I am new to C++ programming. There are 2 libraries in my program, one needs to be linked dynamically, and the other needs to be linked statically, how can I set this up in Eclipse? I am using
Eclipse CDT + MinGW + Windows 7.
Thanks.
It's not entirely clear what you're after here.
Most of static vs. dynamic is in the library itself, not how you link to it. You can have a static library, which is basically just a collection of object files, stuffed together into a single file, with a directory to tell what parts were originally which files.
You can also have a DLL. When you create a DLL, the linker will normally also create a link library for that DLL. This library basically just contains stubs -- enough information so the linker can insert a link to the DLL into another DLL or executable.
When you use a DLL, you basically have three options for how to use it:
The most common case: the DLL will be loaded as the parent executable is loaded.
delayload: doesn't load that DLL until/unless you actually use a function from it (handy if you have, for example, a special DLL that's only used under, say, Windows Vista or newer).
Explicit dynamic linking. Here, you don't tell the linker about the DLL or an associated library at all. You call LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress to load the library, and get a callable function address.
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.
I would like to use boost log library in my C++ project on Windows (VS 2010). Everything uses shared (DLL) runtime. Since my project contains multiple modules, I need to compile boost.log as a DLL. The trouble is, Boost.log depends on five other libraries: system, chrono, datetime, filesystem and thread. I don't want to drag 6 DLLs around, and I would like to link them statically in boost.log.
I tried to #define BOOST_LOG_DYN_LINK in config/user.hpp, but it did not help: when I build the log library it either builds as static (not what I want), or as a DLL referencing 5 other DLLs (not what I want either).
I need a log DLL that has all 5 dependencies linked statically in. Is it possible to achieve?
I think you'll want to create a separate DLL project that statically links the boost libraries you want. Probably this project won't add any other code (other than some DllMain function that does nothing), but it will give you a new DLL (e.g., boostlibs.dll) that you can dynamically link to your application.
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.
This question is regarding dynamic linking of libraries and usage of dynamic linking of libraries in application.
For example we are devloping an application using C++ using Visual studio environment.
Here for include header files we specify in Additional Include Directories, and
in Additional Dependencies: Mylibrary.lib
in Additional Libraries Directories: We specifies path of libraries
And in Windows we also have "LoadLibrary" API which is used to load dynamically linked ibrary.
My question is
when we include dll in Additional dependencies libraries why we should use "LoadLibrary" API?
When we should use "LoadLibrary" API?
Thanks!
LoadLibrary lets you continue program execution if the dll is not on the running machine. It returns an error status that can be checked and execution can be continued.
Also, linking lets you do stuff like use classes from the other binary & others. LoadLibrary only lets you find functions via GetProcAddress.
Imagine that you have a software that for example needes at a determined time to convert
Internet network address into strings.
On windows vista or later you can use the "InetNtop" function that is also able to deal with ipv6, but if you link directly to the DLL your program will no work on lower OS (ex: windows xp).
So the best solution would probably be making 2 DLL's one that used "InetNtop" and another that used for example "inet_ntoa".
Then your "main" program would do at runtime a LoadLibrary of the "InetNtop DLL", or the "inet_ntoa DLL", according to the OS that he his installed.
You asked that you can include dll in Additional dependencies libraries, and then why to use loadlibrary.
First lets clear the understanding:
While linking statically, A programmer is needed to add the .lib file to
Additional library dependency, which is linked to the caller program at compile time,
However, Dlls are loaded dynamically, hence you need not to add dlls in Additional library dependency when you are using LoadLibrary ie; if you are linking the Dll explicitly you are not needed to give your dll path in Additional library dependencies.
Please note:
using LoadLibrary you will be able to Get the Dll handle, which you can call the exported function using GetProcAddress.
refer:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms684175(v=vs.85).aspx
I have a framework (in C++) which is dependent on a few third party libraries. When I compile a static version of the library framework, no additional dependencies are needed, that is, the lib files of the third part libraries are not needed. When I compile the same framework as a DLL, additional dependencies are now needed otherwise I get linking errors. I can guess as to why this is happening but would like a concrete answer/explanation to understand what is happening.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I am developing a framework which can be compiled as a lib and as a dll and then used in a(n) (executable) project. When compiling the framework as a lib and using functions from a third party library, I don't need additional dependencies. However, a project that now uses the lib file (which is the framework) must include the 3rd party lib files. When I compile the framework as a dll it gives me linking errors unless I specify the 3rd part libraries the framework is technically dependent on. For example: I have a few classes that call functionality from within Ogre3D. These classes are compiled as a lib file. I don't need to link against OgreMain.lib when compiling a lib of the classes. On the other hand, when I am compiling a dll version of the same classes, I now need to link against OgreMain.lib
When you have a static library (a .lib file), which is just a collection of one or more object files (.obj), the linker just adds that code to yours in one executable. You can tell the linker to do this via a command line switch, an IDE configuration setting, or perhaps even a #pragma (specifics depend on your environment and compiler).
When you link in a DLL, you need to give the linker some code to call when you invoke one of the DLLs functions. Usually, this is done with a file of the same name as the .dll, save that it is a .lib. The code in that .lib is linked into your program the same way as described above, but when you call it, it loads the DLL (if not already loaded) and then invokes the proper function.
There are other ways to handle DLL linking (for instance, .def files or #using statements in .NET), but this seems to be what you're talking about.
Responding to your question clarification:
The issue is that a .lib is not a final product. It is just an aggregation of object code to be used later when a linker connects all your functions calls to function addresses.
A DLL, on the other hand, is a final product, and so the linker requires all functions and variables be connected to actual addresses.
I'm speaking a bit imprecisely, but you get the idea.
A static library can include other static libraries, providing a single lib to link
A DLL can include static libraries, providing a single DLL to link.
A DLL or static library with dependencies on other DLLs has no way to combine them so your executable must explicitly link to those other DLLs.
When you link to a LIB it adds all the symbols/functions you actually use to your executable. The ones you don't use won't get added. When you link to a dll - all the code from the external library gets loaded. If this additional code (code you don't use) depends on more external libraries you need to provide these as well.
One example: You want to use a ip class from a network library. The ip class does not depend on other libraries. Other functions in the network library depend on other external libraries. If you link the network library as a LIB you just link the ip class -> you don't need the other libraries since the other code wont get linked. When you use the DLL all code in the dll need to be instanciated -> so you will need to provide the other external libraries.
Building a DLL is more like building an application than a library. The difference between building an application and a DLL is knowledge of what might be called. In an application all symbols that are not used can be discarded in the build, but in a DLL you cannot strip symbols that are not used - that would be all of them...
You would find the same link problems in your static libraries if you where able to call all the symbols that the DLL links.