I know that if I have an .a or .so file and a header file for that library (for example for SystemC), I should
1. include header file
2. link the appropriate library.
But I can't handle with only .dll file as I can link it as well, but don't have a hearer file to include and to use commands. Con someone explain me what kind of .dll-s exist and how they are possible to use? Is it possible to use any .dll file or it should be a specific kind of .dll to be able to integrate to my application?
A DLL is functionally equivalent to a .so file (also know as a 'shared object' or 'shared library'). You need a header to declare the functions that are available inside the DLL and you need to link against a library which handles the business of loading and executing DLL calls (mostly delegated to the OS).
It is possible to use a DLL without any sort of header. You can directly call Win32 API's which will dynamically load a DLL into your programs virtual address space and call other API's which will give you what are essentially function pointers. However, you need to know the signatures of the function pointers to use the properly so what you're effectively doing in that case is declaring a tiny subsection of the actual DLL header for your use.
This wikipedia article may help, especially the section on shared libraries
Unlike Linux, Windows libraries are seperated into two forms: DLL (for runtime linking) and LIB for symbol declarations. link.exe (the windows linker) expects .lib files to resolve symbols being used by your program's headers during build time. More information here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ba1z7822(VS.71).aspx
Note that if you load a DLL compiled in C++, you hvae to avoid passing object pointers across the interface, as they are in general not portable. You have to keep to basic C calls and calling conventions, as that is what is defined by the Windows or Linux platform ABI.
Related
So I'm working on some libraries for c++ to make a beginner's experience easier. I've put the libraries into a standalone dll and now i want to add it to another project. But the thing is after searching the internet for ages, i have to have include directories and stuff but all i want is to include the single dll file to the project so the project can access the .h and .cpp files inside. Ik i can just add external jar with java then i can access the libraries in there but how do i do it with c++ in visual studio 2015?
This is not how C++ works (I also assume you're not talking about C++/CX or MC++ - which strictly speaking are not C++)
The C++ language does not define an "Application Binary Interface" - an ABI, which allows linking between binaries. That's an implementation concern.
There are ABIs that support C++, such as COM and CORBA, indeed the latest one is WinRT - itself based on COM.
C++ differs from languages like Java and C# which mandate a runtime which does have an ABI: Java has its .class and .jar files while .NET/C# has its CLR Metadata contained within its assembly (.dll files - which are not the same thing as "real" DLL files).
Note that DLL files generated by the C# compiler are nothing like DLL files generated by your C/C++ compiler toolchain's linker - while they share a common outer format as PE (Portable Executable) files, internally they are radically different: CLR DLLs contain CIL, an intermediate bytecode, whereas "real" DLLs contain native, processor-specific instructions.
The general way to work with other libraries in C++ is to either use them in source-form (as .c and .cpp files included in your project), or as .h header files with .lib (static libraries) which are almost similar to reusable binaries, except they're linked ("compiled into- and merged-with") into your finished binary and cannot be replaced at runtime.
The other way is with Dynamic Linking which requires your runtime (i.e. Win32) to do the runtime linking for you, usually with GetProcAddress - but this only exports C-style functions, not entire objects and classes (and certainly not any C++ templates).
In summary:
You have a DLL and you want to use code inside of it:
Is it a WinRT DLL?
If you want to use pure C++ then you need to use WTL. Beware, this approach is not for the faint-hearted.
Else, if you're okay with C++/CX then you can actually use the "Add Reference" UI in Visual Studio, but be advised, you're no-longer writing "real" C++ anymore.
Else is it a COM library?
(Note that you will need the ATL (Active Template Library) and the IDL definitions of the types contained within, this is the COM equivalent of a header file). You can also use #import and/or use the IDE to generate the actual .h and .c files needed to call COM without too much pain. However you will run into problems if you replace the COM DLL later without rebuilding your program if too many things were changed in a later COM DLL version (see "DLL Hell").
Else is it a traditional native Win32 PE DLL?
All a PE executable has is a list of exported functions and their address locations within the DLL.
Do you want Static Linking or Dynamic Linking?
For Dynamic Linking, do you want runtime resolution (painful, but flexible) or "automatic" linking?
