Is it possible to make a static linking (compilation) on Gtk(mm) program? I need the program to be less relaying on dependences in user's system.
I try:
g++ -static data/Area.h data/Picture.cpp data/GLScene.cpp data/KBDialog.cpp data/Dialogs.h data/FilePreview.cpp data/MainWindow.cpp prog.cpp -o prog `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtkmm-2.4 gtkglextmm-1.2 exiv2`
but It fails:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgtkmm-2.4
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lGL
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -latkmm-1.6
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgdkmm-2.4
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpangomm-1.4
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libgio-2.0.a(glocalfileinfo.o): In function `lookup_gid_name':
(.text+0x207a): warning: Using 'getgrgid_r' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libgio-2.0.a(glocalvfs.o): In function `g_local_vfs_parse_name':
(.text+0x26c): warning: Using 'getpwnam' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libglib-2.0.a(gutils.o): In function `g_get_any_init_do':
(.text+0x1244): warning: Using 'getpwuid' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libglib-2.0.a(gutils.o): In function `g_get_any_init_do':
(.text+0x1237): warning: Using 'setpwent' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libglib-2.0.a(gutils.o): In function `g_get_any_init_do':
(.text+0x124f): warning: Using 'endpwent' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libglib-2.0.a(gutils.o): In function `g_get_any_init_do':
(.text+0xf6e): warning: Using 'getpwnam_r' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libgio-2.0.a(glocalfileinfo.o): In function `lookup_uid_data':
(.text+0x1eea): warning: Using 'getpwuid_r' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libX11.a(xim_trans.o): In function `_XimXTransSocketUNIXConnect':
(.text+0xe23): warning: Using 'getaddrinfo' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libgio-2.0.a(gnetworkaddress.o): In function `g_network_address_parse':
(.text+0xe3c): warning: Using 'getservbyname' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.4.5/../../../../lib/libgio-2.0.a(gnetworkaddress.o): In function `g_network_address_parse':
(.text+0xe4c): warning: Using 'endservent' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
I would rather avoid doing that, because GTK depends on tricky low level libraries which are really very system specific (perhaps libfontconfig.so etc), and contains system-specific information (e.g. builtin paths for fonts...).
I also think that GTK needs dynamic shared libraries to implement theming or styling (so GTK itself is calling dlopen, and having a statically linked libdl is not reasonable).
I suggest at least linking dynamically gtk and all its dependencies.
(Your question asked twice pisses me off, so here is a more detailed answer that I might edit and complete further)
Why dynamically linked shared libraries are useful?
First, almost every binary is dynamically linked on today's Linux systems. On my Debian/Sid system, I only have /sbin/ldconfig /bin/sash and /usr/bin/rar statically linked executables, but about seven thousand other dynamically linked executables (under /bin & /usr/bin). Even essential programs like /sbin/init are today dynamically linked.
There are several wins in having mostly dynamically linked ELF executables using shared libraries
Avoid wasting disk space. When dynamically linked executables did not exist (1986 era, SunOS3.5, because the kernel was not able to mmap file segments), people took a lot of time mixing several binaries in a single one (I remember textedit and cmdtool being the same binary, a mix of several programs on SunOS3.5) to win disk space. Ok, disk space is cheaper today, but if my seven thousand programs each had to link statically libc that would consume several gigabytes of disk space (and that would mean an extra DVD or hours of networking upload when installing a Linux distribution).
