Related
Under Windows, when I compile C/C++ code in a DLL project in MSVC I am getting 2 files:
MyDll.dll
MyDll.lib
where as far as I understand MyDll.lib contains some kind of pointers table indicating functions locations in the dll. When using this dll, say in an exe file, MyDll.lib is embedded into the exe file during linkage so in runtime it "knows" where the functions are located in MyDll.dll and can use them.
But if I compile the same code under Linux I am getting only one file MySo.so without MySo.a (the equivalent to lib file in Linux) so how does an executable file under Linux knows where the functions are located in MySo.so if nothing is embedded into it during linking?
The MSVC linker can link together object files (.obj) and object libraries (.lib) to produce an .EXE or a .DLL.
To link with a DLL, the process in MSVC is to use a so-called import library (.LIB) that acts as a glue between the C function names and the DLL's export table (in a DLL a function can be exported by name or by ordinal - the latter was often used for undocumented APIs).
However, in most cases the DLL export table has all the function names and thus the import library (.LIB) contains largely redundant information ("import function ABC -> exported function ABC", etc).
It is even possible to generate a .LIB from an existing .DLL.
Linkers on other platforms don't have this "feature" and can link with dynamic libraries directly.
On Linux, the linker (not the dynamic linker) searches through the shared libraries specified at link time and creates references to them inside the executable. When the dynamic linker loads these executables it loads the shared libraries they require into memory and resolves the symbols, which allows the binaries to be run.
MySo.a, if created, would actually include the symbols to be linked directly into the binary instead of the "symbol lookup tables" used on Windows.
rustyx's answer explains the process on Windows more thoroughly than I can; it's been a long time since I've used Windows.
The difference you are seeing is more of an implementation detail - under the hood both Linux and Windows work similarly - you code calls a stub function which is statically linked in your executable and this stub then loads DLL/shlib if necessary (in case of delayed loading, otherwise library is loaded when program starts) and (on first call) resolves symbol via GetProcAddress/dlsym.
The only difference is that on Linux the these stub functions (which are called PLT stubs) are generated dynamically when you link your app with dynamic library (library contains enough information to generate them), whereas on Windows they are instead generated when DLL itself is created, in a separate .lib file.
The two approaches are so similar that it's actually possible to mimic Windows import libraries on Linux (see Implib.so project).
On Linux, you pass MySo.so to the linker and it is able to extract only what is needed for the link phase, putting in a reference that MySo.so is needed at run time.
.dll or .so are shared libs (linked in runtime), while .a and .lib is a static library (linked in compile time). This is no difference between Windows and Linux.
The difference is, how are they handled. Note: the difference is only in the customs, how are they used. It wouldn't be too hard to make Linux builds on the Windows way and vice versa, except that practically no one does this.
If we use a dll, or we call a function even from our own binary, there is a simple and clear way. For example, in C, we see that:
int example(int x) {
...do_something...
}
int ret = example(42);
However, on the asm level, there could be many differences. For example, on x86, a call opcode is executed, and the 42 is given on the stack. Or in some registers. Or anywhere. No one knows that before writing the dll, how it will be used. Or how the projects will want to use it, possible written with a compiler (or in a language!) which doesn't even exist now (or is it unknown for the developers of the dll).
For example, by default, both C and Pascal puts the arguments (and gets the return values) from the stack - but they are doing it in different order. You can also exchange arguments between your functions in the registers by some - compiler-dependent - optimization.
As you see correctly, the Windows custom is that building a dll, we also create a minimal .a/.lib with it. This minimal static library is only a wrapper, the symbols (functions) of that dll are reached through it. This makes the required asm-level calling conversions.
Its advantage is the compatibility. Its disadvantage is that if you have only a .dll, you can have a hard time to figure out, how its functions want to be called. This makes the usage of dlls a hacking task, if the developer of the dll does not give you the .a. Thus, it serves mainly closedness purposes, for example so is it easier to get extra cash for the SDKs.
Its another disadvantage is than even if you use a dynamical library, you need to compile this little wrapper statically.
