REQUIREMENT: For a certain project we have unique requirement. The application supports an expression language that allows the user to define their own complex expressions that can be evaluated at run time (many hundred times a second) and they need to be executed at machine level for performance.
WORKING: Our expression parser translates the script into corresponding assembly language routine perfectly. We checked it by statically linking the object files generated with our C test program and they produce correct result.
Since the client can change the script anytime, our program (at run time) detects the change, calls the parser which generates the corresponding assembly routine. We then call the assembler from back end to create the object code.
PROBLEM
How can we call this assembly routine dynamically from the C++ program
(Loader)?
We are not supposed to call the C++ compiler to link it with the loader because the loader already would have other subroutines running and we cannot take the loader off, recompile and then execute the new loader program.
I tried searching for a solution online but every time the results are littered with .NET assembly dynamic calling. Our app has nothing to do with .NET.
First, the "generated plugin" approach (on Linux; my answer focuses on Linux but could be adapted to Windows with some effort; you could use many-platform frameworks like Qt or POCO or Glib from GTK; then all wrap plugin loading abilities à la dlopen with a common API that you could use on Windows, on Linux, on MacOSX, on Android) :
generate C (or assembly) code in some file /tmp/generated01.c (you might even generate C++ code using standard C++ containers, but its compilation would be significantly slower; beware of name mangling so emit and use extern "C" functions; read the C++ dlopen mini HowTo). See this answer explaining why generating C is worthwhile (and could be better, and more portable, than generating assembler code).
run (using fork+execve+waitpid, or simply system) a compilation of that generated file into a shared object /tmp/genenerated01.so by running gcc -fPIC -Wall -O /tmp/generated01.c -shared -o /tmp/generated01.so command; you practically need to get position-independent code, hence the -fPIC flag. If using dlopen on your generated assembler code you'll need to improve your assembler generator to emit PIC code.
dlopen that new /tmp/generated01.so (so use the dynamic linker), see dlopen(3); you could even remove the now useless generated C file /tmp/generated01.c
dlsym the relevant symbols to get function pointers to the generated code, see dlsym(3); your application would simply call the generated code using these function pointers.
when you are sure that you don't need any functions from it and that no call frame uses it, you could dlclose that shared object library (but you might accept to leak some address space by not calling dlclose at all)
The above approach is worthwhile and can be used a big lot of times (my manydl.c demonstrates that you could dlopen a million different shared objects), and is practically even compatible (even when emitting C code!) with an interactive Read-Eval-Print-Loop -on most current desktops and laptops and servers-, since most of the time the generated /tmp/generated01.c would be quite small (e.g. a few hundred lines at most) to be very quickly generated and compiled (by gcc, etc...). I am even using this in MELT for its REPL mode. On Linux this plugin approach generally requires to link the main application with -rdynamic (so that dlopen-ed plugins can reference and call functions from the main application).
Then, other approaches could be to use some Just-In-Time compilation library, like
GNU lightning (which emits slow machine code very quickly - so very short JIT emission time, but the generated code is running slowly since it is very unoptimized)
asmjit; it is x86-64 specific, and enables you to generate individual x86-64 machine instructions
GNU libjit is available for several platforms, and offer an "interpreter" mode for other platforms
LLVM (part of Clang/LLVM compiler, usable as a JIT library)
GCCJIT (a new JIT library front-end to GCC)
Grossly speaking, the first elements of that list are able to emit JIT machine code fairly quickly, but that code won't run as fast as compiling with gcc -fPIC -O1 or -O2 the equivalent generated C code (but would run typically 2x to 5x slower!); the last two elements (LLVM & GCCJIT) are compiler based: so they are able to optimize and emit efficient code, at the expense of slower JIT code emission. All the JIT libraries are able (like dlsym does for plugins) to give function pointers to newly JIT-constructed functions.