For runtime linking you only need the .dll file and .h files. You will need to manually call GetProcAddress yourself for each function you want to call, then invoke it. An advantage is that you can detect at runtime if a function exists and gracefully handle linking errors.
For automatic linking you will be given a .lib file in addition to the .dll and .h files, the .lib file is a small statically-linked library that contains stubs and other code needed to perform the runtime linking for you without needing to manually call GetProcAddress yourself.
For Static Linking you won't have a .dll file, but a .lib file: known as a "static library". Inside it's a file that contains discretised executable function blobs which your linker will effectively copy+paste into your completed program.
How do you do it like Java? Well, you don't.
A header is required to provide the compiler with the prototypes of the functions and other symbols that are exported from the DLL that you might want to make use of. You may even have multiple header files to logically divide your DLL's code. And since you won't want to hard-code the path to these header files in your source code, you'll want to specify the path to its containing directory as part of your compiler/build options, freeing you to use relative paths.
A LIB file is generally also required, although this is slightly more flexible. Generally, a LIB makes things much easier. It will be generated by the linker when you compile the DLL, and it contains stubs that facilitate linking to functions exported by that DLL. You specify this LIB file in your linker options when building an application that uses the DLL, and things just work. This is called implicit dynamic linking. It's dynamic linking because you're using a DLL, but it's implicit because the linker is handling the dirty work for you.
If you don't want to use a LIB file, you will need to do explicit dynamic linking. This is still dynamic linking because you're still using the DLL, but it's explicit because you have to explicitly write code to load the DLL module and obtain pointers to functions that it exports. Microsoft's build tools provide various features to make this easier, but it's still more difficult than just using the LIB file, which is what I would recommend unless you have a good reason to do otherwise.
How does dynamic linking work generally?
On Windows (LoadLibrary), you need a .dll to call at runtime, but at link time, you need to provide a corresponding .lib file or the program won't link... What does the .lib file contain? A description of the .dll methods? Isn't that what the headers contain?
Relatedly, on *nix, you don't need a lib file... How how does the compiler know that the methods described in the header will be available at runtime?
As a newbie, when you think about either one of the two schemes, then the other, neither of them make sense...
To answer your questions one by one:
Dynamic linking defers part of the linking process to runtime.
It can be used in two ways: implicitly and explicitly.
Implicitly, the static linker will insert information into the
executable which will cause the library to load and resolve the
necessary symbols. Explicitly, you must call LoadLibrary or
dlopen manually, and then GetProcAddress/dlsym for each
symbol you need to use. Implicit loading is used for things
like the system library, where the implementation will depend on
the version of the system, but the interface is guaranteed.
Explicit loading is used for things like plug-ins, where the
library to be loaded will be determined at runtime.
The .lib file is only necessary for implicit loading. It
contains the information that the library actually provides this
symbol, so the linker won't complain that the symbol is
undefined, and it tells the linker in what library the symbols
are located, so it can insert the necessary information to cause
this library to automatically be loaded. All the header files
tell the compiler is that the symbols will exist, somewhere; the
linker needs the .lib to know where.
Under Unix, all of the information is extracted from the
.so. Why Windows requires two separate files, rather than
putting all of the information in one file, I don't know; it's
actually duplicating most of the information, since the
information needed in the .lib is also needed in the .dll.
(Perhaps licensing issues. You can distribute your program with
the .dll, but no one can link against the libraries unless
they have a .lib.)
The main thing to retain is that if you want implicit loading,
you have to provide the linker with the appropriate information,
either with a .lib or a .so file, so that it can insert that
information into the executable. And that if you want explicit
loading, you can't refer to any of the symbols in the library
directly; you have to call GetProcAddress/dlsym to get their
addresses yourself (and do some funny casting to use them).
The .lib file on Windows is not required for loading a dynamic library, it merely offers a convenient way of doing so.
In principle, you can use LoadLibrary for loading the dll and then use GetProcAddress for accessing functions provided by that dll. The compilation of the enclosing program does not need to access the dll in that case, it is only needed at runtime (ie. when LoadLibrary actually executes). MSDN has a code example.
The disadvantage here is that you need to manually write code for loading the functions from the dll. In case you compiled the dll yourself in the first place, this code simply duplicates knowledge that the compiler could have extracted from the dll source code automatically (like the names and signatures of exported functions).