In Linux, the binary interface of the dlls is standard and follows the C convention. Thus, no .a is required and there is binary compatibility between the shared libs, in exchange we don't have the advantages of the microsoft custom.
Well, trying to build a simple exe in visual studio 2012, with c++ win32 console app, just with a
printf("-----");
After build the release version, its running ok.
When transfer to another windows 7 clean installation, at running i get notice that the MSVCP110.DLL is missing...
Its not a native app ??? why extern dll is needed ?
In old win95 I make many executables with visual C 6 and its run standalone withou any dll.
I will always deplay this dll's with the "native" exe ?
When you write a C++ program, you use a few low-level libraries to interface with the machine. The C++ Standard Library is one example. Consider for example, new. When you call new in your program, you're invoking a piece of code that implements that functionality. Where is that actual code?
It's in a library. That library is deployed in a few different ways. One way is through dynamic linking, where the library is in the form of a DLL that needs to be present on the machine where you run your program. That's what MSVCP110.DLL is -- it's one of the library files your program was compiled against. Another way is to use static linking, where the code from that library is compiled directly in to your program. This results in a signifigant increase in the size of your application, but the other side of that coin is you don't need those library files to be on your target machine. You also need to make sure that other libraries your program use are also built against the same static library. If your program shares data with other programs, you further may need to ensure that those programs use the same static libraries.
Microsoft and Windows aren't unique in this. The same thing happens under Linux, albeit the libraries have different names.
There are pros and cons to using either shared libraries (eg dynamic linking) or static libraries. It's simple and catchy to say "gahrrr I hate shared libraries" but unless you understand why either is appropriate in what situation you stand to deploy a poorly-designed program.
in my Windows C++ program I have a few dependencies on DLLs (coming with drivers of input devices). I don't actually load the DLLs myself, but the drivers provide (small) .lib library that I statically link against (and I assume it is those libraries that make sure the DLLs are present in the system and loads them). I'm writing an application that can take input from a series of video cameras. At run-time, the user chooses which one to use. Currently my problem is that my routines that query whether a camera is connected already require the functionality of the camera being present on the system. I.e. let's say there is camera model A and B, the user has to install the drivers for A and B, even if he knows he just owns model B. The user has to do this, as otherwise my program won't even start (then when it started it will of course tell the user which of the two cameras are actually connected).
I'd like to know whether there is any possibility, at run-time, to determine which of the DLLs are present, and for those that aren't, somehow disable loading even the static (and, thus, dynamic) component.
So basically my problem is that you cannot do if(DLL was found){ #include "source that includes header using functions defined in lib which loads DLL"}
I think using the DELAYLOAD linker flag may provide the functionality required. It would allow linking with the .lib files but would only attempt to load the DLL if it is used:
link.exe ... /DELAYLOAD:cameraA.dll /DELAYLOAD:cameraB.dll Delayimp.lib
The code would be structured something similar to:
if (/* user selected A */)
{
// Use camera A functions, resulting in load of cameraA's DLL.
}
else
{
// Use camera B functions, resulting in load of cameraB's DLL.
}
From Linker Support for Delay-Loaded DLLs
:
Beginning with Visual C++ 6.0, when statically linking with a DLL, the
linker provides options to delay load the DLL until the program calls
a function in that DLL.
An application can delay load a DLL using the /DELAYLOAD (Delay Load Import)
linker option with a helper function (default implementation provided by
Visual C++). The helper function will load the DLL at run time by calling
LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress for you.
You should consider delay loading a DLL if:
- Your program may not call a function in the DLL.
- A function in the DLL may not get called until late in your program's
execution.
You need to load the libs at run-time. Take a look a look at LoadLibary.
This is an MSDN article about this: DLLs the Dynamic Way I just glanced over this. It's very old.
This one shows the usage of LoadLibrary: Using Run-Time Dynamic Linking
I have been involved in some debate with respect to libraries in Linux, and would like to confirm some things.
It is to my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong and I will edit my post later), that there are two ways of using libraries when building an application:
Static libraries (.a files): At link time, a copy of the entire library is put into the final application so that the functions within the library are always available to the calling application
Shared objects (.so files): At link time, the object is just verified against its API via the corresponding header (.h) file. The library isn't actually used until runtime, where it is needed.