Notice that there is a trade-off to be made: some techniques are able to generate quickly some machine code, if you accept that generated code to later run a bit slowly; other techniques (notably GCCJIT or LLVM) are spending time to optimize the generated machine code, so takes more time to emit the machine code, but that code would later run quickly. You should not expect both (small generation time, quick execution time), since there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I believe that generating manually some assembler code is practically not worthwhile. You won't be able to generate very optimized code (because optimization is a very difficult art, and both GCC and Clang have millions of source line code for optimization passes), unless you spend many years of work for that. Using some JIT library is easier, and "compiling" to C or C++ is also quite easy (you leave the burden of optimization to the C compiler you are calling).
You could also consider rewriting your application into some language with homoiconicity and metaprogramming abilities (e.g. multi-stage programming), such as Common Lisp (and many others, e.g. those providing eval). Its SBCL implementation is always emitting machine code...
You could also embed an interpreter like Lua -perhaps even LuaJit- or Guile in your application. The main advantage of embedding an existing language is that there are resources (books, modules, ...) and community of people knowing them (designing a good language is difficult!). Also, the embedded interpreter library is well designed and probably well debugged (since used a lot), and some of them are fast enough (since using bytecode techniques).
As the comments already suggest, LoadLibrary (Windows) and dlopen (Linux/POSIX) are by far the easiest solution. These are specifically intended to dynamically load code. Equally important, they both allow unloading as well, and there are functions to then get a function entry point by name.
You can dynamically do it. I will take linux case as an example. Since your parser working fine and generates machine code, you should be able to generate .so (for linux) or .dll for windows.
Next, load the library as
handle = dlopen(so_file_name, RTLD_LAZY);
Next get function pointer
func = dlsym(handle, "function_name");
Then you should be able to execute it as func()
One thing you need to experiment (in case you do not get desired result) is close and open the so file or dll file (you need to do only if required, else it may reduce performance)
It sounds like you can generate the proper byte code. So you could just ensure that you generate position independent code, write it into an executable piece of memory, and then call or create thread upon the code. The simplest way would just be to cast the pointer to the base of the memory you wrote the code into as a function pointer, and then call it.
If you write your bytecode to avoid referencing different sections, and instead reference offsets from its loaded base, 'loading' the code is as easy as writing it to executable memory. You could do a call/pop/jmp to find the base of the code once it begins executing.
Conversely, and probably the easiest solution, would be to just write the code out as function expecting arguments, that way you could pass the code's base and any other arguments to it, as you would with any other function, as long as you use the proper typedef for your function pointer, and the generated assembly handles the arguments properly. As long as you avoid creating absolute jumps or data references to absolute addresses, you shouldn't have any issue.
too late but I think it would help someone else.
in case you want to dynamically execute a piece of code, you can create an interpreter for this.
compile your expressions into some byte code then write the interpreter for executing this.
here is a tutorial about writing interpreters, but in python.
https://ruslanspivak.com/lsbasi-part1/
you can write it using c/c++
Related
I am almost certain this question has been asked before, but I can not seem to find the right keywords to search for to get an answer. My apologies if this is a duplicate.
I am better trying to understand the compilation process of say a C++ file as it goes from the C++ syntax to the binary machine code. In addition I am trying to understand what influences the resulting machine code.
First, I am nearly certain that the following are the only factors (for most systems) that dictate the final machine code (please correct me if I am wrong here)
The tools used to compile, assemble, and link.
Things like gnu c compiler, clang, visual studio, nasm, ect.
The kernel of the system being used.
Whether its a specific version of the linux kernel, windows microkernel, or some other kernel like a mac os x one.
The operating system being used.
This one I am less clear about. I am unsure if machines running the same linux kernel, but different os, in this case let's say debian vs centos, will they produce different binaries.
Lastly the hardware architecture.
Different cpu architectures like arm 64, x86, power pc, ect. take different op codes so obviously the machine code should be different.
So with that being said here is my understanding of the compilation process and where each of these dependencies show up.
I write a C++ file and use code that my system can understand. A good example might be using <winsock.h> on windows and <sys/socket.h> on linux.
The preprocessor runs and executes any preprocessor macros.
Here I know that different preprocessors will define different macros but for now I will assume this is not too machine dependent. (This might be wrong to assume).
