Related
I'm considering between header-only vs. header&source design. I'm not sure if the header&source allows compiler to optimize across object files and across linkage ? such as inlining optimization ?
Header files and source files typically compiled as a single translation unit (since headers are included in the source files). So, that won't be an issue (unless you have a peculiar environment where
headers are compiled separately).
GCC does support optimizations across different translation units. See Link Time Optimization.
See the -flto option's documentation for details:
-flto[=n]
This option runs the standard link-time optimizer. When invoked with
source code, it generates GIMPLE (one of GCC's internal
representations) and writes it to special ELF sections in the object
file. When the object files are linked together, all the function
bodies are read from these ELF sections and instantiated as if they
had been part of the same translation unit. To use the link-time
optimizer, -flto and optimization options should be specified at
compile time and during the final link. It is recommended that you
compile all the files participating in the same link with the same
options and also specify those options at link time.
I just read a paragraph about linker and complitation in C so i this is what I understood from it : compiler in c/c++ turns the file instead of .c/.cpp (except checking if the code is valid lets assume that the code is valid) to .o/.obj which inside of it the code is written in machine code(binary) and when you run the code it does linking and it takes the object file which was created from the original .c / .cpp and turns it into and executable file that the machine can read ?
can you plz tell me if that is truth ?
The truth but somewhat simplistic.
The compiler generates object code from source code - it compiles a single translation unit. The object code comprises of certainly machine code, but it is not directly executable since it contains unresolved symbols to library code and to code from other separately compiled translation units. Thes symbolic links are calls or references to code and data whose address is not yet resolved.
The linker brings together multiple object code modules from compiled translation units and from library code (such as the standard library, operating system API etc.), and resolves unresolved symbols(i.e. links everything together). In an OS hosted environment, the linker also adds information required by the OS to load the executable.
When a program is compiled , one or more object files are created which are essentially machine code (0,1).
These files are the ingredients of your ultimate executable but in raw form.
So when linking (this is just a general idea) these files will be connected and included to make a perfect exe that can be run separately.
However if error occurs while linking it might mean that some of your
function is not defined (or there are multiple defintions) in the file
that you've included in your code!
When we include the header files in C , we actually add the declaration of the functions such as the printf , scanf etc. But how does the code for the function ( the function declaration ) get added to the program ?
That's done by the process of linking. Individually compiled translation units have a way of referring to dependent names symbolically, so your code would only say "call a function with name 'printf'", and it is the job of the linking procedure to look up those symbols in one of the provided object or library files.
The standard library is usually linked against your code implicitly, so you may not be aware of the fact that you are linking your code with pre-existing library code. You would definitely be aware of this if you used your own libraries.
Note that there is no standard for linking, so you cannot generally compile one file with one compiler and another file with a different compiler and then link them together. The problem is not just to agree on how names are represented, but also on how to generate code for function calls. There are however several "informal" calling conventions and name mangling rules on popular platforms that offer a degree of interoperability.
Is it the C preprocessor, compiler, or linkage editor?
To tell you the truth, it is programmer.
The answer you are looking for is... the compiler it depends. Sometimes it's the compiler, sometimes it's the linker, and sometimes it doesn't happen until the program is loaded.
The preprocessor:
handles directives for source file inclusion (#include), macro definitions (#define), and conditional inclusion (#if).
...
The language of preprocessor directives is agnostic to the grammar of C, so the C preprocessor can also be used independently to process other kinds of text files.
The linker:
takes one or more objects generated by a compiler and combines them into a single executable program.
...
Computer programs typically comprise several parts or modules; all
these parts/modules need not be contained within a single object file,
and in such case refer to each other by means of symbols. Typically,
an object file can contain three kinds of symbols:
defined symbols, which allow it to be called by other modules,
undefined symbols, which call the other modules where these symbols are defined, and
local symbols, used internally within the object file to facilitate relocation.
When a program comprises multiple object files, the linker combines
these files into a unified executable program, resolving the
symbols as it goes along.
In environments which allow dynamic linking, it is possible that
executable code still contains undefined symbols, plus a list of objects or libraries that will provide definitions for these.
The programmer must make sure everything is defined somewhere. The programmer is RESPONSIBLE for doing so.
Various tools will complain along the way if they notice anything missing:
The compiler will notice certain things missing, and will error out if it can realize that something's not there.
The linker will error out if it can't fix up a reference that's not in a library somewhere.
At run time there is a loader that pulls the relevant shared libraries into the process's memory space. The loader is the last thing that gets a crack at fixing up symbols before the program gets to run any code, and it will throw errors if it can't find a shared library/dll, or if the interface for the library that was used at link-time doesn't match up correctly with the available library.
None of these tools is RESPONSIBLE for making sure everything is defined. They are just the things that will notice if things are NOT defined, and will be the ones throwing the error message.
For symbols with internal linkage or no linkage: the compiler.
For symbols with external linkage: the linker, either the "traditional" one, or the runtime linker.
Note that the dynamic/runtime linker may choose to do its job lazily, resolving symbols only when they are used (e.g: when a function is called for the first time).
Reading through my book Expert C Programming, I came across the chapter on function interpositioning and how it can lead to some serious hard to find bugs if done unintentionally.