This is what the .lib file does: It contains the GetProcAddress calls for the Dlls exported functions, generated by the compiler so you don't have to worry about it. In Windows terms, this is called Load-Time Dynamic Linking, since the Dll is loaded automatically by the code from the .lib file when your enclosing program is loaded (as opposed to the manual approach, referred to as run-time dynamic linking).
How does dynamic linking work generally?
The dynamic link library (aka shared object) file contains machine code instructions and data, along with a table of metadata saying which offsets in that code/data relate to which "symbols", the type of the symbol (e.g. function vs data), the number of bytes or words in the data, and a few other things. Different OS will tend to have different shared object file formats, and indeed the same OS may support several, but that's the gist of it.
So, imagine the shared library's a big chunk of bytes with an index like this:
SYMBOL ADDRESS TYPE SIZE
my_function 1000 function 2893
my_number 4800 variable 4
In general, the exact type of the symbols need not be captured in the metadata table - it's expected that declarations in the library's header files contain all the missing information. C++ is a bit special - compared to say C - because overloading can mean there are several functions with the same name, and namespaces allow for further symbols that would otherwise be ambiguously named - for that reason name mangling is typically used to concatenate some representation of the namespace and function arguments to the function name, forming something that can be unique in the library object file.
A program wanting to use the shared object can generally do one of two things:
have the OS load both itself and the shared object around the same time (before executing main()), with the OS Loader responsible for finding the symbols and examining metadata in the program file image about the use of those symbols, then patching in symbol addresses in the memory the program uses, such that the program can then just run and work functionally as if it'd known about the symbol addresses when it was first compiled (but perhaps a little slower)
or, explicitly in its own source code call dlopen sometime after main runs, then use dlsym or similar to get the symbol addresses, save them into (function/data) pointers based on the programmer's knowledge of the expected data types, then call them explicitly using the pointers.
On Windows (LoadLibrary), you need a .dll to call at runtime, but at link time, you need to provide a corresponding .lib file or the program won't link...
That doesn't sound right. Should be one or the other I'd think.
Wtf does the .lib file contain? A description of the .dll methods? Isn't that what the headers contain?
A lib file is - at this level of description - pretty much the same as a shared object file... the main difference is that the compiler's finding the symbol addresses before the program's shipped and run.
Modern *nix systems derive process of dynamic linking from Solaris OS. Linux, particularly, doesn't need separate .lib file because all external dependencies are contained in ELF format. .interp section of ELF file indicates that there are external symbols inside this executable that needed to be resolved dynamically. This comes for dynamic linking.
There is a way to handle dynamic linking in user space. This method is called dynamic loading. This is when you are using system calls to get function pointers to methods from external *.so.
More information can be found from this article http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-dynamic-libraries/.
Relatedly, on OS X (and I assume *nix... dlopen), you don't need a lib file... How how does the compiler know that the methods described in the header will be available at runtime?
Compilers or linkers do not need such information. You, the programmer, need to handle the situation that the shared libraries you try to open by dlopen() may not exist.
You can use a DLL file in Windows in two ways: Either you link with it, and you're done, nothing more to do. Or you load it dynamically during run-time.
If you link with it, then the DLL library file is used. The link-library contains information that the linker uses to actually know which DLL to load and where in the DLL functions are, so it can call them. When your program is loaded, the operating system also loads the DLL for you, basically what is does it call LoadLibrary for you.
In other operating systems (like OS X and Linux) it works in a similar way. The difference is that on these systems the linker can look directly at the dynamic library (the .so/.dynlib file) and figure out what's needed without a separate static library like on Windows.
To load a library dynamically, you don't need to link with anything related to the library you want to load.
Like others already said: what is included in a .lib file on Windows is included directly in the .so/.dynlib on Linux/OS X. But the main question is... why?
Isn't *nix solution better?
I think it is, but the .lib has one advantage. The developer linking to the DLL doesn't actually need to have access to the DLL file itself.
Does a scenario like that happen often in the real world? Is it worth the effort of maintaining two files per DLL file? I don't know.