The obvious advantage of static libraries is that they allow the entire application to be self-contained, while the benefit of dynamic libraries is that the ".so" file can be replaced (ie: in case it needs to be updated due to a security bug) without requiring the base application to be recompiled.
I have heard some people make a distinction between shared objects and dynamic link libraries (DLL's), even though they are both ".so" files. Is there any distinction between shared objects and DLLs when it comes to C/C++ development on Linux or any other POSIX compliant OS (ie: MINIX, UNIX, QNX, etc)? I am told that one key difference (so far) is that shared objects are just used at runtime, while DLL's must be opened first using the dlopen() call within the application.
Finally, I have also heard some developers mention "shared archives", which, to my understanding, are also static libraries themselves, but are never used by an application directly. Instead, other static libraries will link against the "shared archives" to pull some (but not all) functions/resources from the shared archive into the static library being built.
Thank you all in advance for your assistance.
Update
In the context in which these terms were provided to me, it was effectively erroneous terms used by a team of Windows developers that had to learn Linux. I tried to correct them, but the (incorrect) language norms stuck.
Shared Object: A library that is automatically linked into a program when the program starts, and exists as a standalone file. The library is included in the linking list at compile time (ie: LDOPTS+=-lmylib for a library file named mylib.so). The library must be present at compile time, and when the application starts.
Static Library: A library that is merged into the actual program itself at build time for a single (larger) application containing the application code and the library code that is automatically linked into a program when the program is built, and the final binary containing both the main program and the library itself exists as a single standalone binary file. The library is included in the linking list at compile time (ie: LDOPTS+=-lmylib for a library file named mylib.a). The library must be present at compile time.
DLL: Essentially the same as a shared object, but rather than being included in the linking list at compile time, the library is loaded via dlopen()/dlsym() commands so that the library does not need to be present at build time for the program to compile. Also, the library does not need to be present (necessarily) at application startup or compile time, as it is only needed at the moment the dlopen/dlsym calls are made.
Shared Archive: Essentially the same as a static library, but is compiled with the "export-shared" and "-fPIC" flags. The library is included in the linking list at compile time (ie: LDOPTS+=-lmylibS for a library file named mylibS.a). The distinction between the two is that this additional flag is required if a shared object or DLL wants to statically link the shared archive into its own code AND be able to make the functions in the shared object available to other programs, rather than just using them internal to the DLL. This is useful in the case when someone provides you with a static library, and you wish to repackage it as an SO. The library must be present at compile time.
Additional Update
The distinction between "DLL" and "shared library" was just a (lazy, inaccurate) colloquialism in the company I worked in at the time (Windows developers being forced to shift to Linux development, and the term stuck), adhering to the descriptions noted above.
Additionally, the trailing "S" literal after the library name, in the case of "shared archives" was just a convention used at that company, and not in the industry in general.
A static library(.a) is a library that can be linked directly into the final executable produced by the linker,it is contained in it and there is no need to have the library into the system where the executable will be deployed.
A shared library(.so) is a library that is linked but not embedded in the final executable, so will be loaded when the executable is launched and need to be present in the system where the executable is deployed.
A dynamic link library on windows(.dll) is like a shared library(.so) on linux but there are some differences between the two implementations that are related to the OS (Windows vs Linux) :
A DLL can define two kinds of functions: exported and internal. The exported functions are intended to be called by other modules, as well as from within the DLL where they are defined. Internal functions are typically intended to be called only from within the DLL where they are defined.
An SO library on Linux doesn't need special export statement to indicate exportable symbols, since all symbols are available to an interrogating process.
I've always thought that DLLs and shared objects are just different terms for the same thing - Windows calls them DLLs, while on UNIX systems they're shared objects, with the general term - dynamically linked library - covering both (even the function to open a .so on UNIX is called dlopen() after 'dynamic library').
