I have made my own implementations of many of the STL features like Vectors, Lists, BST, Queue, Stack and given them all the functions that an STL corresponding library has....
Now i want to use this library by
#include "myLibName.h"
What I Did :
g++ -o -c myLib myLib.cpp
From This I got the object file...
But when i compile programs i have to link the object file myself...
Is there any way that i can do without linking...like the iostream and the other libraries are linked automatically.
I know that a SHARED OBJECT file (eg. libc.so in C) is where all the implementations are held in C....
If that's the solution then how do i make any and use it like other standard libraries in C++ without linking object file every time.
PS: After a lot of efforts i have created these libraries myself...Now Struck at the final step...Pls Help...
You can't unless you're going to write your own toolchain. GCC links in its runtime and standard library because it's GCC and knows that it should; it won't magically do the same with your library.
Conventionally, either make your library header-only or ship a .a/.so/.dll for devs to link against at linktime. In the latter two cases you'll also need to ship the .so/.dll for users to link against at runtime.
To make your build process cleaner for large projects in which you need to link multiple projects, you can use Makefiles.
After that you need to just type make at the terminal to compile and build the whole project.
Another solution is the following, although many people don't recommend it,
header.h
class Foo
{
// some variable and method declarations.
}
header.h is your header file which will contain your declarations.
implement.cpp // this is the implementation file
#include "header.h"
// Now implement various methods you declared in your "header.h" file.
implement.cpp is your implementation file which contains the implementation and the definition of static members.
main.cpp
#include "header.cpp"
// use your methods.
Now you don't need to link your object files, just do g++ -Wall main.cpp
First of all, you should probably differentiate between STL and the Standard C++ Library.
Each compiler comes with its own implementation of the Standard Library, some of them being (at least mostly) compatible (see clang++ and g++). So basically your way to go would be to modify the compiler you are using.
If you are writing header-only implementations, then no library is needed to be built and you can use it without linking. But in that case your work has to be distributed as source and not as library + header.
If you want to simply distribute your library and do not mind to link against the shared or static library you distributed, you should build a shared or static library, depending on the case. But you will have to link it when it is used.
Related
I've been recently reading about static and dynamic linking and I understood the differences and how to create static and dynamic library and link it to my project
But, a question came to my mind that I couldn't answer or find answer for it as It's a specific question ... when I compile my code on linux using the line
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("hello, world!\n");
}
compiling using this command
[root#host ~]# gcc helloworld.c -o helloworld
which type of linking is this??
so the stdio.h is statically or dynamically linked to my project???
Libraries are mostly used as shared resources so, that several different programs can reuse the same pre-compiled code in some manner. Some libraries come as standard libraries which are delivered with the operating system and/or the compiler package. Some libraries come with other third party projects.
When you run just gcc in the manner of your example, you really run a compiler driver which provides you with few compilation-related functions, calling different parts of the compilation process and finally linking your application with a few standard libraries. The type of the libraries is chosen based on the qualifiers you provide. By default it will try to find dynamic (shared) libraries and if missing will attempt for static. Unless you tell it to use static libs only (-static).
When you link to project libraries you tell the gcc/g++ which libraries to use in a manner (-lname). In such a way it will do the same as with the standard libraries, looking for '.so' first and '.a' second, unless -static is used. You can directly specify the path to the full library name as well, actually telling it which library to use. There are several other qualifiers which control the linking process, please look man for 'g++' and 'ld'.
A library must contain real program code and data. The way it is linked to the main executable (and other libraries) is through symbol tables which are parts of the libraries. A symbol table contains entries for global functions an data.
There is a slight difference in the structure of the shared and static libs. The former one is actually a pre-linked object, similar to an executable image with some extra info related to the symbols and relocation (such a library can be loaded at any address in the memory and still should work correctly). The static library is actually an archive of '.o' files, ready for a full-blown linking.
The usual steps to create a library is to compile multiple parts of your program into '.o' files which in turn could be linked in a shared library by 'ld' (or g++) or archived in .a with 'ar'. Afterwards you can use them for linking in a manner described above.
An object file (.o) is created one per a .cpp source file. The source file contains code and can include any number of header files, as 'stdio.h' in your case (or cstdio) or whatever. These files become a part of the source which is insured by the cpp preprocessor. The latter takes care of macros and flattening all the #include hierarchies so that the compiler sees only a single text stream which it converts into '.o'. In general header files should not contain executable code, but declarations and macros, though it is not always true. But it does not matter since they become welded with the main source file.