The compiler tools run to produce assembly file outputs.
Here the assembly produced depends on the compiler and what optimizations or choices it makes.
It also depends on the kernel because different kernels have different system calls and store files in different locations. This means the assembly might make changes such as different branching when calling functions specific to that kernel.
The operating system? Still unsure how the operating system fits in to this. If two machines have the same kernel, what does the operating system do to the binaries?
Finally the assembly code depends on the cpu architecture. I think that is a pretty obvious statement.
Once the compiler produces an assembly. We can then invoke the assembler to turn our assembly code into almost complete machine code. (I think machine code is identical to binary opcodes a cpu manual lists but this might be wrong).
The corresponding machine code files (often called object files I think) contain nearly all the instructions needed to run or reference other machine code files which will be linked in the next step.
This machine code usually has some format (I think ELF is a popular format for linux) and this format is dependent on the linker for sure.
I don't think the kernel, operating system, or hardware affect the layout/format of the object file but this is probably wrong. If they do please correct this.
The hardware will affect the actual machine code produced because again I think it is a 1 to 1 mapping of machine code instructions to opcodes for a cpu.
I am unsure if the kernel or operating system affect the linking process because I thought their changes were already incorporated in the compiling step.
Finally the linking step occurs.
I think this is as simple as the linker looking for all the referenced machine code and injecting it into one complete machine code file which can be executed.
I have no clue what affects this besides the linker tool itself.
So with all that, I need help identifying inaccuracies with the procedure I described above, and any dependencies I might have missed whether it be cpu, os, kernel, or tool ones.
Thank you and sorry for the long winded question. This probably should have been broken up into multiple questions but I am too far in. If this does not go well I may ask each part in individual questions.
EDIT:
Questions with more focus.
What components of a machine affect the machine code produced given a C++ file input?
Actually that is a lot of questions and usually you're question would be much too broad for SO (as you managed to recognize by yourself). But on the other hand you showed a deep interest (just by writing such a long and profound question) and also a lot of correct understanding of the process of compiling a program. The things you are missing or not understanding correctly (and you are probably the most interested in) are those things, that I myself found hard to learn. Thus I will provide you with some important points, that I think you are missing in the big picture.
Note that I am very much used to Linux, so I will mostly describe how things work on Linux. But I believe that most things also happen in a similar way on other operating systems.
Let's begin with the hardware. A modern computer has a CPU of some architecture. There are lots of different of CPU architectures. You mentioned some of them like arm, x86, etc. which are families of similar CPUs and can be divided into smaller groups by bit width and/or supported extensions. Ultimately your processor has a specified instruction set that defines which opcodes it supports and what those opcodes do. If a native (compiled) program runs, there are raw opcodes in the memory and the CPU directly executes them following its architecture specification.
Aside from the CPU there is a lot more hardware connected to your computer. Usually communicating with this hardware is complicated and not standardized. If a user program for example gets input keystrokes from the keyboard, in does not have to directly communicate with the keyboard, but rather does this via the operating system kernel. This works by a mechanism called syscall interrupt. The kernel installs an handler routine, that is called if a user program triggers such an interrupt with a special CPU instruction. You can think of it like a language agnostic function call from the program into the kernel. For example for Linux you can find a list of all syscalls at the syscall(2) man page. The syscalls form the kernel's Application Binary Interface (kernel ABI). Reading and writing from a terminal or using a filesystem are examples for syscall functionality.
As you can see, there are already very high level functions, that are implemented in the kernel. However the functionality is still quite limited for most typical applications. To encapsulate the syscalls and provide functions for memory management, utility functions, mathematical functions and many other things you probably use in your daily programs, there is usually another layer between the program and the kernel. This thing is called the C standard library, and it is a shared library (we will cover what exactly this is in a moment). On GNU/Linux it is the glibc which is the single most important library on a GNU/Linux system (and notably not part of the kernel 1). While it implements all the features that are required by the C standard (for example functions like malloc() or strcpy()), it also ships a lot of additional functions which are a superset of the ISO C standard library, the POSIX standard and some extensions. This interface is usually called the Application Programming Interface (API) of the operating system. While it is in principle possible to bypass the API and directly use the syscalls, almost all programs (even when written in other languages than C or C++) use the C library.