They are indeed only linked at application startup, however your notion of verification against the header file is incorrect. The header file defines prototypes which are required in order to compile the code which uses the library, but at link time the linker looks inside the library itself to make sure the functions it needs are actually there. The linker has to find the function bodies somewhere at link time or it'll raise an error. It ALSO does that at runtime, because as you rightly point out the library itself might have changed since the program was compiled. This is why ABI stability is so important in platform libraries, as the ABI changing is what breaks existing programs compiled against older versions.
Static libraries are just bundles of object files straight out of the compiler, just like the ones that you are building yourself as part of your project's compilation, so they get pulled in and fed to the linker in exactly the same way, and unused bits are dropped in exactly the same way.
I can elaborate on the details of DLLs in Windows to help clarify those mysteries to my friends here in *NIX-land...
A DLL is like a Shared Object file. Both are images, ready to load into memory by the program loader of the respective OS. The images are accompanied by various bits of metadata to help linkers and loaders make the necessary associations and use the library of code.
Windows DLLs have an export table. The exports can be by name, or by table position (numeric). The latter method is considered "old school" and is much more fragile -- rebuilding the DLL and changing the position of a function in the table will end in disaster, whereas there is no real issue if linking of entry points is by name. So, forget that as an issue, but just be aware it's there if you work with "dinosaur" code such as 3rd-party vendor libs.
Windows DLLs are built by compiling and linking, just as you would for an EXE (executable application), but the DLL is meant to not stand alone, just like an SO is meant to be used by an application, either via dynamic loading, or by link-time binding (the reference to the SO is embedded in the application binary's metadata, and the OS program loader will auto-load the referenced SO's). DLLs can reference other DLLs, just as SOs can reference other SOs.
In Windows, DLLs will make available only specific entry points. These are called "exports". The developer can either use a special compiler keyword to make a symbol an externally-visible (to other linkers and the dynamic loader), or the exports can be listed in a module-definition file which is used at link time when the DLL itself is being created. The modern practice is to decorate the function definition with the keyword to export the symbol name. It is also possible to create header files with keywords which will declare that symbol as one to be imported from a DLL outside the current compilation unit. Look up the keywords __declspec(dllexport) and __declspec(dllimport) for more information.
One of the interesting features of DLLs is that they can declare a standard "upon load/unload" handler function. Whenever the DLL is loaded or unloaded, the DLL can perform some initialization or cleanup, as the case may be. This maps nicely into having a DLL as an object-oriented resource manager, such as a device driver or shared object interface.
When a developer wants to use an already-built DLL, she must either reference an "export library" (*.LIB) created by the DLL developer when she created the DLL, or she must explicitly load the DLL at run time and request the entry point address by name via the LoadLibrary() and GetProcAddress() mechanisms. Most of the time, linking against a LIB file (which simply contains the linker metadata for the DLL's exported entry points) is the way DLLs get used. Dynamic loading is reserved typically for implementing "polymorphism" or "runtime configurability" in program behaviors (accessing add-ons or later-defined functionality, aka "plugins").
The Windows way of doing things can cause some confusion at times; the system uses the .LIB extension to refer to both normal static libraries (archives, like POSIX *.a files) and to the "export stub" libraries needed to bind an application to a DLL at link time. So, one should always look to see if a *.LIB file has a same-named *.DLL file; if not, chances are good that *.LIB file is a static library archive, and not export binding metadata for a DLL.
You are correct in that static files are copied to the application at link-time, and that shared files are just verified at link time and loaded at runtime.
The dlopen call is not only for shared objects, if the application wishes to do so at runtime on its behalf, otherwise the shared objects are loaded automatically when the application starts. DLLS and .so are the same thing. the dlopen exists to add even more fine-grained dynamic loading abilities for processes. You dont have to use dlopen yourself to open/use the DLLs, that happens too at application startup.
I suspect some kind of misunderstanding here, but header files, at least of the .h variety used for compiling source code, are most definitely NOT checked during link time.
.h, and for that matter, .c/.cpp files, are only involved during the compilation phase, which includes preprocessing. Once the object code has been created the header file is long gone well before the linker gets around to dealing with things.
I know this may seem quite basic to geeks. But I want to make it crystal clear.