Hope this would explain it.
which type of linking is this?? so the stdio.h is statically or
dynamically linked to my project???
stdio.h is not linked, it is a header file, and contains code / text, no compiled objects.
The normal link process prefers the '.so' library over the '.a' archive when both are found in the same directory. Your simple command is linking with the .so (if that is in the correct path) or the .a (if that is found in a path with no .so equivalent).
To achieve static linking, you have several choices, including
1) copy the '.a' archive to a directory you create, then specify that
directory (-L)
2) specify the path to the '.a' in the build command. Boost example:
$(CC) $(CC_FLAGS) $< /usr/local/lib/libboost_chrono.a -o $# $(LIB_DIRs) $(LIB_NMs)
I have used both techniques, I find the first easier.
Note that archive code might refer to symbols in another archive. You can command the linker to search a library multiple times.
If you let the build link with the .so, this does not pull in a copy of the entire .so into the build. Instead, the .so (the entire lib) is loaded into memory (if not already there) at run-time, after the program starts. For most applications, this is considered a 'small' start-up performance hit as the program adjusts its memory map (auto-magically behind the scenes) Note that the app itself can control when to load the .so, called dynamic library.
Unrelated:
// If your C++ 'Hello World' has no class ... why bother?
#include <iostream>
class Hello_t {
public:
Hello_t() { std::cout << "\n Hello" << std::flush; }
~Hello_t() { std::cout << "World!" << std::endl; }
void operator() () { std::cout << " C++ "; }
};
int main(int, char**) { Hello_t()(); }
I have created several C++ libraries that currently are header-only. Both the interface and the implementation of my classes are written in the same .hpp file.
I've recently started thinking that this kind of design is not very good:
If the user wants to compile the library and link it dynamically, he/she can't.
Changing a single line of code requires full recompilation of existing projects that depend on the library.
I really enjoy the aspects of header-only libraries though: all functions get potentially inlined and they're very very easy to include in your projects - no need to compile/link anything, just a simple #include directive.
Is it possible to get the best of both worlds? I mean - allowing the user to choose how he/she wants to use the library. It would also speed up development, as I'd work on the library in "dynamically-linking mode" to avoid absurd compilation times, and release my finished products in "header-only mode" to maximize performance.
The first logical step is dividing interface and implementation in .hpp and .inl files.
I'm not sure how to go forward, though. I've seen many libraries prepend LIBRARY_API macros to their function/class declarations - maybe something similar would be needed to allow the user to choose?
All of my library functions are prefixed with the inline keyword, to avoid "multiple definition of..." errors. I assume the keyword would be replaced by a LIBRARY_INLINE macro in the .inl files? The macro would resolve to inline for "header-only mode", and to nothing for the "dynamically-linking mode".
Preliminary note: I am assuming a Windows environment, but this should be easily transferable to other environments.
Your library has to be prepared for four situations:
Used as header-only library
Used as static library
Used as dynamic library (functions are imported)
Built as dynamic library (functions are exported)
So let's make up four preprocessor defines for those cases: INLINE_LIBRARY, STATIC_LIBRARY, IMPORT_LIBRARY, and EXPORT_LIBRARY (it is just an example; you may want to use some sophisticated naming scheme).
The user has to define one of them, depending on what he/she wants.
Then you can write your headers like this:
// foo.hpp
#if defined(INLINE_LIBRARY)
#define LIBRARY_API inline
#elif defined(STATIC_LIBRARY)
#define LIBRARY_API
#elif defined(EXPORT_LIBRARY)
#define LIBRARY_API __declspec(dllexport)
#elif defined(IMPORT_LIBRARY)
#define LIBRARY_API __declspec(dllimport)
#endif
LIBRARY_API void foo();
#ifdef INLINE_LIBRARY
#include "foo.cpp"
#endif
Your implementation file looks just like usual:
// foo.cpp
#include "foo.hpp"
#include <iostream>
void foo()
{
std::cout << "foo";
}
If INLINE_LIBRARY is defined, the functions are declared inline and the implementation gets included like a .inl file.