Edit: Ok, guys let's make things even more confusing! You can link directly to a DLL on Windows, using MinGW. So the whole import library problem is not directly related to Windows itself. Taken from sampleDLL article from MinGW wiki:
The import library created by the "--out-implib" linker option is
required iff (==if and only if) the DLL shall be interfaced from some
C/C++ compiler other than the MinGW toolchain. The MinGW toolchain is
perfectly happy to directly link against the created DLL. More details
can be found in the ld.exe info files that are part of the binutils
package (which is a part of the toolchain).
Linux also requires to link, but instead against a .Lib library it needs to link to the dynamic linker /lib/ld-linux.so.2, but this usually happens behind the scenes when using GCC (however if using an assembler you do need to specify it manually).
Both approaches, either the Windows .LIB approach or the Linux dynamic linker linking approach, are considered in reality as static linking. There is, however, a difference that in Windows part of the work is done at link time although it still has work at load time (I am not sure, but I think that the .LIB file is merely for the linker to know the physical library name, the symbols however are only resolved at load time), while in Linux everything besides linking to the dynamic linker happen at load time.
Dynamic linking is in general referring to open manually the DLL file at runtime (such as using LoadLinrary()), in which case the burden is entirely on the programmer.
In shared library, such as .dll .dylib and .so, there is some information about symbol's name and address, like this:
------------------------------------
| symbol's name | symbol's address |
|----------------------------------|
| Foo | 0x12341234 |
| Bar | 0xabcdabcd |
------------------------------------
And the load function, such as LoadLibrary and dlopen, loads shared library and make it available to use.
GetProcAddress and dlsym find you symbol's address. For example:
HMODULE shared_lib = LoadLibrary("asdf.dll");
void *symbol = GetProcAddress("Foo");
// symbol is 0x12341234
In windows, there is .lib file to use .dll. When you link to this .lib file, you don't need to call LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress, and just use shared library's function as if they're "normal" functions. How can it work?
In fact, the .lib contains an import information. It's like that:
void *Foo; // please put the address of Foo there
void *Bar; // please put the address of Bar there
When the operating system loads your program (strictly speaking, your module), operating system performs LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress automatically.
And if you write code such as Foo();, compiler convert it into (*Foo)(); automatically. So you can use them as if they're "normal" functions.
I don't know how to do the following:
I'm using MS Visual C++ 6.0
I have a Win32 DLL project which is compilable.
I have another project, this time a Win32 Console project which uses
the DLL by including it's header file and linking the .lib file of
the DLL.
Now I want to have another project, similar to the second BUT without using the header file and the lib file.
Is that possible? Everywhere I read you need either dll+lib+h or dll+h. If thought if you know the interfaces, a DLL file is sufficient?
Btw, by "using a DLL" I mean, using the Classes and Functions defined in the DLL.
It is possible if you just have plain "extern C" functions. If this is the case the approach could be loading the dll with LoadLibrary, and then import each function with GetProcAddress, of course you need to know the function signature to create a properly declared function pointer. Using classes per contrary is almost impossible.
If your DLL contains classes, there are good chances that it is a COM component.
If this is the case, the #import directive (that you use like #include) builds some temporary include files containing the interface details. You should use COM to access your objects.
Otherwise, if you have a 'plain' DLL with C++ classes, you could access the exported symbols using linker: instruct it to dump the map (see here), to know the mangled names. But I don't think that's possible to build manually the interface...
(I'm using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 on a Windows 7 64 bit machine)
I have developed a C++ program that is more of a library which became quite complex over time. It does right now work as a simple executeable, but I'd like to convert it into a DLL so the functionality can be accessed by other programs easily.
I'm not at all experienced in working with DLLs, but I want to avoid much additional work and code changes in the process.
I know that I can select the compile target to "DLL", but I have the feeling that alone won't do the job.
If I successfully compiled my project into a DLL file, how do I use the functions in it from an executable project?
Can I avoid using _dllexport and importing every function per-name?
How does one statically link a DLL, and what are the (dis)advantages of this?
Honestly, I would take a look at the DLL export docs and pick whatever export method works best for you. In any case, you can simply reference exported functions by name from your client apps, as you would with a static library.
When you build the project as a DLL, the IDE will generate
The DLL file for runtime and
a LIB file containing exported function resolution information - that's the one you link against.
