"no main" function for linking or execution in C++ [duplicate] - c++

This question already has answers here:
How to change entry point of C program with gcc?
(4 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am trying to compile a function (not called main) that can be integrated in another code or directly executed (after linking).
I try it one my mac, and work well.
I finally test it on Linux (CentOS and ubuntu). However, the task looks harder as expected on Linux.
The source code is the following one (just to explain the problem)
test.cpp:
#include <cstdio>
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
int test(int argc, char const *argv[]);
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
int test(int argc, char const *argv[]) {
fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", "test");
return 0;
}
Compilation line on MacOS
g++ -c test.cpp -o test.o && g++ test.o -o test -e _test
and on Linux
g++ -c test.cpp -o test.o && g++ test.o -o test -e test
I try on my MacOS with clang, g++ and Intel compiler, all 3 works fine.
And I try with g++ and the Intel compiler on Linux, always, the same error.
usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/crt1.o: In function `_start':
(.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Any advice, explanation or solution, on what I am doing wrong or missing would be very helpful.
Thanks
Edit:
Currently, I have a "define" to create a main, but if we have lots of function we are obligated to do two compilations each time (one for the function version and one for the execution) and make finally the code heavier.
Like discussed in this topic is there a GCC compiler/linker option to change the name of main?
To don't do a XY I inherited from a bunch of small programs that I want to put to gather, that it is easier to use (for remote execution ...). However, each one need to be able to be executed independently if needed, for debugging,... I hesitate, between using "execv" and just convert each main as a function. I probably take the bad chose.
Edit:
The final goal is to be able to have independent programs. But that we can call from an external software too.
Solution:
The solution looks to be, to a call to the main through a dlopen

You cannot do that (and even if it appears to work on MacOSX it is implementation specific and undefined behavior).
Linux crt0 is doing more complex stuff that what you think.
The C standard (e.g. n1570 for C11) requires a main function for hosted implementations (§5.1.2.2.1) :
The function called at program startup is named main. The implementation declares no prototype for this function.
And the C++ standard also requires a main and strongly requires some processing (e.g. construction of static data) to be done before main is running and after it has returned (and various crt0 tricks are implementing that feature on Linux).
If you want to understand gory details (and they are not easy!), study the ABI and the (free software) source code of the implementation of the crt0.
I am trying to compile a function (not called main) that can be integrated in another code
BTW, to use dynamically some code (e.g. plug-ins) from another program, consider using the dynamic linker. I recommend using the POSIX compliant dlopen(3) with dlsym(3) on position-independent code shared libraries. It works on most Unix flavors (including MacOSX & Linux & Solaris & AIX). For C++ code beware of name mangling so read at least the C++ dlopen mini howto.
Read also the Program Library HowTo.
Problems with libraries, they cannot be executed, no ?
I don't understand what that means. You certainly can load a plugin then run code inside it from the main program dlopen-ing it.
(and on Linux, some libraries like libc.so are even specially built to also work as an executable; I don't recommend this practice for your own code)
You might take several days to read Drepper's How To Write Shared Libraries (but it is advanced stuff).
If you want to add some code at runtime, read also this answer and that one.
The final goal is to be able to have independent program. But that we can call from an external software too
You can't do that (and it would make no sense). However, you could have conventions for communicating with other running programs (i.e. processes), using inter-process communication such as pipe(7)-s and many others. Read Advanced Linux Programming first and before coding. Read also Operating Systems : Three Easy Pieces
The solution looks to be, to a call to the main through a dlopen
Calling the main function via dlopen & dlsym is forbidden by the C++ standard (which disallows using a pointer to main). The main function has a very specific status and role (and is compiled specially; the compiler knows about main).
(perhaps calling main obtained by dlsym would appear to work on some Linux systems, but it certainly is undefined behavior so you should not do that)

Related

Barebones C++ without standard library?