Now get yourself a coffee and a few minutes of rest. We now have enough background information to look at how a C++ program is transformed into a binary, and how exactly this binary is executed.
A C++ program consists of different compilation units (usually each different source file is a compilation unit). Each compilation unit undergoes the following steps
The preprocessor is run on the file. It includes header, expands macros and does some other stuff. As you wrote in your question this is rather platform independent. The preprocessor actions are standardized in the C++ standard.
The resulting code is compiled. That means C++ code is translated into assembly code. Because assembly code directly reflects the CPU instructions, this step is dependent on the target CPU architecture, that the compiler was configured for (usually the host CPU). The compiler is allowed to optimize and translate the program in any way it wants, as long as it follows the as-if rule. Thus this step is also higly dependent on the compiler you are using.
Note: Symbols (especially functions) that are not defined, are left undefined. If you say call the malloc() function, this will not be compiled, but left unevaluated until later. Thus this step is also not much dependent on the operating system.
Assembling takes place. This is very straightforward. The assembly code usually can be converted directly into binary CPU instructions. Local symbols (such as goto labels etc.) are resolved and replaced by their corresponding addresses. Unknown external symbols such as the mentioned malloc() call still are left unevaluated and are stored in the object file's symbol table. Because most of the syscalls are wrapped in library functions, the assembly code will usually not directly contain syscall code. Thus this step is depended on the CPU architecture. It is however dependent on the ABI2, which in term is dependent on the compiler and the OS.
Linking takes place. The different compilation units are combined into a single executable binary in an OS-dependent format (e.g. GNU/Linux uses ELF). Here yet more symbols are resolved. For example if one compilation calls a function in another compilation unit, this call is resolved and the symbol is replaced by the function address. If you link to a library statically, this is just treated like another compilation unit and included into the executable with its symbols resolved.
Shared libraries are checked for the needed symbols, but not linked yet. For example in case of the malloc() call, the linker checks, that there is a malloc symbol in the glibc, but the symbol in the executable still remains unresolved.
At this point you have a executable binary. As you might noticed, there might still be unresolved symbols in that binary. Thus you cannot just load that binary into RAM and let the CPU execute it. A final step called dynamic linking is needed. On Linux the program that performs this step is called the dynamic linker/loader. Its task is to load the executable ELF file into memory, look up all the needed dynamic libraries, load them into memory as well (a list is stored in the ELF file) and resolve the remaining symbols. This last step happens each time the program is executed. Now finally the malloc() symbol is resolved with the address in the glibc shared library.
You have pure CPU instructions in memory, the CPU's program counter register (the one that tracks the next instruction) is set to the entry point, and the program can begin to run. Every now and then it is interrupted either because it makes a syscall, or because it is interrupted by the kernel scheduler to let another program run on that CPU core.
I hope I could answer some of your questions and satisfy your curiosity. I think the most important part you were missing, was how dynamic linking happens. This is a very interesting topic which is related to concepts like position independent code. I wish you could luck learning.
1 this is also one reason why some people insist on calling Linux based systems GNU/Linux. The glibc library (together with many other GNU programs) defines much of the operating system structure, interacts with supplementary programs and configuration files etc. There are however Linux based systems without glibc. One of them is Android, using Googles bionic libc.
2 The ABI is related to the calling convention. This is a mixture of operating system, programming language and compiler specification. It is one of the reasons (besides name mangling, see the comment of PeterCordes below) you need those extern "C" {...} scopes in C++ header files, that declare C functions in shared libraries. It basically is a convention on how to pass parameters and return values between functions.
Neither operating system nor kernel are directly involved in any of this.
