I'm in the process of porting a large C++ application from Linux (gcc) to Windows (Visual C++ 2008) and am having linker issues with plugins. On Linux this wasn't an issue, as .so supports runtime symbol lookup, but dll does not seem to support this.
Some background information:
The application (the host), which hosts a scripting environment, provides interfaces to plugins (shared libraries that are loaded at runtime by script API calls), allowing the host and the scripting API to be extended without recompiling the host application. On Linux this is just a matter of including the host application's headers in the plugin source, but on Windows I'm receiving linker errors. I'm not sure exactly what I need to link with for Visual C++ to resolve these symbols.
One of our dependencies (open source, LGPL) has preprocessor declarations that it uses to insert __declspec(dllexport) and __declspec(dllimport) into it's headers. Some prior research indicates that I may have to do this as well, but I'd like to be sure before I go modifying a whole bunch of core headers. (I was previously able to get this working on MinGW, but we've decided that supporting Visual Studio is a requirement for this sort of commercial project.)
My question, in a nutshell: How do I link runtime-loaded dlls against a host exe in Visual C++?
Edit: To clarify the problem with an example, I have a class in my host application, Object, which represents the base type of an object that may be accessed by a script. In my plugins I have a number of classes which extend Object to perform other functions, such as integrating networking support or new visual elements. This means that my dll must link with symbols in the host exe, and I am not sure how to do that.
What do you mean by "runtime symbol lookup"? Do you mean dynamically loading libraries using dlopen and dlsym and so on? The equivalents in Windows are called LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress.
In windows, you don't export symbols from a executable. You should only export them from a dll. The right way to solve your problem is to rearchitect so that the exported symbols are in a dll that the executable and other plugin dlls can link against.
You can't, easily. The windows loader isn't designed to export symbols out of an EXE and bind them to symbols in a DLL.
One pattern that I have seen is the DLL export a certain function that the EXE calls. It takes as a parameter a structure which contains addresses of functions in the EXE for the DLL to call.
I have been implementing the same, constructing a plugin library to build under both Linux and Windows.
The solution under Linux is to use the -rdynamic option in the gcc command line. This exports all of the symbols in the main executable, so that a plugin can find them on loading.
Under Windows, the solution is to add __declspec(dllexport) in front of the definition of those functions in the exe that you want the dlls to use. Compilation will create a .lib file for the dlls to link to. Certainly works under Visual studio 2008.
Related post: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3756083/1486836
As 1800 INFORMATION says, don't do it like that. Move Object out of the executable and into a "third" DLL. Link the plugins and the executable against that.
Related
I was wondering if I can take an existing windows DLL and static link the dynamically-linked files?
I saw a number of projects to do this with Linux/elf
http://magicermine.com/
http://statifier.sourceforge.net/
http://bitwagon.com/jumpstart/jumpstart.html
I imagine this is most likely not possible, but I am running into some issues in WinPE where when I statically linked the DLLs everything started working great.
I don't have the source to the existing DLL.
I guess I could make a pass-through DLL that exposed all of the same functions and static linked?
There is no tool support for linking in the code of a DLL statically.
The problem is that a DLL is a full Windows PE executable, not a C or C++ “library” in any sense. The C++ standard has only one statement that is vaguely in support of DLL-like things (in the para about dynamic initialization after first statement of main). You’re out of luck.
But if you had the source code (as e.g. with MFC), which you say you don’t, then you could just have created static libraries.
Do note that there already is a meaning for “linking statically” a DLL, namely to have it loaded and have its functions resolved automatically.
Which is the usual way of using a DLL.
And which is in contrast to explicitly loading it dynamically and using GetProcAddress to resolve its functions.
Regarding
” when I statically linked the DLLs everything started working great
presumably earlier you have explictly loaded the DLLs dynamically, and used GetProcAddress, and presumably something about that did not work perfectly.
One main problem with GetProcAddress is that it assumes that the provided function name is encoded as Windows ANSI (the machine-dependent encoding reported by GetACP), and then (apparently) translates that to UTF-8 for the function lookup.