Enabling an easier update. When the packaging system (apt-get, dpkg and friends on Debian) upgrades a common shared library (like the GLibC or Gtk), it replaces the dynamically linked shared libraries (*.so files, called ELF shared objects) and all the future executions of binary using them take profit. So if /usr/lib/libgtk-3.so is updated, there is no need to update /usr/bin/gedit to take advantage of the bug fixes inside libgtk-3.so; just restarting gedit will make it profit of improvements in libgtk-3.so
More efficient overall RAM usage. A file like libc.so is used by almost every process, and even libgtk-3.so is used by dozens of processes. Most of it is mmap-ed read-only "text" segment (notably containing the executable binary machine code and read-only constants like string); this mapping is using the same RAM cells for every process using it. So the memory is shared
Legal compliance with LGPL license
The LGPL-2.1 license of GTK libraries is the only reason why you are legally allowed to use GTK (i.e. run GTK programs, and link your own program with GTK). This license gives you rights, in particular the one to improve GTK or take advantage of GTK improvements, but you should not prohibit users of your (e.g. proprietary) program linking /usr/lib/gtk-3.so to take advantage of improvements inside GTK itself. The section 6 of LGPL2.1 mention explicitly dynamic linking. You are not allowed to distribute statically linked GTK binaries without giving the user the mean to upgrade his GTK library. The most convenient way is having your GTK program dynamically linked against libgtk-3.so. A less easy alternative would be to distribute your statically linked executable with its object *.o files and instructions on how to re-link it statically against an hypothetical improved libgtk.a (which don't exist).
Plugin ability to dynamically load other library modules
A program can load some shared object at run time using the dlopen function (based upon the mmap system call, thru the -ldl library). This is how plugins are possible on Linux. GTK uses itself very actively this ability: theming, styling, and perhaps fonts are using dlopen and implemented by dlopen-ing appropriate stuff. Since dlopen is a public interface to the dynamic loader /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, the -ldl library is a dynamically shared object libdl.so.2 sharing functionality and code with the dynamic loader (itself referenced in every dynamically linked executable as the "ELF interpreter"). It is uncommon and unwise to link -ldl statically. Even the libc.so library may load other modules (perhaps for DNS support, etc...); some functionalities are restricted in statically linked executables (see file /etc/nsswitch.conf etc.).
dynamic linking is slightly slower at startup time, since a program has to initiate and dynamically load (this is the role of ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) at startup all the dynamic libraries it needs. Code inside a dynamic library needs to be position independent code otherwise the relocation part of dynamically loaded libraries would be too big (and the relocation effort at start-up too long), which may cost an extra register (and this is mostly true on 32 bits x86 processors, much less on x86-64 or AMD64 64 bits ones) so makes up slightly bigger machine code (on 32 bits x86 machines, we are speaking of a few percents of size increase and runtime slowdown; on 64 bits machines, it is negligible). Of course, relocating hundred of thousands of external calls may take some time (and happens more with C++ code than with C code, perhaps because of name mangling issues).
Why you (Marco) should not statically link your GTK binary?
The five first points above should convince you that linking statically GTK is an evil thing to do. In particular, take attention of the legal aspects (LGPL): making knowingly an LGPL violation is a huge professional mistake, don't do that.
If you really wanted, with weeks of effort, you probably could be technically able (by recompiling and hacking GTK source code) to link statically your binary with GTK (with some reduced functionalities, like no theming), but that is probably unethical and useless. If your boss is stupid enough to require you that, try to convince him (or else find another job). And the very fact that you've asked on a public forum how to link statically GTK (which I am understanding as "how to violate the LGPL license") put you at risk. There are organizations -like gpl-violations- which take attention to that.
I don't see any useful reason to statically link a GTK program. Even proprietary programs using a GUI library are dynamically linked (a good example is AMD FGLRX driver and its companion programs like amdccle providing a Qt based graphical interface for installation).
Of course, you may want to deal with dependencies. Leave that to the package manager of your linux distribution.
If you want more help, please explain much more what you really want to do, and convince us that you don't ask help in violating a license. Better yet, try to distribute your software with a free license like e.g. GPLv3
Related
I am currently trying to compile all my applications' dependencies as a static library. My motivation:
Not to rely on any OS provided libraries in order to have a perfectly reproducible code base
Avoid issues when deploying on other systems caused by dynamic linking
Avoid run-time clashes when linking against different versions of a library
Being able to cross-compile for other OS
However, as I initially dreaded I had to go down the rabbit hole quite fast. I am currently stuck with OpenCV and I'm sure there is more to come. However, my main questions are:
Is it possible to build an entirely statically build app (e.g. libc, ligcc, etc. ?)