The example given in the book is the following:
my_source.c
mktemp() { ... }
main() {
mktemp();
getwd();
}
libc
mktemp(){ ... }
getwd(){ ...; mktemp(); ... }
According to the book, what happens in main() is that mktemp() (a standard C library function) is interposed by the implementation in my_source.c. Although having main() call my implementation of mktemp() is intended behavior, having getwd() (another C library function) also call my implementation of mktemp() is not.
Apparently, this example was a real life bug that existed in SunOS 4.0.3's version of lpr. The book goes on to explain the fix was to add the keyword static to the definition of mktemp() in my_source.c; although changing the name altogether should have fixed this problem as well.
This chapter leaves me with some unresolved questions that I hope you guys could answer:
Does GCC have a way to warn about function interposition? We certainly don't ever intend on this happening and I'd like to know about it if it does.
Should our software group adopt the practice of putting the keyword static in front of all functions that we don't want to be exposed?
Can interposition happen with functions introduced by static libraries?
Thanks for the help.
EDIT
I should note that my question is not just aimed at interposing over standard C library functions, but also functions contained in other libraries, perhaps 3rd party, perhaps ones created in-house. Essentially, I want to catch any instance of interpositioning regardless of where the interposed function resides.
This is really a linker issue.
When you compile a bunch of C source files the compiler will create an object file for each one. Each .o file will contain a list of the public functions in this module, plus a list of functions that are called by code in the module, but are not actually defined there i.e. functions that this module is expecting some library to provide.
When you link a bunch of .o files together to make an executable the linker must resolve all of these missing references. This is the point where interposing can happen. If there are unresolved references to a function called "mktemp" and several libraries provide a public function with that name, which version should it use? There's no easy answer to this and yes odd things can happen if the wrong one is chosen
So yes, it's a good idea in C to "static" everything unless you really do need to use it from other source files. In fact in many other languages this is the default behavior and you have to mark things "public" if you want them accessible from outside.
It sounds like what you want is for the tools to detect that there are name conflicts in functions - ie., you don't want your externally accessible function names form accidentally having the same name and therefore 'override' or hide functions with the same name in a library.
There was a recent SO question related to this problem: Linking Libraries with Duplicate Class Names using GCC
Using the --whole-archive option on all the libraries you link against may help (but as I mentioned in the answer over there, I really don't know how well this works or how easy it is to convince builds to apply the option to all libraries)
Purely formally, the interpositioning you describe is a straightforward violation of C language definition rules (ODR rule, in C++ parlance). Any decent compiler must either detect these situations, or provide options for detecting them. It is simply illegal to define more than one function with the same name in C language, regardless of where these functions are defined (Standard library, other user library etc.)
I understand that many platforms provide means to customize the [standard] library behavior by defining some standard functions as weak symbols. While this is indeed a useful feature, I believe the compilers must still provide the user with means to enforce the standard diagnostics (on per-function or per-library basis preferably).
So, again, you should not worry about interpositioning if you have no weak symbols in your libraries. If you do (or if you suspect that you do), you have to consult your compiler documentation to find out if it offers you with means to inspect the weak symbol resolution.
In GCC, for example, you can disable the weak symbol functionality by using -fno-weak, but this basically kills everything related to weak symbols, which is not always desirable.
If the function does not need to be accessed outside of the C file it lives in then yes, I would recommend making the function static.
One thing you can do to help catch this is to use an editor that has configurable syntax highlighting. I personally use SciTE, and I have configured it to display all standard library function names in red. That way, it's easy to spot if I am re-using a name I shouldn't be using (nothing is enforced by the compiler, though).
It's relatively easy to write a script that runs nm -o on all your .o files and your libraries and checks to see if an external name is defined both in your program and in a library. Just one of the many sane sensible services that the Unix linker doesn't provide because it's stuck in 1974, looking at one file at a time. (Try putting libraries in the wrong order and see if you get a useful error message!)
The Interposistioning occurs when the linker is trying to link separate modules.
It cannot occur within a module. If there are duplicate symbols in a module the linker will report this as an error.
For *nix linkers, unintended Interposistioning is a problem and it is difficult for the linker to guard against it.
For the purposes of this answer consider the two linking stages:
The linker links translation units into modulles (basically
applications or libraries).
The linker links any remaining unfound symbols by searching in modules.
Consider the scenario described in 'Expert C programming' and in SiegeX's question.
The linker fist tries to build the application module.
It sess that the symbol mktemp() is an external and tries to find a funcion definiton for the symbol. The linker finds
the definition for the function in the object code of the application module and marks the symbol as found.
At this stage the symbol mktemp() is completely resolved. It is not considered in any way tentative so as to allow
for the possibility that the anothere module might define the symbol.
In many ways this makes sense, since the linker should first try and resolve external symbols within the module it is
currently linking. It is only unfound symbols that it searches for when linking in other modules.
Furthermore, since the symbol has been marked as resolved, the linker will use the applications mktemp() in any
other cases where is needs to resolve this symbol.
Thus the applications version of mktemp() will be used by the library.
A simple way to guard agains the problem is to try and make all external sysmbols in your application or library unique.
For modules that are only going to shared on a limited basis, this can fairly easily be done by making sure all
extenal symbols in your module are unique by appending a unique identifier.
For modules that are widely shared making up unique names is a problem.