When I want to use a Win32 DLL, usually I just call the APIs like LoadLibrary() and GetProcAdderss(). But recently, I am developing with DirectX9, and I need to add d3d9.lib, d3dx9.lib, etc files.
I have heard enough that LIB is for static linking and DLL is for dynamic linking.
So my current understanding is that LIB contains the implementation of the methods and is statically linked at link time as part of the final EXE file. While DLL is dynamic loaded at runtime and is not part of the final EXE file.
But sometimes, there're some LIB files coming with the DLL files, so:
What are these LIB files for?
How do they achieve what they are meant for?
Is there any tools that can let me inspect the internals of these LIB files?
Update 1
After checking wikipedia, I remember that these LIB files are called import library.
But I am wondering how it works with my main application and the DLLs to be dynamically loaded.
Update 2
Just as RBerteig said, there're some stub code in the LIB files born with the DLLs. So the calling sequence should be like this:
My main application --> stub in the LIB --> real target DLL
So what information should be contained in these LIBs? I could think of the following:
The LIB file should contain the fullpath of the corresponding DLL; So the DLL could be loaded by the runtime.
The relative address (or file offset?) of each DLL export method's entry point should be encoded in the stub; So correct jumps/method calls could be made.
Am I right on this? Is there something more?
BTW: Is there any tool that can inspect an import library? If I can see it, there'll be no more doubts.
Linking to a DLL file can occur implicitly at compile link time, or explicitly at run time. Either way, the DLL ends up loaded into the processes memory space, and all of its exported entry points are available to the application.
If used explicitly at run time, you use LoadLibrary() and GetProcAddress() to manually load the DLL and get pointers to the functions you need to call.
If linked implicitly when the program is built, then stubs for each DLL export used by the program get linked in to the program from an import library, and those stubs get updated as the EXE and the DLL are loaded when the process launches. (Yes, I've simplified more than a little here...)
Those stubs need to come from somewhere, and in the Microsoft tool chain they come from a special form of .LIB file called an import library. The required .LIB is usually built at the same time as the DLL, and contains a stub for each function exported from the DLL.
Confusingly, a static version of the same library would also be shipped as a .LIB file. There is no trivial way to tell them apart, except that LIBs that are import libraries for DLLs will usually be smaller (often much smaller) than the matching static LIB would be.
If you use the GCC toolchain, incidentally, you don't actually need import libraries to match your DLLs. The version of the Gnu linker ported to Windows understands DLLs directly, and can synthesize most any required stubs on the fly.
Update
If you just can't resist knowing where all the nuts and bolts really are and what is really going on, there is always something at MSDN to help. Matt Pietrek's article An In-Depth Look into the Win32 Portable Executable File Format is a very complete overview of the format of the EXE file and how it gets loaded and run. Its even been updated to cover .NET and more since it originally appeared in MSDN Magazine ca. 2002.
Also, it can be helpful to know how to learn exactly what DLLs are used by a program. The tool for that is Dependency Walker, aka depends.exe. A version of it is included with Visual Studio, but the latest version is available from its author at http://www.dependencywalker.com/. It can identify all of the DLLs that were specified at link time (both early load and delay load) and it can also run the program and watch for any additional DLLs it loads at run time.
Update 2
I've reworded some of the earlier text to clarify it on re-reading, and to use the terms of art implicit and explicit linking for consistency with MSDN.
So, we have three ways that library functions might be made available to be used by a program. The obvious follow up question is then: "How to I choose which way?"
Static linking is how the bulk of the program itself is linked. All of your object files are listed, and get collected together in to the EXE file by the linker. Along the way, the linker takes care of minor chores like fixing up references to global symbols so that your modules can call each other's functions. Libraries can also be statically linked. The object files that make up the library are collected together by a librarian in a .LIB file which the linker searches for modules containing symbols that are needed. One effect of static linking is that only those modules from the library that are used by the program are linked to it; other modules are ignored. For instance, the traditional C math library includes many trigonometry functions. But if you link against it and use cos(), you don't end up with a copy of the code for sin() or tan() unless you also called those functions. For large libraries with a rich set of features, this selective inclusion of modules is important. On many platforms such as embedded systems, the total size of code available for use in the library can be large compared to the space available to store an executable in the device. Without selective inclusion, it would be harder to manage the details of building programs for those platforms.