Compilers such as GCC and Clang allow to compile C++ programs without the C++ standard library, e.g. using the -nostdlib command line flag. It seems that such often fail to link thou, for example:
void f() noexcept { throw 42; }
int main() { f(); }
Usually fails to link due to undefined symbols like __cxa_allocate_exception, typeinfo for int, __cxa_throw, __gxx_personality_v0, __clang_call_terminate, __cxa_begin_catch, std::terminate() etc.
Even a simple
int main() {}
Fails to link with
ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 0000000000400120
and is killed by the OS upon execution. Using -c the compiler still runs the linker which blatantly fails with:
ld: error in mytest(.eh_frame); no .eh_frame_hdr table will be created.
Is it a realistic goal to program and compile C++ applications or libraries without using and linking to the standard library? How can I compile my code using GCC or Clang on Linux? What core language features would one be unable to use without the standard library?
You will basically find all of your questions answered at osdev.org, but I'll give a brief summary anyway.
When you give GCC -nostdlib, you are saying "no startup or library files". This includes:
crti.o, crtbegin.o, crtend.o and crtn.o. Generally kernel developers only care about implementing crti.o and crtend.o and let GCC supply crtbegin.o and crtend.o by passing -print-file-name= to the linker. Generally these are just stubs that consist of .init and .fini respectively, leaving room for GCC to shove the contents of crtbegin.o and crtend.o respectively. These files are necessary for calling global constructors/destructors.
You can't avoid linking libgcc (the "low-level runtime library" (-lgcc) because even if you pass -nostdlib GCC will emit calls to its functions whenever you use it, leading to inexplicable linking errors for seemingly no reason. This is the case even when you're implementing/porting a C library.
You don't "need" libstdc++ no, but typically kernel developers want it. Porting a C library then implementing the C++ standard library from scratch is an extremely difficult task.
Since you only want to get rid of the "standard library", but keeping libc (on a Linux system) you're essentially programming C++ with just a C library. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this and you do you, but ultimately I don't see the point unless you plan on developing a kernel.
Required reading:
OSDev's C++ page - If you really care about RTTI/exception support, it's more annoying to implement than it sounds. Typically people just pass -fno-rtti or -fno-exceptions and then worry about it down the line or not at all.
"Standard" is a misnomer. In this context it doesn't mean "the library (set of functions, classes etc) as defined by the C++ standard" but "the usual set of libraries and objects (compiled files in a certain format) gcc links with by default". Some of those are necessary for most or even all programs to function.
If you use this flag, it's your responsibility to provide any missing functionality. There are several ways to do so:
Cherry-pick libraries and objects that your program really needs out of the default set. (Makes little sense as the result will most probably be exactly the same as with the default link flags).
Provide your own implementation of missing functionality.
Explicitly disable, through compiler flags, language features your program isn't using. I know of two such features: exceptions and RTTI. This is needed because the compiler needs to generate exceptions-related code and RTTI info even if these features are not explicitly used in this module.

I receive different results on UNIX and WIN when use static members with static linking of shared library to executable. Please explain why?