If STATIC_LIBRARY is defined, the functions are declared without any specifier, and the user has to include the .cpp file into his/her build process.
If IMPORT_LIBRARY is defined, the functions are imported, and there isn't a need for any implementation.
If EXPORT_LIBRARY is defined, the functions are exported and the user has to compile those .cpp files.
Switching between static / import / export is a really common thing, but I'm not sure if adding header-only to the equation is a good thing. Normally, there are good reasons for defining something inline or not to do so.
Personally, I like to put everything into .cpp files unless it really has to be inlined (like templates) or it makes sense performance-wise (very small functions, usually one-liners). This reduces both compile time and - way more important - dependencies.
But if I choose to define something inline, I always put it in separate .inl files, just to keep the header files clean and easy to understand.
It is operating system and compiler specific. On Linux with a very recent GCC compiler (version 4.9) you might produce a static library using interprocedural linktime optimization.
This means that you build your library with g++ -O2 -flto both at compile and at library link time, and that you use your library with g++ -O2 -flto both at compile and link time of the invoking program.
This is to complement #Horstling's answer.
You can either create a static or a dynamic library. When you create statically-linked libraries, compiled code for all functions/objects will be saved to a file (with .lib extension in Windows). At main project (the project using the library) 's link time, these codes will be linked into your final executable together with the main project codes. So the final executable wouldn't have any runtime dependency.
Dynamically linked libraries will be merged into the main project at run time (and not link time). When you compile the library you get a .dll file (which contains actual compiled code) and a .lib file (which contains enough data for the compiler/runtime to find functions/objects in the .dll file). At link time, the executable will be configured to load the .dll and use compiled code from that .dll as needed. You will need to distribute the .dll file with your executable to be able to run it.
There is no need to choose between static or dynamic linking (or header-only) when designing your library, you create multiple project/makefiles, one to create a static .lib, another to create a .lib/.dll pair, and distribute both versions, for the user to choose between. (You'll need to use preprocessor macros like the ones #Horstling suggested).
You cannot put any templates in a pre-compiled library, unless you use a technique called Explicit Instantiation, which limits template parameters.
Also note that modern compiler/linkers usually do not respect the inline modifier. They may inline a function even if it's not designated as inline, or may dynamically call another that has inline modifier, as they see fit. (Regardless, I'll advise explicitly putting inline where applicable for maximum compatibility). So, there won't be any runtime performance penalty if you use a statically linked library instead of a header-only library (and enable compiler/linker optimizations, of course). As others have suggested, for really small functions that are sure to benefit from being called inline, it is best practice to put them in header files, so dynamically linked libraries will also not suffer any significant performance loss. (In any case, inlining functions will only affect performance for functions that are being called very often, inside loops that are going to be called thousands/millions of times).
Instead of putting inline functions in header files (with an #include "foo.cpp" in your header), you can change makefile/project settings and add foo.cpp to the list of source files to be compiled. This way, if you change any function implementation there will be no need to re-compile the whole project and only foo.cpp will be re-compiled. As I mentioned earlier, your small functions will still be inlined by the optimizing compiler, and you don't need to worry about that.
If you use/design a pre-compiled library, you should consider the case where the library is compiled with a different version of compiler to the main project. Each different compiler version (even different configurations, like Debug or Release) uses a different C runtime (things like memcpy, printf, fopen, ...) and C++ standard library runtime (things like std::vector<>, std::string, ...). These different library implementations may complicate linking, or even create runtime errors.
As a general rule, always avoid sharing compiler runtime objects (data structures that are not defined by standards, like FILE*) across libraries, because incompatible data structures will lead to runtime errors.
When linking your project, C/C++ runtime functions must be linked into your library .lib or .lib/.dll, or your executable .exe. C/C++ runtime itself can be linked as static or dynamic library (you can set this in makefile/project settings).
You will find that dynamically linking to C/C++ runtime in both the library and the main project (even when you compile the library itself as a static library) avoids most linking problems (with duplicate function implementations in multiple runtime versions). Of course you would need to distribute runtime DLLs for all used versions with your executable and library.
There are scenarios that statically linking to C/C++ runtime is needed, and the best approach in these cases would be to compile the library with the same compiler setting as the main project to avoid linking problems.
