I'm building an IR level Pass for LLVM which instrument the functions with calls to my runtime library.
So far I have used the following lines to compile any C file with my pass and link it with the runtime library and guaranteeing that the runtime library function calls are inlined.
Compiling source to IR...
clang -S -emit-llvm example.c -o example-codeIR.ll -I ../runtime
Running Pass with opt...
opt -load=../build/PSS/libPSSPass.so -PSSPass -overwrite -always-inline -S -o example-codeOpt.ll example-codeIR.ll
Linking IR with runtime library...
llvm-link -o example-linked.bc example-codeOpt.ll ../runtime/obj/PSSutils.ll
Compiling bitcode to binary...
clang -ldl -O3 -o example example-linked.bc ../initializer/so/shim.so
Now I would like to test my pass with the LLVM testsuite and the only thing I can do is pass flags to the test suite. I can't control the steps of of compilation and generate so many files for each test case.
Is there a way to do the same as above without having to save intermediate files and yet keep the order of the steps?
I have tried the following:
clang -ldl -Xclang -load -Xclang ../build/PSS/libPSSPass.so ../initializer/so/shim.so ../runtime/obj/PSSutils.ll $<
But I ran into the problem that I can't compile both IR and .c files.
If I compile the runtime library to be an object file the functions in it will not get inlined anymore which is the main goal of the above steps.
So to Answer my question:
first of all, call to shared objects are never inlined. hence, the above mentioned shared objects should be compiled to objects instead. The -flto=thin flag should be used when compiling the objects to build a summary of the functions so the linker can perform link time optimizations.
And in the final step of compiling the target you will need to also compile it with -flto=thin flag and the compiler will do the magic for you.
Related
I'm trying to compile a simple unit test on my windows machine.
When I'm trying to compile my test I'm using the shared library flag.
gcc -c -L./bin/ -lcmocka .\Test.c .\src\some_module.c
gcc .\Test.o .\some_module.o -o main
But the second line throws this error:
undefined reference to `_cmocka_run_group_tests'
However, if I'm compiling using directly the cmocka.c file which I downloaded from their git it works fine:
gcc -c .\lib\cmocka.c .\Test.c .\src\some_module.c
gcc .\Test.o .\some_module.o .\cmocka.o
What am I doing wrong in the first compilation?
In addition, I would happy to understand the difference between the two compilations. Which one is the better practice?
Thank you
In order to compile your code, the compiler does not need to know where to look for the library. It's enough if the compiler "finds" the declarations of the functions which are usually in the header files provided by the library.
This step is done in the first line of your compilation procedure (maybe you need to specify the folder to the header files by adding -Ipath/to/headers/):
gcc -c .\Test.c .\src\some_module.c
The library itself is "combined" with your code during the linking step, which is done during your second compilation step. Here you need to specify the library (and its path via -Lpath/to/library, if the linker does not find the library on its own):
gcc .\Test.o .\some_module.o -o main -L./bin/ -lcmocka
You should definitely not use your second approach and compile the library by yourself.
I have two C files, program.c and tests.c, that each contain a main function.
program.c is a standalone program, that compiles and run normally on its own. But I would like to also be able to use some of its functions in tests.c (without using a common header file). Is there a way of doing this?
If I insert the prototype of the function I want from program.c into tests.c and compile with:
gcc -o program.o -c program.c
gcc -o tests.o -c tests.c
gcc -o tests tests.o program.o
I obtain an error duplicate symbol _main, which I understand since there are indeed two `main' functions.
I basically would like to be able to treat program.c both as a standalone program and as a library, similarly to what could be done in Python with if __name__ == '__main__'.
If you need to have two separate distinct executables for which some of the functionality between them is similar you can share the common functionality by placing relevant functions into a third file, and compiling as a portable executable, DLL in Windows. (or shared library in Linux.) Each of these file types contain sharable, executable code, ithout the main() function, designed to be linked during compile time, and dynamically loaded into your executable at runtime.
Here is a step by step set of instructions for shared library using GCC and Linux.
Here is a step by step example for creating DLL using GCC in windows.
So I managed to achieve what I wanted thanks to the comment from #pmg:
I compile program.c into a standalone binary (gcc -o program program.c), but I also compile it into an object file with "main" renamed (gcc -c -Dmain=mainp -o program.o program.c).