However, having a copy of the same library in every program running creates a burden on a system that normally runs lots of processes. With the right kind of virtual memory system, pages of memory that have identical content need only exist once in the system, but can be used by many processes. This creates a benefit for increasing the chances that the pages containing code are likely to be identical to some page in as many other running processes as possible. But, if programs statically link to the runtime library, then each has a different mix of functions each laid out in that processes memory map at different locations, and there aren't many sharable code pages unless it is a program that all by itself is run in more than process. So the idea of a DLL gained another, major, advantage.
A DLL for a library contains all of its functions, ready for use by any client program. If many programs load that DLL, they can all share its code pages. Everybody wins. (Well, until you update a DLL with new version, but that isn't part of this story. Google DLL Hell for that side of the tale.)
So the first big choice to make when planning a new project is between dynamic and static linkage. With static linkage, you have fewer files to install, and you are immune from third parties updating a DLL you use. However, your program is larger, and it isn't quite as good citizen of the Windows ecosystem. With dynamic linkage, you have more files to install, you might have issues with a third party updating a DLL you use, but you are generally being friendlier to other processes on the system.
A big advantage of a DLL is that it can be loaded and used without recompiling or even relinking the main program. This can allow a third party library provider (think Microsoft and the C runtime, for example) to fix a bug in their library and distribute it. Once an end user installs the updated DLL, they immediately get the benefit of that bug fix in all programs that use that DLL. (Unless it breaks things. See DLL Hell.)
The other advantage comes from the distinction between implicit and explicit loading. If you go to the extra effort of explicit loading, then the DLL might not even have existed when the program was written and published. This allows for extension mechanisms that can discover and load plugins, for instance.
These .LIB import library files are used in the following project property, Linker->Input->Additional Dependencies, when building a bunch of dll's that need additional information at link time which is supplied by the import library .LIB files. In the example below to not get linker errors I need to reference to dll's A,B,C, and D through their lib files. (note for the linker to find these files you may need to include their deployment path in Linker->General->Additional Library Directories else you will get a build error about being unable to find any of the provided lib files.)
If your solution is building all dynamic libraries you may have been able to avoid this explicit dependency specification by relying instead on the reference flags exposed under the Common Properties->Framework and References dialog. These flags appear to automatically do the linking on your behalf using the *.lib files.
This however is as it says a Common Properties, which is not configuration or platform specific. If you need to support a mixed build scenario as in our application we had a build configuration to render a static build and a special configuration that built a constrained build of a subset of assemblies that were deployed as dynamic libraries. I had used the Use Library Dependency Inputs and Link Library Dependencies flags set to true under various cases to get things to build and later realizing to simplify things but when introducing my code to the static builds I introduced a ton of linker warnings and the build was incredibly slow for the static builds. I wound up introducing a bunch of these sort of warnings...
warning LNK4006: "bool __cdecl XXX::YYY() already defined in CoreLibrary.lib(JSource.obj); second definition ignored D.lib(JSource.obj)
And I wound up using the manual specification of Additional Dependencies to satisfy the linker for the dynamic builds while keeping the static builders happy by not using a common property that slowed them down. When I deploy the dynamic subset build I only deploy the dll files as these lib files are only used at link time, not at runtime.
Here are some related MSDN topics to answer my question:
Linking an Executable to a DLL
Linking Implicitly
Determining Which Linking Method to Use
Building an Import Library and Export File
There are three kinds of libraries: static, shared and dynamically loaded libraries.
The static libraries are linked with the code at the linking phase, so they are actually in the executable, unlike the shared library, which has only stubs (symbols) to look for in the shared library file, which is loaded at run time before the main function gets called.
The dynamically loaded ones are much like the shared libraries, except they are loaded when and if the need arises by the code you've written.
In my mind, there are two method to link dll to exe.
Use dll and the import library (.lib file) implicitly
Use functions like loadlibrary() explicitly