Rationale
Put as little as necessary in header files and as much as possible in library modules, because of the very reasons that you mentioned: compile-time dependency and long compilation time. The only good reasons for header-only modules are:
generic templates for user-defined template parameter;
very short convenience functions when inlining gives significant
performance.
In case 1, it is often possible to hide some functionality that does not depend on the user-defined type in a .cpp file.
Conclusion
If you stick to this rationale, then there is no choice: templated functionality that must allow user-defined types cannot be pre-compiled, but requires a header-only implementation. Other functionality should be hidden from the user in a library to avoid exposing them to the implementation details.
Rather than a dynamic library, you could have a precompiled static library and thin header file. In an interactive quick build, you get the benefit of not having to recompile the world if implementation details changes. But a fully optimized release build can do global optimization and still figure out it can inline functions. Basically, with "link-time code generation" the toolset does the trick you were thinking about.
I'm familiar with Microsoft's compiler, which I know for sure does this as of Visual Studio 2010 (if not earlier).
Templated code will necessarily be header-only: for instantiating this code, the type parameters must be known at compilation time. There is no way to embed template code in shared libraries. Only .NET and Java support JIT instantiation from byte-code.
Re: non-template code, for short one-liners I suggest keeping it header-only. Inline functions give the compiler a lot more opportunities to optimize the final code.
To avoid "insane compilation time", Microsoft Visual C++ has a "precompiled headers" feature. I do not think GCC has a similar feature.
Long functions should not be inlined in any case.
I had one project which had header-only bits, compiled library bits and some bits I could not decide where belonged. I ended up having .inc files, conditionally included in either .hpp or .cxx depending on #ifdef. Truth to be told, the project was always compiled in "max inline" mode, so after a while I got rid of the .inc files and simply moved the contents to .hpp files.
Is it possible to get the best of both worlds?
In terms; limitations arise because tools aren't smart enough. This answer gives the current best effort that is still portable enough to be used effectively.
I've recently started thinking that this kind of design is not very good.
It ought to be. Header-only libraries are ideal because they simplify deployment: makes the reusing mechanism of the language similar to almost all others', which is just the sane thing to do. But this is C++. Current C++ tools still rely on half-a-century-old linking models that remove important degrees of flexibility, such as choosing which entry points to import or export on an individual level without being forced to change the library's original source code. Also, C++ lacks a proper module system and still relies on glorified copy-paste operations to work (although this is just a side factor to the problem in question).
In fact, MSVC is a little better in this regard. It is the only major implementation trying to achieve some degree of modularity in C++ (by attempting e.g. C++ modules). And it is the only compiler that actually allows e.g. the following:
//// Module.c++
#pragma once
inline void Func() { /* ... */ }
//// Program1.c++
#include <Module.c++>
// Inlines or "vague" links Func(), whatever is better.
int main() { Func(); }
//// Program2.c++
// This forces Func() to be imported.
// The declaration must come *BEFORE* the definition.
__declspec(dllimport) __declspec(noinline) void Func();
#include <Module.c++>
int main() { Func(); }
//// Program3.c++
// This forces Func() to be exported.
__declspec(dllexport) __declspec(noinline) void Func();
#include <Module.c++>
Note that this can be used to selectively import and export individual symbols from the library, although still cumbersomely.
GCC also accepts this (but the order of the declarations must be changed) and Clang does not have any way to achieve the same effect without changing the library's source.
I'm developing a collection of C++ classes and am struggling with how to share the code in a way that maintains organization without compromising ease of compilation for a user of the collection.
Options that I have seen include:
Distribute compiled library file
Put the source in the header file (with implicit inline as discussed in this answer)
Use symbolic links to allow the compiler to find the files.
I'm currently using the third option where, for each class the I want to include I symbolic link each classess headers and source files (e.g. ln -s <path_to_class folder>/myclass.cpp) This works well except that I can't move the project folder location (it breaks all the symlinks) and I have to have all those symlinked files hanging around.
I like the second option (it has the appearance of Java), but I'm worried about code size bloat if everything is declared inline.
A user of the collection will create a project folder somewhere, and somehow include the collection into their compilation process.
I'd like a few things to be possible:
Easy compilation (something like gcc *.cpp from the project folder)
Easy distribution of library in uncompiled form.
Library organization by module.
Compiled code size is not bloated.
I'm not worried about documentation (Doxygen takes care of that) or compile time: the overall modules are small and even the largest projects on the slowest machines won't take more than a few seconds to compile.