Their limited involvement is in that if you want to build Linux 64 bit binaries for x86 using gnu tools then you need to in some way (download and install or build yourself) build the gnu tools themselves for that target processor and that operating system. As system calls are specific to the operating system and target, and also the binaries supported by that operating system. Not strictly just the elf file format, that is just a container, but the linking and possibly bootstrap is also specific to the operating systems loader. (or if building something for the kernel that would have other rules). For example, does the application loader initialize .bss and .data for you from specific information in the .elf file, or like on an mcu does the bootstrap code itself have to do this?
The builder for gnu tools for a target like linux and ideally a pre-built binary for your os and target, would have paths setup in some way. The c library would have a default linker script and its intimate partner the bootstrap.
After that point, it is just a dumb toolchain. Include files be they at the system level, compiler level, or programmer level are just includes in the C language. The default paths and gcc knows where it was executed from so it knows where in a normal build the gcc and other libraries live.
gcc itself is not a compiler actually it calls other programs like the preprocessor, the compiler itself, the assembler and linker.
The preprocessor is going to do the search and replace for includes and defines and end up with one great big cpp file, then pass that to the compiler.
The compiler front end (C++ language for gcc for example) turns that into an internal language, allocate an int with this name, and another add the two and blah. A pseudo code if you will. This gets a lot of the optimization work done on it then eventually the back end (which for gnu could be x86, mips, arm, etc independent to some extent of the front and middle). The LLVM tools, are at least capable of exposing that middle, internal, language to external files (external to the memory used by the compiler to do the compilation) and you can combine and optimize those bytecode files and then convert them to assembly or direct to object in the llvm world. I think this is an exception not a rule, others just use internal tables.
While I think it is wise and sane to use an assembly language step. Not all compilers do and do not assume that all compilers do. Some output objects.
Yes that assembly is naturally partial, external functions (labels) and variables (labels) cannot be resolved at the object level. The linker has to do that.
So the target (x86, arm, etc) does affect the construction of the elf file as
there are certain items, magic numbers specific to the target. As mentioned the operating system and or kernel do affect the elf in that there are rules for construction of the binary for that kernel or operating system. Remember that elf is just a container like tar or zip or mkv etc. Do not assume that the operating system can handle every possible choice you want to make with the contents that the linker will allow (the tools are dumb, do what they are told).
So your source.
All the relevant sources that go with it including system includes, compiler includes and your includes.
gcc/g++ is a wrapper program that manages the steps.
calls the pre-processor expands includes and defines into one file (no magic here)
call the compiler to parse that one file into internal tables, think pseudo code and data
many, many possible optimizers that operate on these structures
backend, including peephole optimizer, turns the tables into assembly language (for gnu at least)
assembler is called to turn the asm into an object
If all the objects are specified and gcc is told to link, then...
Linker combines all the objects for the binary, including the bootstrap, including already built libraries, stubs, etc, and command line or more likely a linker script (linker script and bootstrap have an intimate relationship they are not assumed to be separable and not part of the compiler they are part of a C library, etc).
Kernel module loader or operating system application loader fed the file and per the rules of that loader loads and runs the program.
so to make things clear, my goal is to write a code which can save crucial parts of its own code (like the main func or other classes or stuff like that)
which i will be just copying them inside a class, then i want my program to add/remove some codes (func, obj, class, ...) using user input and after all of that i want it to regenerate that code again and create the class that holds the crucial parts of the code automatically and i want it to compile that and delete itself.
So i have all of the above planned and figured out except the part which i want it to compile that code, is there anyway to link g++ to my code? but i know that g++ has a main func, wouldnt that create problems with my main func?
+ i cant use the compiler on the existing system and i cant have the compiler as a separate executable...
You don't need to link your code with a compiler. You could package your executable with a compiler. Your code could generate C++ source code and then call the compiler to generate a new executable.
Keep in mind that most compilers are huge in size. Try installing G++ or MinGW on your system to get an understanding.
For more details, search the internet for "Compiler Design Theory" which will give you information about translating languages like C++ into an executable.
Also, you will need to have the Operating System launch the new executable (and kill the present instance). This will take some research into the Operating System's API.
IMHO, the best method is to use an interpretive or script language. The alternate is to have your C++ program execute a script or pieces of a script.