Is it possible to link all libraries statically but link major components (libgcc, etc.) dynamically?
If not, is it possible to link against statically built libraries (e.g. OpenCV) but to satisfy their dependencies by linking dynamically (zlib, libc, etc.)?
I did research on the internet but couldn't find a comprehensive guide that dwells on the internals of linking (static vs. dynamic). Do you know about a good book / tutorial? Does a book about gcc get me further?
Is this a very stupid idea?
My motivation:
Not to rely on any OS provided libraries in order to have a perfectly reproducible code base
Avoid issues when deploying on other systems caused by dynamic linking
Avoid run-time clashes when linking against different versions of a library
Being able to cross-compile for other OS
Your motivations are all wrong.
For #1, you do not need a fully-static binary. You just need to link against a set of version-controlled libraries using --sysroot facility provided by GNU linkers
For #2, you motivation is misguided.
On Linux, a fully-static binary may crash in mysterious ways if the libc installed on a target system is different from (static) libc the program was built on. That is, a fully-static binary on Linux is (contrary to popular belief) significantly less portable than a dynamically linked one. One should simply never statically link libc.a on Linux.
This alone should make you abandon this approach (at least for any GLIBC based systems).
For #3, don't link against different versions of a library (at program build time), and no clashes will result.
For #4, the same solution as for #1 just works.
I would like to create a dynamic library hello.so on linux with some of my own functions. With ldd, it needs some system libraries like libstdc++.so.
I am wondering if I could fix that this hello.so will always bind to the libstdc++.so when creating hello.so in my computer. Thus, I could send hello.so and libstdc++.so to other people.
Regards,
Feng
When you make a program or library for distribution that has
dependencies on dynamic libraries (shared libraries, on unix-like OSes;
DLLs on Windows) you accept as a matter of course that its operability on any
computer is constrained by the availability of identical or compatible versions of those runtime
dependencies, i.e. you can only distribute to an ecosystem of
compatible hosts. That is the basis of the linux, Windows, MacOS,
android, iOS ecosystems, which function well upon it.
Is you want to distribute software that has no dynamic library
dependencies to maximize its compatibility to the utmost (and beyond
what is normally sought) then you must build it
with static linkage, so that the
binary itself contains all of the code that it needs to execute. To do
this successfully you must have have installed on your system static versions of
all the libraries (such as libstdc++) with which you would
by default link the dynamic versions provided with your toolchain.
Unless you have some specific fell-founded requirement to deliver a statically
linked product, don't worry about this.
I'm using Code::Blocks IDE(v13.12) with GNU GCC Compiler.
I want to the linker to link static versions of required runtime libraries for my programs, how may I do this?
I already know that my executable size will increase. Would you please tell me other the downsides?
What about doing this in Visual C++ Express?
Since nobody else has come up with an answer yet, I will give it a try. Unfortunately, I don't know that Code::Blocks IDE so my answer will only be partial.
1 How to Create a Statically Linked Executable with GCC
This is not IDE specific but holds for GCC (and many other compilers) in general. Assume you have a simplistic “hello, world” program in main.cpp (no external dependencies except for the standard library and runtime library). You'd compile and statically link it via:
Compile main.cpp to main.o (the output file name is implicit):
$ g++ -c -Wall main.cpp
The -c tells GCC to stop after the compilation step (not run the linker). The -Wall turns on most diagnostic messages. If novice programmers would use it more often and pay more attention to it, many questions on this site would not have been asked. ;-)
Link main.o (could list more than one object file) statically pulling in the standard and runtime library and put the executable in the file main:
$ g++ -o main main.o -static
Without using the -o main switch, GCC would have put the final executable in the not so well-named file a.out (which once eventually stood for “assembly output”).
Especially at the beginning, I strongly recommend doing such things “by hand” as it will help get a better understanding of the build tool-chain.
As a matter of fact, the above two commands could have been combined into just one:
$ g++ -Wall -o main main.cpp -static
Any reasonable IDE should have options for specifying such compiler / linker flags.