I'm using the GCC compiler, if it makes any difference.
A library is the best option (in my opinion) of the three you raised. Then provide the header file(s) in the include path and the library in the linker path.
Since you also want to distribute the library in source code form, I would be inclined to provide a compressed archive (gzip, 7-zip, tarball, or other preferred format) in a central repository.
If I understand correctly, you do not want users to have to include the .cpp files in their build, but instead just want them to use either: (i) the headers directly, (ii) use a compiled form of the lib.
Your requirements are a bit unusual, but they can be achieved. It seems to me like you could organize your code in the following manner. First, have a global define that dictates whether or not you are compiling the library:
// global.h
// ...
#define LIB_SOURCE
// ...
Then in every header file, you check whether that define is set: if the library is distributed as a static/shared lib, the definitions are not included, otherwise, the '.cpp' file is included from the header file.
// A.h
#ifndef _A_H
#include "global.h"
#ifdef LIB_SOURCE
#include "A.cpp"
#endif
// ...
#endif
where 'A.cpp' would contain the actual implementation.
Again, this is a very strange way of doing things and I would actually advise against such practice. A better way (but one which requires more work) is to always distribute a shared library. But to keep things independent of the compiler, write a C layer around it. This way, you have a portable, maintainable library.
As for some of the other requirements:
Keep the build process simple by providing a Makefile
If you worry about the code size of the compiled library, look into gcc's optimization options (-Os). If you worry about the code size of the library when distributed in source-form in the headers, this is more tricky. Since the (inlined) code will actually be in the headers, the code will obviously grow with each inclusion in a .cpp file by the user.
I ended up using inline headers for all of the code. You can see the library here:
https://github.com/libpropeller/libpropeller/tree/master/libpropeller
The library is structured as:
library folder
class A
classA.h
classA.test.h
class B
classB.h
classB.test.h
class C
...
With this structure I can distribute the library as source, and all the user has to do is include -I/path/to/library in their makefile, and #include "library/classA/classA.h" in their source files.
And, as it turns out, having inline headers actually reduces the code size. I've done a full analysis of this, and it turns out that inline code in the headers allows the compiler to make the final binary roughly 5% smaller.
I have access to a large C++ project, full of files and with a very complicated makefile courtesy of automake & friends
Here is an idea of the directory structure.
otherproject/
folder1/
some_headers.h
some_files.cpp
...
folderN/
more_headers.h
more_files.cpp
build/
lots_of things here
objs/
lots_of_stuff.o
an_executable_I_dont_need.exe
my_stuff/
my_program.cpp
I want to use a class from the big project, declared in say, "some_header.h"
/* my_program.cpp */
#include "some_header.h"
int main()
{
ThatClass x;
x.frobnicate();
}
I managed to compile my file by painstakingly passing lots of "-I" options to gcc so that it could find all the header files
g++ my_program.cpp -c -o myprog.o -I../other/folder1 ... -I../other/folderN
When it comes to compiling I have to manually include all his ".o"s, which is probably overkill
g++ -o my_executable myprog.o ../other/build/objs/*.o
However, not only do I have to do things like manually removing his "main.o" from the list, but this isn't even enough since I forgot to also link against all the libraries that he happened to use.
otherproject/build/objs/StreamBuffer.h:50: undefined reference to `gzread'
At this point I am starting to feel I am probably doing something very wrong. How should I proceed? What is the usual and what is the best approach this kind of issue?
I need this to work on Linux in case something platform-specific needs to be done.
Generally the project's .o files should come grouped together into a library (on Linux, .a file if it's a static library, or .so if it's a dynamic library), and you link to the library using the -L option to specify the location and the -l option to specify the library name.
For example, if the library file is at /path/to/big_project/libbig_project.a, you would add the options -L /path/to/big_project -l big_project to your gcc command line.
If the project doesn't have a library file that you can link to (e.g. it's not a library but an executable program and you just want some of the code used by the executable program), you might want to try asking the project's author to create such a library file (if he/she is familiar with "automake and friends" it shouldn't be too much trouble for him), or try doing so yourself.
EDIT Another suggestion: you said the project comes with a makefile. Try makeing it with the makefile, and see what its compiler command line looks like. Does it have many includes and individual object files as well?