Please consider following peace of code:
// 1. Single header file. Imagine that it is some static library.
// Counter.h
#pragma once
struct Counter
{
Counter()
{
++getCount();
}
static int& getCount()
{
static int counter = 0;
return counter;
}
};
// 2. Shared library (!) :
// main_DLL.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "counter.h"
extern "C"
{
__declspec(dllexport) // for WIN
void main_DLL()
{
Counter c;
std::cout << "main_DLL : ptr = " << &Counter::getCount()<< " value = " << Counter::getCount() << std::endl;
}
}
// 3. Executable. Shared library statically (!) linked to the executable file.
// main.cpp
#include "counter.h"
#include <iostream>
extern "C"
{
__declspec(dllimport) // for WIN
void main_DLL();
}
int main()
{
main_DLL();
Counter c;
std::cout << "main_EXE : ptr = " << &Counter::getCount() << " value = " << Counter::getCount() << std::endl;
}
Results:
Results for WIN (Win8.1 gcc 5.1.0):
main_DLL : ptr = 0x68783030 value = 1
main_EXE : ptr = 0x403080 value = 1
// conclusion: two different counters
Results for UNIX (Red Hat <I don’t remember version exactly> gcc 4.8.3):
main_DLL : ptr = 0x75693214 value = 1
main_EXE : ptr = 0x75693214 value = 2
// conclusion: the same counter addressed
Building:
Building for WIN:
g++ -c -Wall -Werror -o main_DLL.o main_DLL.cpp
g++ -shared -Wl,--out-implib=libsharedLib.a -o libsharedLib.so main_DLL.o
g++ -Wall –Werror -o simpleExample main.cpp -L./ -lsharedLib
Building for UNIX:
g++ -c -Wall -Werror -fPIC -o main_DLL.o main_DLL.cpp
g++ -shared -fPIC -o libsharedLib.so main_DLL.o
g++ -Wall –Werror -fPIC -o simpleExample main.cpp -L./ -lsharedLib
So, you see that I added –fPIC on UNIX and there is no need to create import library for UNIX, because all exports symbols are included inside shared library. On Windows I use __declspec for it.
For me, results on Windows are pretty much expected. Because shared library and executable are building separately and they should know about static variable in Counter::getCount. They should simply allocate memory for it, that’s why they have different static counters.
I did quite some analysis using tools like nm, objdump. Although I’m not a big expert in them, so I haven’t found anything suspicious. I can provide their output if needed.
Using ldd tool I can see that library linked statically in both cases.
Why I can’t see the same results on Unix for me it’s strange. Could the root cause lie in building options (–fPIC, for example), or I’m missing something?
In windows, A DLL is not exporting global and static symbols unless you add the dllexport statement, therefore, the linker doesn't even know they exists, so it allocate new instance for the static member.
In linux/unix a shared lib is exporting all the global and static symbols, so when the linker find the existence of the static member in the shared lib, it just use its address.
That is the reason for the different result.
EDIT: This is a complete rewrite of the answer. With much more details.
I think that this question deserves more elaborated answer. Especially that there are things that were not mentioned so far.
Dependency Walker
Let me start with referring to the “Dependency Walker” program.
It is a nice program (although these days a bit old-schoolish in its look & feel) that allows analyzing Windows binaries (both EXE and DLL) for symbols that they export/import and their own dependencies to other DLLs. Also it allows showing undecorated symbol names but this seems to be working only with MSVC build binaries. (And some more but that is not important here.)
Thanks to this program crucial information (for this question) can be uncovered. So I encourage you to use it during experiments.
Exporting policy on Linux vs. Windows
SHR already pointed this out but I will mention it also for completeness of the answer. And some extra details.
On Linux every symbol gets exported from a shared library by default. On the other hand on Windows you have to explicitly state which symbols to export from a shared library.
GCC seems however to provide some means of controlling exports in "Windows style". See for example Visibility entry on GCC Wiki.
Also note that there are various ways of exporting on both Linux and Windows. For example both seem to support exporting selectively by providing linker with a list of names for symbols to export. But it also seems that nowadays (on Windows at least) this isn't really used much. __declspec approach seems to be preferred.
What can be exported?
After that general introduction let's now stick to Windows case. Nowadays you export/import symbols from shared libraries by using the __declspec. Just as shown in the question. (Well maybe not exactly that - typically you use a #define to handle bi-directionality as shown in already mentioned Visibility entry on GCC Wiki.)
But the declaration can be applied not only to functions, methods and global variables. It can also be applied to types. For example you can have:
class __declspec(dllexport) Counter { /* ... */ };
Such exporting/importing means in general that all members get exported/imported.
Not so easy!
But it would be too easy, wouldn't it? The complication is that GCC and MSVC handle exporting types differently.
My notes here are based mostly on experiments (checks done using Dependency Walker) so I can be wrong or not precise enough. But I did observe differences in behavior.
In tests I used MSVC 2013 from the Express Edition with update 5. For GCC I used MinGW distro from nuwen.net, version 13.0.
MSVC, when exporting entire type, exports each and every member. Including implicitly defined members (like compiler generated copy constructor). And including inlined functions. Furthermore if inlined function has some static local variables they get exported to (!).
GCC on the other hand seems to be far more restrictive. It doesn't export implicitly defined members. Nor it doesn't export inlined members.
Exporting/Importing inline functions
If instead of exporting entire type you would explicitly export an inlined function then and only then will GCC really export it. But still it will not export static local variables in that function.
Further more if you try to import an inlined function GCC will error. With GCC you cannot define symbols that you are importing. And this happens when you import inlined (and so defined) symbol. So in fact it doesn't make any sense to export inlined functions with GCC.
MSVC allows to import inlined functions. In all cases I checked it didn't seem to actually inline the function but instead called the imported version.
Yet note that because MSVC in case of inlined function exports also its static local variables it would be possible for it to really inline the function (rather than import it) while maintaining a single copy of static local variables. For ordinary programs such behavior is mandated by the Standard (N3337, C++11), in point 7.1.2 ([dcl.fct.spec]) at $4 we can read:
(…) A static local variable in an extern inline function always refers to the same object. (…)
But a program and a shared library are actually more like two programs so they are out of scope for the Standard. Yet MSVC even in that case acts (or better to say: could act) as one would expect from a single program.
Solution
Denis Bakhvalov in a comment provided solution for his own question. The solution is to move getCount function from header to source file and export/import it.
This seems to be the only solution portable between GCC and MSVC. Or to be more precise MSVC allows more solutions to this problem but none of them will work when program is build under GCC.
The variable trick
The above is not entirely true. There is another workaround that will work consistently between GCC and MSVC.
This is to stop using static local variable. Instead make it a global variable (most likely by making it static variable in the class) and export it. This will make the trick as well.
Sadly there is no way (or I don't know any) to directly force exporting/importing static local variables. You have to change them to global variables to do that.
MSVC solutions
With MSVC you have more options.
As mentioned before exporting/importing the inlined function itself (whether directly or through type) will do the job.
Summary
As described above even consistency between GCC and MSVC on Windows only requires care. You have to limit yourself to stay in common subset of allowed solutions.
Keeping the program (source) interoperable between Linux and Windows even if with same compiler (GCC) also requires care.
Luckily there is a common subset for all three environments: GCC on Linux, GCC on Windows and MSVC on Windows. That common subset is described already by mentioned Denis' comment.
So do not inline functions that you intend to export/import. Keep them in sources. And on Windows builds (regardless of compiler) export them explicitly (otherwise you will get linker error anyway since the functions in sources of a shared library will not be available when building program).
Note that this is actually a reasonable approach on its own. Inlining function from shared library doesn't seem wise. It freezes not only the interface but also implementation (of that function). You can no longer change this function freely (and deliver new version of your shared library) since all clients would have to be rebuild since they could have inlined that function. So it is a wise approach by itself not to inline from shared library. And as a bonus it assures that your sources are multi-platform friendly.
Also do have a look into the mentioned Visibility entry on GCC Wiki. It might be reasonable to use that approach (of explicit exports) on Linux as well since it seems cleaner (from design point of view) and more efficient at runtime. While it fits well what you have to do for Windows anyway.