2 Pros and Cons of Static Linking
Reasons for static linking:
You have a single file that can be copied to any machine with a compatible architecture and operating system and it will just work, no matter what version of what library is installed.
You can execute the program in an environment where the shared libraries are not available. For example, putting a statically linked CGI executable into a chroot() jail might help reduce the attack surface on a web server.
Since no dynamic linking is needed, program startup might be faster. (I'm sure there are situations where the opposite is true, especially if the shared library was already loaded for another process.)
Since the linker can hard-code function addresses, function calls might be faster.
On systems that have more than one version of a common library (LAPACK, for example) installed, static linking can help make sure that a specific version is always used without worrying about setting the LD_LIBRARY_PATH correctly. Obviously, this is also a disadvantage since now you cannot select the library any more without recompiling. If you always wanted the same version, why would you have installed more than one in the first place?
Reasons against static linking:
As you have already mentioned, the size of the executable might grow dramatically. This depends of course heavily on what libraries you link in.
The operating system might be smart enough to load the text section of a shared library into the RAM only once if several processes need the library at the same time. By linking statically, you void this advantage and the system might run short of memory more quickly.
Your program no longer profits from library upgrades. Instead of simply replacing one shared library with a (hopefully ABI compatible) newer release, a system administrator will have to recompile and reinstall every program that uses it. This is the most severe drawback in my opinion.
Consider for example the OpenSSL library. When the Heartbleed bug was discovered and fixed earlier this year, system administrators could install a patched version of OpenSSL and restart all services to fix the vulnerability within a day as soon as the patch was out. That is, if their services were linking dynamically against OpenSSL. For those that have been linked statically, it would have taken weeks until the last one was fixed and I'm pretty sure that there is still proprietary “all in one” software out in the wild that did not see a fix up to the present day.
Your users cannot replace a shared library on the fly. For example, the torsocks script (and associated library) allows users to replace (via setting LD_PRELOAD appropriately) the networking system library by one that routes their traffic through the Tor network. And this even works for programs whose developers never even thought of that possibility. (Whether this is secure and a good idea is subject of an unrelated debate.) An other common use-case is debugging or “hardening” applications by replacing malloc and the like with specialized versions.
In my opinion, the disadvantages of static linking outweigh the advantages in all but very special cases. As a rule of thumb: link dynamically if you can and statically if you have to.
A Addendum
As Alf has pointed out (see comments), there is a special GCC option to selectively link in the C++ standard library statically but not link the whole program statically. From the GCC manual:
-static-libstdc++
When the g++ program is used to link a C++ program, it normally automatically links against libstdc++. If libstdc++ is available as a shared library, and the -static option is not used, then this links against the shared version of libstdc++. That is normally fine. However, it is sometimes useful to freeze the version of libstdc++ used by the program without going all the way to a fully static link. The -static-libstdc++ option directs the g++ driver to link libstdc++ statically, without necessarily linking other libraries statically.
In Visual C++, the /MT option does a static link and the /MD option does a dynamic link. (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2kzt1wy3.aspx)
I'd recommend using /MD and redistributing the C++ runtime, which is freely available from Microsoft. Once the C++ runtime is installed, than any program requiring the run time will continue to work. You would need to pass the proper option to tell the compiler which runtime to use. There is a good explanation here, Should I compile with /MD or /MT?
On Linux, I'd recommend redistributing libstdc++ instead of a static link. If their system libstdc++ works, I'd let the user just use that. System libraries, such as libpthread and libgcc should just use the system default. This requires compiling the program on a system with symbols compatible with all linux versions you are distributing for.
On Mac OS X, just redistribute the app with dynamic linking to libstdc++. Anyone using the same OS version should be able to use your program.
This question already has answers here:
Static linking vs dynamic linking
(16 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Probably on any OS it is possible to compile C++/C standard library statically or dynamically. On Windows I prefer static builds always, because it helps to avoid "dll hell" problem with different versions of libraries installed or not installed on specific Windows version, edition and service pack, etc. Static linking makes software more portable and less dependent on what end user did with his operating system (I even saw examples when end user could make SHIFT+DEL on some DLLs in system32, he couldn't explain why, or when users claim that my app contains virus because it tried to download dynamically linked prerequisites from official Microsoft website...) So, on Windows static linking is usually better than dynamic one in my experience.