Treating an application which was not developed as a library as if it was a library isn't likely to work. As an offhand example, omitting the main might wind up cutting out initialization code that the class you want depends upon.
The responsible thing to do here is to read the code, understand it, and turn the functionality you want into a proper library. Build the "exe you don't need" with debug symbols and set breakpoints in the constructors and methods of the class. Step into them so you get a grasp on the functionality and what parts of the program are relevant and irrelevant to your needs.
Hopefully the code is under some kind of version control system that supports branching (such as Git). If not, make your own repository that does. Edit the files until you've organized them into a library and code that uses the library. Make sure it works properly within the context of the original program. Then turn around and use this library in your own program.
If you've done a good job, you might be able to convince the original authors to accept the separation back into their original codebase. If not, at least version control has your back so you can manage integration of future changes.
I have some doubt about how do programs use shared library.
When I build a shared library ( with -shared -fPIC switches) I make some functions available from an external program.
Usually I do a dlopen() to load the library and then dlsym() to link the said functions to some function pointers.
This approach does not involve including any .h file.
Is there a way to avoid doing dlopen() & dlsym() and just including the .h of the shared library?
I guess this may be how c++ programs uses code stored in system shared library. ie just including stdlib.h etc.
Nick, I think all the other answers are actually answering your question, which is how you link libraries, but the way you phrase your question suggests you have a misunderstanding of the difference between headers files and libraries. They are not the same. You need both, and they are not doing the same thing.
Building an executable has two main phases, compilation (which turns your source into an intermediate form, containing executable binary instructions, but is not a runnable program), and linking (which combines these intermediate files into a single running executable or library).
When you do gcc -c program.c, you are compiling, and you generate program.o. This step is where headers matter. You need to #include <stdlib.h> in program.c to (for example) use malloc and free. (Similarly you need #include <dlfcn.h> for dlopen and dlsym.) If you don't do that the compiler will complain that it doesn't know what those names are, and halt with an error. But if you do #include the header the compiler does not insert the code for the function you call into program.o. It merely inserts a reference to them. The reason is to avoid duplication of code: The code is only going to need to be accessed once by every part of your program, so if you needed further files (module1.c, module2.c and so on), even if they all used malloc you would merely end up with many references to a single copy of malloc. That single copy is present in the standard library in either it's shared or static form (libc.so or libc.a) but these are not referenced in your source, and the compiler is not aware of them.
The linker is. In the linking phase you do gcc -o program program.o. The linker will then search all libraries you pass it on the command line and find the single definition of all functions you've called which are not defined in your own code. That is what the -l does (as the others have explained): tell the linker the list of libraries you need to use. Their names often have little to do with the headers you used in the previous step. For example to get use of dlsym you need libdl.so or libdl.a, so your command-line would be gcc -o program program.o -ldl. To use malloc or most of the functions in the std*.h headers you need libc, but because that library is used by every C program it is automatically linked (as if you had done -lc).
Sorry if I'm going into a lot of detail but if you don't know the difference you will want to. It's very hard to make sense of how C compilation works if you don't.
One last thing: dlopen and dlsym are not the normal method of linking. They are used for special cases where you want to dynamically determine what behavior you want based on information that is, for whatever reason, only available at runtime. If you know what functions you want to call at compile time (true in 99% of the cases) you do not need to use the dl* functions.
You can link shared libraries like static one. They are then searched for when launching the program. As a matter of fact, by default -lXXX will prefer libXXX.so to libXXX.a.
You need to give the linker the proper instructions to link your shared library.
The shared library names are like libNAME.so, so for linking you should use -lNAME
Call it libmysharedlib.so and then link your main program as:
gcc -o myprogram myprogram.c -lmysharedlib
If you use CMake to build your project, you can use
TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES(targetname libraryname)
As in:
TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES(myprogram mylibrary)
To create the library "mylibrary", you can use
ADD_LIBRARY(targetname sourceslist)
As in:
ADD_LIBRARY(mylibrary ${mylibrary_SRCS})
Additionally, this method is cross-platform (whereas simply passing flags to gcc is not).
Shared libraries (.so) are object files where the actual source code of function/class/... are stored (in binary)
Header files (.h) are files indicating (the reference) where the compiler can find function/class/... (in .so) that are required by the main code
Therefore, you need both of them.