiled symbols directly into the compiler. No running a C++ preprocessor. No running a C++ compiler. No #including a million different files. One file is loaded and symbols appear fully formed directly in your compiler's workspace.
I mention all that because modules are PCHs in their perfect form. PCHs are basically a giant hack built on top of a system that doesn't allow for actual modules. The purpose of modules is ultimately to be able to take a file, generate a compiler-specific module file that contains symbols, and then some other file loads that module as needed. The symbols are pre-compiled, so again, there is no need to #include a bunch of stuff, run a compiler, etc. Your code says, import thing.foo, and it appears.
Look at any of the STL-derived standard library headers. Take <map> for example. Odds are good that this file is either gigantic or has a lot of #inclusions of other files that make the resulting file gigantic. That's a lot of C++ parsing that has to happen. It must happen for every .cpp file that has #include <map> in it. Every time you compile a source file, the compiler has to recompile the same thing. Over. And over. And over again.
Does <map> change between compilations? Nope, but your compiler can't know that. So it has to keep recompiling it. Every time you touch a .cpp file, it must compile every header that this .cpp file includes. Even though you didn't touch those headers or source files that affect those headers.
PCH files were a way to get around this problem. But they are limited, because they're just a hack. You can only include one per .cpp file, because it must be the first thing included by .cpp files. And since there is only one PCH, if you do something that changes the PCH (like add a new header to it), you have to recompile everything in that PCH.
Modules have essentially nothing to do with cross-compiler ABI (though having one of those would be nice, and modules would make it a bit easier to define one). Their fundamental purpose is to speed up compile times.
Modules are what Java, C#, and a lot of other modern languages offer. They immensely reduce compile time simply because the code that's in today's header doesn't have to be parsed over and over again, everytime it's included. When you say #include <vector>, the content of <vector> will get copied into the current file. #include really is nothing else than copy and paste.
In the module world, you simply say import std.vector; for example and the compiler loads the query/symbol table of that module. The module file has a format that makes it easy for the compiler to parse and use it. It's also only parsed once, when the module is compiled. After that, the compiler-generated module file is just queried for the information that is needed.
Because module files are compiler-generated, they'll be pretty closely tied to the compiler's internal representation of the C++ code (AST) and will as such most likely not be portable (just like today's .o/.so/.a files, because of name mangling etc.).
Modules in C++ have to be primarily better thing than today solutions, that is, when a library consists of a *.so file and *.h file with API. They have to solve the problems that are today with #includes, that is:
require macroguards (macros that prevent that definitions are provided multiple times)
are strictly text-based (so they can be tricked and in normal conditions they are reinterpreted, which gives also a chance to look differently in different compilation unit to be next linked together)
do not distinguish between dependent libraries being only instrumentally used and being derived from (especially if the header provides inline function templates)
Despite to what Xeo says, modules do not exist in Java or C#. In fact, in these languages "loading modules" relies on that "ok, here you have the CLASSPATH and search through it to find whatever modules may provide symbols that the source file actually uses". The "import" declaration in Java is no "module request" at all - the same as "using" in C++ ("import ns.ns2.*" in Java is the same as "using namespace ns::ns2" in C++). I don't think such a solution can be used in C++. The closest approximation I can imagine are packages in Vala or modules in Tcl (those from 8.5 version).
I imagine that C++ modules are rather not possible to be cross-platform, nor dynamically loaded (requires a dedicated C++ dynamic module loader - it's not impossible, but today hard to define). They will definitely by platform-dependent and should also be configurable when requested. But a stable C++ ABI is practically only required within the range of one system, just as it is with C++ ABI now.
Over the months I've written some nice generic enough functionality that I want to build as a library and link dynamically against rather than importing 50-odd header/source files.
The project is maintained in Xcode and Dev-C++ (I do understand that I might have to go command line to do what I want) and have to link against OpenGL and SDL (dynamically in SDL's case). Target platforms are Windows and OS X.
What am I looking at at all?
What will be the entry point of my
library if it needs one?
What do I have to change in my code?
(calling conventions?)
How do I release it? My understanding
is that headers and the compiled
library (.dll, .dylib(, .framework),
whatever it'll be) need to be
available for the project -
especially as template functionality
can not be included in the library by
nature.
What else I need to be aware of?
I'd recommend building as a statc library rather than a DLL. A lot of the issues of exporting C++ functions and classes go away if you do this, provided you only intend to link with code produced by the same compiler you built the library with.
Building a static library is very easy as it is just an collection of .o/.obj files - a bit like a ZIP file but without compression. There is no need to export anything - just include the library in the list of files that your application links with. To access specific functions or classes, just include the relevant header file. Note you can't get rid of header files - the C++ compilation model, particularly for templates, depends on them.
It can be problematic to export a C++ class library from a dynamic library, but it is possible.
You need to mark each function to be exported from the DLL (syntax depends on the compiler). I'm poking around to see if I can find how to do this from xcode. In VC it's __declspec(dllexport) and in CodeWarrior it's #pragma export on/#pragma export off.
This is perfectly reasonable if you are only using your binary in-house. However, one issue is that C++ methods are named differently by different compilers. This means that nobody who uses a different compiler will be able to use your DLL, unless you are only exporting C functions.
Also, you need to make sure the calling conventions match in the DLL and the DLL's client. This either means you should have the same default calling convention flag passed to the compiler for both the DLL or the client, or better, explicitly set the calling convention on each exported function in the DLL, so that it won't matter what the default is for the client.
This article explains the naming issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_decoration
The C++ standard doesn't define a standard ABI, and that's bad news for people trying to build C++ libraries. This means that you get different behavior from your compiled code depending on which flags were used to compile it, and that can lead to mysterious bugs in code that compiles and links just fine.
This extends beyond just different calling conventions - C++ code can be compiled to support or not support RTTI, exception handling, and with various optimizations that can affect the the memory layout of class instances, which C++ code relies on.
So, what can you do? I would build C++ libraries inside my source tree, and make sure that they're built as part of my project's build, and that all the libraries and the code that links to them use the same compiler flags.
Note that name mangling, which was supposed to at least prevent you from linking object files that were compiled with different compilers/compiler flags only mostly works, and there are certain things you can do, especially with GCC, that will result in code that links just fine and fails at runtime.
You have to be extra careful with vendor supplied dynamic C++ libraries (QT on most Linux distributions, for example.) I've seen instances of vendor supplied libraries that were compiled in ways that prevented certain things from working properly. For example, some Redhat Linux releases (maybe all of them) disabled exceptions in QT, which made it impossible to catch exceptions in main() if the exceptions were thrown in a QT callback. Fun.