However, I am new to Linux, so can anyone share his experience? My question is: what kind of linking (dynamic or static) is preffered on Linux if we ignore the fact that dynamic one allows to save memory & hard drive space and if we plan to distribute software with automated install program (hard drive space and memory are cheap enough now, so there are not reason to sacrifice hours of working time required to create really good and portable installer to win some megabytes of RAM or hard drive space). Are there any Linux-specific issues with dynamic/static linking?
On Linux you normally have a package manager that ensures you only have one version of libraries installed. So there normally is no dll hell and no problem with linking dynamically. Linking dynamically is the standard way on Linux.
I'd say the answer depends on how you distribute the software.
If you package the software for a specific Linux distribution and version dynamic linking is usually preferred. You know which libraries to find on the system and you can specify dependencies.
However, if you want to distribute the software as a Linux binary that runs on "any" system (such as various games or software like Matlab for example) you will end up with the same dll (or .so) hell problem as on windows. You don't know which versions of which libraries are on the system. Thus, you will have to provide your own .so files or link statically.
See the whole point in using dynamic linking is to reduce the size of executables and memory usage.If you neglect that there is too less to talk about.
On the other hand you mentioned about saving memory and disk space.It is necessary to save disk space because when you want to export your app/program, you can't put a 2Gb app on the internet for download(for example openCV library is about 2.1GB). The solution is to dynamically link them and load only those modules which are necessary to you.This enables efficient multitasking also(creates just one copy of the module and the whole program uses the same copy).
peculiarly:
For example, a media player application might originally be shipped
with a codec that
supports the mp3 file format. If the media player were statically linked it would not
be possible to dynamically update it to support a different file format, without
replacing the entire application. Dynamic linking means that a new version of the
shared library containing a more up-to-date codec, which includes some enhancements
and bug fixes, could be dynamically loaded by a dynamic linker into memory at run-time
to replace the original shared library. A shared library can also be shared by more than one application. For example, two
different media players could both use the same shared library containing the same
codec. This potentially means that the device running the application requires less
physical memory, depending on the size of the dynamic linker.
third, in linux everything is dynamically linked except for the /bin/ash.static whic also has its dynamic version /bin/ash but this shouldn't stop you from static linking in linux.
when using gcc the linking is by default dynamic.I guess you should use the "-static" flag to statically link the libraries
#Vitaliy good that you brought this up.The important thing to note here is that Smart linking and the creation of shared (or dynamic) libraries are mutually exclusive, that is, if you turn on smart linking, then the creation of shared libraries is turned of.
smart linking breaks the code into small code blocks and their dependencies are loaded.
So if you are calling a dependency multiple times, it gets loaded multiple times.
This gives a very good execution time but very high compilation time especially for large units.So there is a certain trade-off.
I am using OpenMP in my C++ code.
The libgomp.so.1 exists in my lib folder. I also added its path to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Still at run-time I get the error message: libgomp.so.1: cannot open shared object file
At Compile time I compile my code with -fopenmp option.
Any idea what can cause the problem?
Thanks
Use static linking for your program. In your case, that means using -fopenmp -static, and if necessary specifying the full paths to the relevant librt.a and libgomp.a libraries.
This solves your problem as static linking just packages all code necessary to run you program together with your binary. Therefore, your target system does not need to look up any dynamic libraries, it doesn't even matter if they are present on the target system.
Note that static linking is not a miracle cure. For your particular problem with the weird hardware emulator, it should be a good approach. In general, however, there are (at least) two downsides to static linking:
binary size. Imagine if you linked all your KDE programs statically, so you would essentially have hundreds of copies of all the KDE/QT libs on your system when you could have just one if you used shared libraries
update paths. Suppose that people find a security problem in a library x. With shared libraries, it's enough if you simply update the library once a patch is available. If all your applications were statically linked, you would have to wait for all of these developers to re-link and re-release their applications.