Edit 1: very low level
At the very lowest level, microcode (the command bytes that a processor processes) needs to be generated.
The steps would be:
Generate the microcode and place in some known location in memory
(that you have access to and is has execution privilege).
Transfer execution to the microcode, remembering to push the return
address on the stack.
The hard part is generating the microcode, especially adjusting the target addresses of all the branch instructions (unless you use something called Position Independent Code).
You could spend many months or years writing code that generates the micro code or figure out how to use pieces of compilers (like CLang or G++).
I'm working to learn C++ more and trying to know basics about different compilers and their technologies. I googled this a lot but every time I stepped through I happened to meet new terms which need more explanation. So, what do these terms such as static compiling, dynamic linking and so on which reside in this topic mean in action?
Some languages like C++ compile all of a program to "native machine code" understood by the CPU before it starts running (i.e. actually being used). That's "static compilation".
Other languages (e.g. Java) use "Just In Time" compilers to produce CPU-native code from some other "byte-code" representation of the program, but do so only once they start running. That's "runtime" compilation.
Many other languages (e.g. common python, perl, ruby, Java implementations) use an "interpreter", which means they have native code that keeps consulting some manner of "byte-code" to work out what to do next. (Some very basic inter-company or specialised interpreters even keep consulting the source code without ever generating a more compact byte-code representation thereof, but no popular language does that - it's awfully slow and clumsy).
A single language may potentially use any combination of these approaches, but in general it's either static compilation, or an interpreter that might add a just-in-time compiler to speed up execution.
Sometimes, a single language has implementations that use different approaches, for example: there are limited C++ interpreters (like http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cint, but I've never heard of it being used "in anger"), and systems that compile python to native code.
For "dynamic linking": say you have a function "void f();" that does something wonderful. If you put that function in a library for use by many applications, you could "statically link" the function into a specific application to take a "snapshot" of f()'s functionality at the specific point in time your program's executable is being created. Then if f() changes later you have to re-link and redistribute your application to incorporate the changes to f(). Alternatively, you could put f() into a dynamic linked library, which means a separate library file containing f() is distributed alongside - or independently from - your program. Each time your program starts running, if looks to the dynamic library file for the code to use for f(). So, if you distribute an updated dynamic library you can update f() without redistributing all the application programs that call f(). Sometimes, that's just a better model for distributing updated software to your users, and avoiding getting each individual application program involved in the distribution of updates to f(). (Occasionally it's a disaster because a dynamic version of f() hasn't actually been tested with the application, and does something subtly differently that breaks the application).
About static or dynamic linking, read also Levine's Linker & Loader book.
About shared or static libraries, read Program Library HowTo
For shared objects (or libraries) on Linux, read Drupper's How To Write Shared Libraries paper
You could load plugins with dlopen(3) but then read C++ dlopen mini-howto.
Compilation is usually static, since it is ahead of time (e.g. when compiling with GCC). Sometimes, a just in time compilation is done (e.g. by most JVMs).
If coding in C++ on Linux, you'll want to compile with g++ -Wall -g (and later use -O2 to ask GCC to optimize when your program is debugged). See this and that hints.
Also, learn C++11 and use the latest GCC 4.8.2 compiler (GCC 4.9 might be released in a few weeks, e.g. in march or april 2014).
I am using C++ (in xcode and code::blocks), I don't know much.
I want to make something compilable during runtime.
for eg:
char prog []={"cout<<"helloworld " ;}
It should compile the contents of prog.
I read a bit about quines , but it didn't help me .
It's sort of possible, but not portably, and not simply.
Basically, you have to write the code out to a file, then
compile it to a dll (invoking the compiler with system), and
then load the dll. The first is simple, the last isn't too
difficult (but will require implementation specific code), but
the middle step can be challenging: obviously, it only works if
the compiler is installed on the system, but you have to find
where it is installed, verify that it is the same version (or
at least a version which generates binary compatible code),
invoke it with the same options that were used when your code
was compiled, and process any errors.
C++ wasn't designed for this. (Compiled languages generally
aren't.)