By definition, you cannot statically link a DLL (that's DYNAMIC link library) - instead, you link to a library that exports the functions from the DLL, and then the DLL loads at runtime, either automatically on process start or on demand. It's also possible to load the DLL completely on demand without any static linkage (see LoadLibraryEx etc).
Since you're using C++ I'm assuming you're exporting classes(?). There's a really good example over on CodeProject which walks you through a few options. The cleanest of which is to use an abstract interface:
A C++ abstract interface (i.e., a C++ class that contains only pure virtual methods and no data members) tries to get the best of both worlds: a compiler independent clean interface to an object, and a convenient object oriented way of method calls. All that is required to do is to provide a header file with an interface declaration and implement a factory function that will return the newly created object instances. Only the factory function has to be declared with the __declspec(dllexport/dllimport) specifier. The interface does not require any additional specifiers.
You can't statically link to a Dynamic Link Library. If you want to link statically, create a .lib instead.
To use your DLL you have to #include the header file(s) associated with your dll/lib and link with the .lib file that is associated with your .dll
You need the _declspec(dllexport)/_declspec(dllimport) to indicate you want to export/import the contents of the dll. This can be easily accomplished as follows
#ifdef FOO_EXPORTS
#define EXPORT_ME __declspec(dllexport)
#else
#define IMPORT_ME __declspec(dllimport)
#endif
in the headers for your dll you simply need to #define FOO_EXPORTS and place the EXPORT
foo.hpp
class EXPORT_ME foo2();
void EXPORT_ME foo_funct(foo2 *foo_ptr);
and any file that needs to use the exported items simply needs to call the the methods defined in the foo.hpp header (the default behavior is to import)
use_foo.cpp
main()
{
#include "foo.cpp";
foo2 myfoo;
foo_funct(&my_foo);
}
As others have said, a lib is statically linked and a dll is dynamically linked. Any referenced elements when linked statically are placed in-line at compile time into your source and generally produce a larger program (as far as file size), while dynamically linked elements are linked in at run-time so the file size is usually smaller. There are many other pros/cons to static vs dynamic - I recommend you follow Doc Browns link for more info
Switch to gcc under MinGW. Building and linking to a DLL is just as easy as building and linking to a static library. It even handles C++ name mangling transparently (but then the calling program also needs to be compiled with gcc).
It's pointed out by this answer:
Failed to link mysql5.1.39\bin\libmySQL.dll
But I don't understand why,.dll is essentially the same as .lib except for there is only one copy of it used by different processes.
Does it have anything to do with the IDE?I'm using visual c++ 2008 express
UPDATE
Anyone know a free tool to convert .dll into .lib in windows?
You are wrong on two counts. Firstly, DLLs and LIBs (static libraries) are very different beasts. The LIB you are talking about (I think) is the export library, which is simply a list of names in the DLL. This library is typically produced when the DLL is compiled and is shipped with the DLL if the DLL is intended to be linked to by other developers.
To use a DLL with a modern IDE (I don't use VS) you typically include the matching .LIB (export library) in the project. At run-time you must make sure the DLL is available to your program - the simplest way to do this is to put the DLL in the same directory as the executable.
And secondly, DLLs can be used with C++.
DLL are specific windows executables which load on runtime. Their equivalent in Linux is the *.so .
If you want to understand what's the difference between a DLL and a static lib see here.
Main reason has probably something to do with dll-file being an output of the linker (link.exe). This command line utility doesnt know how to read dlls, only how to write them.
Actually sometimes .lib-files contain more than a list of functions. For example libpng.lib works as a standalone file, without any dll file.
In order to use a DLL in C/C++ you need to link with what is called an import lib. This is a small .lib that contains the names/ordinals the DLL exports in a format that the linker understands. Once this has been linked in, the resulting binary will be able to use the DLL. If you do not have the appropriate import lib, your C/C++ compiler should come with a tool to generate one from the DLL.
You can use the following analogy to understand the difference between a dll and a lib file.
the dll is like the source .cpp file while the lib is the header .h file.
While this is not exactly true, the DLL holds the executable code while the LIB file tells the linker how to glue the code together.
It is also possible (in some cases) to generate the lib from the dll. Basically, all you need to know to call a function is the function entry point in the dll, the number of parameters and the size of each parameters. Sending relevant information is then your own problem.