Compile a C++ code snippet using G++ dynamically

Working on a C++ based application, it takes user input and generates a C++ function and compile it to create a .so file and links the function to the main application. Currently had to call an external command "g++" to do it. Wonder if it's possible to call some kind of function, say, "compile" which takes as input an code snippet and produces an .so. More precisely, I need a function that has the following syntax:
sizeOfObjBuf = compile(codeBuf, objBuf);
First parameter is a null terminated string containing a code snippet, the second parameter is the output buffer that hold the compiled code and it returns the size of size of compiled code.
The whole idea is to get rid of dependency on an external program (g++) so the application can run on any Linux system (even when it doesn't have g++ installed).
Thanks.
I'm afraid the answer is "no".
You could implement that function by executing G++ (or some other compiler) in a separate process and waiting for it to finish, but that still requires the user to have a compiler installed.
You can't compile C++ code without a C++ compiler.
I am not going to do the research to figure out how it is done, but I believe the LLVM C++ compiler can be used in this way. All of the parts of LLVM are designed to run as a library, in theory.
OK, a tiny bit of research and I found this: http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibTooling.html

C++ runtime errors in CodeBlocks when printing strings with cout <<

I recently started using CodeBlocks and began encountering odd runtime errors which I have traced back to printing strings using cout <<. For example, even the following..
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::string str;
str = "Hi!";
std::cout << str << std::endl;
return 0;
}
results in an error. It will compile fine (using Borland) but when I run it I get a pop up window saying 'test.exe has stopped working' and in the console I get the message:
Process returned -1073741819 (0xC0000005) execution time : 1.526 s
Press any key to continue.
It compiles and runs fine in MS Visual C++ and with G++ in Ubuntu.. any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
Cheers,
Weatherwax
My one-off comment ended up helping solve the problem so here it is packaged up as an answer for future users:
This guy had a similar issue and it ended up being a linker issue which he
fixed. The fix is the last post in the thread, although reading the
whole thread could be useful for you.
Long Story short: Borland compiler is a bit dated and annoying to use. Ended up being a linker issue within borland. Better off using a different compiler like GCC/G++ or Visual Studio compiler.
This answer is here to elaborate on the root cause of the issue.
The reason for your crashing program is because the wrong runtime library is being linked. Specifically, your example is compiled as a single threaded object file(the default) but the linking step is using the multithreaded cw32mt.lib runtime -- the "mt" suffix at the end means multithreaded.
The solution is to make sure the runtime your program is compiled to use matches with the runtime you're linking against. A few ways to do this.
Important bcc32 compile switches:
-tW Windows GUI program. WinMain() is expected
-tWC Windows Console program. main() is expected. default.
-tWR Use dynamically linked runtime. Absence implies static runtime linkage.
-tWM Use multithreaded runtime. Absence implies single thread.
Compiling your example program as single threaded like this works:
bcc32 -oexample.obj -c example.cpp
ilink32 -ap example.obj c0x32, example.exe,, cw32.lib import32.lib,,
or you can compile it as multithreaded like this(note the -tWM switch matching up with cw32mt.lib):
bcc32 -tWM -oexample.obj -c example.cpp
ilink32 -ap example.obj c0x32, example.exe,, cw32mt.lib import32.lib,,
A third approach that is easier and less error prone is to not call the linker yourself. Instead, let the compiler drive the linker indirectly(similar to gcc):
bcc32 -tWM -oexample.obj -c example.cpp
bcc32 -tWM example.obj -eexample.exe
For your simple example, it can even be shortened to:
bcc32 -eexample.exe example.cpp
Lastly, you can pass the -tW switch multiple times. For example, this command compiles your example as a console program with multithread support and dynamic runtime linkage:
bcc32 -tWM -tWR -tWC -eexample.exe example.cpp
The produced example.exe executable is much smaller and its import table has an entry for CC3250MT.DLL confirming that the borland runtime is dynamically linked.
We should not assume that a non-functioning program is caused by nonconformity to the standard or a bug in the tool we're using without first investigating user error as a potential cause (even though in this case it's tempting to do so). In the OP's case, the code::block IDE didn't have the right commands setup for the toolchain being used.

"undefined reference to" many (all?) of the functions in shared library (newbie)

I'm a novice at C++. Be patient if this is incoherent. I'm called upon to build a large system on linux that was originally built on OS X, where it works fine. The original authors are no longer with the company. The build system makes use of autotools, but there are also some hand made Makefiles which walk through the system calling the auto-made Makefiles. I've managed to get all of the c++ code compiled. The build system also uses libtools, and shared libraries are produced and deposited in /usr/local/lib.
So now I'd like to use these libraries. I've written a short program that simply instantiates an object of class ds_dictionary and calls one of its methods. Here it is:
#include <iostream>
#include <DSUtils/DSUtils.h>
int main (int argc, char * const argv[]) {
int32_t integer_data=123;
char key_alice_integer[] = "alice_integer";
ds_dictionary my_dict;
my_dict.add_int(key_alice_integer, integer_data);
return 0;
}
I compile this with
g++ -lDSUtils -o main my_test_code.cpp
With the result:
//usr/local/lib/libDSUtils.so: undefined reference to `ds_breakdown_from_time_interval'
//usr/local/lib/libDSUtils.so: undefined reference to `ds_date_breakdown_with_string'
//usr/local/lib/libDSUtils.so: undefined reference to `ds_seconds_duration_of_interval'
... (about 25 lines like these)
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Let's look inside the library:
garyp#VM:/usr/local/lib$ nm libDSUtils.so | grep ds_breakdown_from_time
U ds_breakdown_from_time_interval
The "U" in the line above ... does that mean that the library wasn't built correctly?
Am I calling g++ correctly?
Do I have to put something in the code to tell it that I'm using functions found in that library?
What are possible errors? Where should I start poking around?
EDIT:
Aha. The library DSUtils is built from several c++ sources. There is one c program in the source, and it contains all of the problem functions. The Makefile system doesn't deal at all with that one c file. That c program compiles. Ideally I suppose I'd figure out how to modify the Makefile to compile that file and add it to the library, but I'm not to the point where I can figure out how to do that.
Can I add the .o file to the existing library? How? Create a library with one file? etc?
EDIT_2: I simply did
g++ -o main -lDSUtils main.o my_new_objectfile.o
and the thing compiles, links, and runs without error. Should that work? After fixing a logic bug, it does work.
This
U ds_breakdown_from_time_interval
tells me that ds_breakdown_from_time_interval will be resolved by another library during runtime. So I am guessing you need to link to the library that defines ds_breakdown_from_time_interval.