The short answer is "no, you can't do that". C and C++ were never designed to do this.
That's pretty much also the long answer to the actual question, but I'll expand a bit on a few ideas.
The code, as compiled by the compiler is pretty certainly not trivial to add things to. There are a few techniques that can be used to "add more code" to a program:
Add a dynamic shared library (DLL), which contains code that has been compiled separately to the existing code. You could of course also have code in your program to output some code, compile this code with the compiler, link it into a dynamic library, and load it in your code.
You could build your own little code-generator that generates machine code in a chunk of memory. Note that you probably need to call a "special" memory allocation function, as "normal" memory allocations are typically not allowed to be executed - you need to allocate "with execute permission" - VirtualAlloc in Windows does have such a flag, and mmap in Linux/Unix flavours does too. And of course, you pretty much have to "be a compiler" to achieve this.
You could naturally also invent your own interpreted language, which would allow your program to load in for example a text-file with commands/instructions to be executed, or contain text inside the program for execution with this language.
But like I said to start with, this is not what C and C++ (and most other compiled languages) were meant for, so it's not going to be as simple as "stick some C++ code in a string, and make it run".
It depends why you want to do this.
If it's for efficiency reasons - you know what a function does only at run time, but it has to be very efficient - then what was already suggested (writing to a file, compiling to a dll / so and dynamically loading it) is your best option.
BUT if the reason you want this is to allow for user-input behaviour, say a general function your read from a database (behaviour or a unit ingame? value of a field in a plot?) - or more generally you just want to change / augment behaviour at runtime with little concern for efficiency, I recommend using an outside scripting language like lua, which easily interacts with your compiled C++ code.
The C and C++ languages compile to binary machine code, unlike Java and C# which generate instructions for a 'virtual machine' or interpreted scripting languages such as JavaScript. The compilation of C++ is performed by a separate executable, the compiler, which is not incorporated into the resulting executable.
So the language does not have any built in "eval" capability to translate further code once compilation is finished.
It's not uncommon for new C/C++ programmers to think they need to do this, but they typically don't. Perhaps you could expand further on what you're actually looking to do.
But if you do actually need to be able to do this, your options are:
Write code to compile a new executable with the new code and then run the resulting program.
Write a simple parser and "virtual machine" of your own,
Look at incorporating an embedded scripting/interpreted language such as Lua,
Try and wrap your head around integrating CINT,
See also: Scripting language for C++
I am learning llvm and wanted to do a proof of concept of an idea I have.
Basically, I want to split my compiler and my runtime. The compiler would give a .bc and the runtime would load it via ParseBitcodeFile and use the ExecutionEngine to run it. This part is working.
Now, to make system calls easily, I want to be able to implement in my runtime C/C++ functions which do all the system calls (file io, stdout printing, etc). My question is, how could I call these functions from the code from my toy compiler, which is compiled in a different step by llvm, and allow it to be used when executed.
Good news: when using the JIT ExecutionEngine, this will just work. When the JIT-er finds an external symbol used by the IR which is not found in the IR itself, it looks in the JIT-ing process itself, so any symbols visible from your host program can be called.
This is explained directly in part 4 of the LLVM tutorial:
Whoa, how does the JIT know about sin and cos? The answer is
surprisingly simple: in this example, the JIT started execution of a
function and got to a function call. It realized that the function was
not yet JIT compiled and invoked the standard set of routines to
resolve the function. In this case, there is no body defined for the
function, so the JIT ended up calling “dlsym("sin")” on the
Kaleidoscope process itself. Since “sin” is defined within the JIT’s
address space, it simply patches up calls in the module to call the
libm version of sin directly.
For the gory details look at lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JIT.cpp - in particular its usage of DynamicLibrary.
Eli's answer is great and you should accept it. There's another alternative, though, which is to separately compile your runtime's source files to LLVM modules (e.g. with Clang) and use ExecutionEngine::addModule() to add them.
It's less convenient, and it means compiling the same files twice (once for your host program, another to get Modules from them), but the advantage is that it enables inlining and other cross-function optimizations from your JITted code.