One workaround could be to access the function by ordinal rather than name.
One way to find the ordinal with Microsoft's tools, is to use dumpbin /exports.
Well, trying to build a simple exe in visual studio 2012, with c++ win32 console app, just with a
printf("-----");
After build the release version, its running ok.
When transfer to another windows 7 clean installation, at running i get notice that the MSVCP110.DLL is missing...
Its not a native app ??? why extern dll is needed ?
In old win95 I make many executables with visual C 6 and its run standalone withou any dll.
I will always deplay this dll's with the "native" exe ?
When you write a C++ program, you use a few low-level libraries to interface with the machine. The C++ Standard Library is one example. Consider for example, new. When you call new in your program, you're invoking a piece of code that implements that functionality. Where is that actual code?
It's in a library. That library is deployed in a few different ways. One way is through dynamic linking, where the library is in the form of a DLL that needs to be present on the machine where you run your program. That's what MSVCP110.DLL is -- it's one of the library files your program was compiled against. Another way is to use static linking, where the code from that library is compiled directly in to your program. This results in a signifigant increase in the size of your application, but the other side of that coin is you don't need those library files to be on your target machine. You also need to make sure that other libraries your program use are also built against the same static library. If your program shares data with other programs, you further may need to ensure that those programs use the same static libraries.
Microsoft and Windows aren't unique in this. The same thing happens under Linux, albeit the libraries have different names.
There are pros and cons to using either shared libraries (eg dynamic linking) or static libraries. It's simple and catchy to say "gahrrr I hate shared libraries" but unless you understand why either is appropriate in what situation you stand to deploy a poorly-designed program.
I'm working on a C++ solution in Visual Studio 2010. I've a DLL file which is using some standard C++ library functions (such as string or file functions). For some portability reasons I have to compile this DLL with /MT option, so all required runtime library functions will be linked to the released DLL file.
I've another C++ project which is a windows application, this project also compiles with /MT option and generates an standalone exe file. The second project also uses the same standard C++ library functions that are already linked in my DLL (The executable also uses some DLL exported methods).
Now here is my question: Is there any way to tell linker that don't link common runtime functions which already linked to DLL file & don't link these shared parts again in the exe file (e.g. reuse same code for string functions which already linked to my DLL)?
No, you can't do that. Although executable depends on DLL, they can still be considered as separate and stand-alone binary artifacts, each of which should contain required symbols for proper execution.
This is one of the reasons why dynamic linking is preferred. Furthermore, I don't see any problem to link dynamically and redistribute the runtime with your application.
Although Microsoft Visual C Runtime is included on most platforms, there are many different versions of it, some of which are buggy or/and break backward compatibility. Thus, it is always a good idea to distribute the version of msvcr*.dll that you know works for sure with your application.
I'm working on a cross-platform c++/qt project with a plugin system, we are using so files on linux and dll on windows. We are using gcc on Linux and Visual Studio 2010 on Windows through cmake.
The problem is our plugins sometimes need to call a function from the application source code, which is working fine on Linux with gcc by just including the header files. But on Visual Studio, we got unresolved external symbol errors.
Is it because so and dll files works differently?
thank you.
The default behaviour for exporting symbols from dlls on Windows is exactly opposite: by default, symbols are invisible, you need to export them explicitly. With VC++ this is done by __declspec(dllexport) declarators.
EDIT (Information added): You are entering a region of non-standardized, system specific behaviour... There are much more problems associated with writing cross-platform "pluggable" component systems in C++ than you might be expecting. On Windows there are so called import libraries, which define all symbols exported from a dll. You have to link against these libraries in order to resolve these symbols. This is called implicit linking. You can also link explicitly which means loading dll and its exported symbols at run-time. However all these are just technical details compared to so called binary compatibility issues, which will almost certainly kill you, if not considered during the design of your component system.
I am wondering about one thing: You said you're using Qt. Qt application framework has got it's own cross platform conventions and rules for writing and building pluggable components. Why don't you stick with these...?
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