I can then use this object file (that does not contain a "main" symbol anymore) to compile tests.c: gcc -o tests tests.c program.o.
Thanks #pmg, I did not know this use of the -D option.
I wonder if there is any benefit for using the -S GCC option in my Makefiles.
I've been compiling C files like the following for quite some time now:
gcc -c a.c -o a.o
gcc -c b.c -o b.o
---
gcc a.o b.o -o a.out
Now would it be better going:
gcc -S a.c -o a.s
gcc -S b.c -o b.s
---
gcc -c a.s -o a.o
gcc -c b.s -o b.o
---
gcc a.o b.o -o a.out
Also there is apparently the option of skipping the .o phase, assembling directly .s files into a binary. Which option you think is the best and why?
-S flags asks gcc to produce human readable assembly code - .o files are nice for a linker but rather cryptic for most human beings...
It is mainly used when you need low level optimization of a (short) piece of code that has been identified by profiling as being a bottleneck. You can compare how the compiler will translate various versions and choose the one that will give the most efficient machine code for that specific implementation.
It is not intended to be used in standard makefiles.
Also there is apparently the option of skipping the .o phase, assembling directly .s files into a binary.
Plain assembly is never transformed directly to executable binary code, there is always in intermediate object-file step.
gcc a.s b.s -o ab.exe
will always call the assembler (twice) which produces object code for either units, and then the objects are linked. Add -v to the command line to see which sub-commands are executed by gcc. gcc is not actually a compiler, it is just a driver program calling jobs depending on options and file extensions. The compiler proper is cc1 (for C code), cc1plus (for C++ code), etc.
Which option you think is the best and why?
-S has the advantage to producing assembly code, however the compiler will always generate assembly code as intermediate step. It's just the case that it's written to temporary files, with 2 notable exceptions:
-save-temps: This will not use some temporary-file names (for example in /tmp), but save the intermediate code in the same place as the objects (there are two flavors actually, -save-temps=obj and -save-temps=src).
-pipe: This will used pipes to transfer code from one sup-program to the next instead of files (except with -save-temps which nullifies -pipe).
Thus, if you want to see the generated assembly, -save-temps might be the way to go. However, that option also applies to the pre-processed code which is saved in .i for C, .ii for C++ and .s for assembly. This is often very appreciated when working with C macros.
In the case you intend to inspect the compiler-generated assembly, you might enjoy -fverbose-asm which injects asm comments that indicate the C/C++ source associated to the assembly. And it might be a good idea not to clutter assembly with debug-info in that case.
I am trying to build a shared library lib_test.so from 'test.c' & test.exp files. This lib_test.so file will be used as a extension to another application.
The application doc specifies generation of tle lib_test.so file directly in a single pass by the following command:
`gcc -q64 -o lib_test.so test.c -bM:Sre -bE:test.exp -bnoentry`
But my requirement is to build the library in two passes:
Compile to generate test.o file using gcc command.
Link to generate the library lib_test.so using ld command.
I tried this as follows:
Executed compile step as follows: gcc -q64 -c -o test.o test.c.
Create lib_test.so as follows: ld -bM:Sre -bE:test.exp -bnoentry -o lib_test.so test.o
But it is not generating a proper lib_test.so file.
I am using Ubuntu 16.04 LTS 64-Bit with latest GCC
Can you please suggest the correct way to split the process into two passes...
Thanks & Regards.
You rarely ever want to use ld to perform the linking. The gcc frontend does the better job of setting the right flags etc. So, use gcc.
i.e. Instead of
ld -bM:Sre -bE:test.exp -bnoentry -o lib_test.so test.o
do
gcc -bM:Sre -bE:test.exp -bnoentry -o lib_test.so test.o
in your second step.
The big difference between linking with the GCC frontend program gcc and with the actual linker ld is that the GCC frontend adds a few libraries to be linked with. Most notably the GCC runtime library (-lgcc_s or -lgcc) and the actual standard C library (-lc).
When you invoke ld directly you do not tell it to link with those libraries.
There might also be other libraries and flags the GCC frontend passes to ld without your knowledge. For the "one pass" build, pass the flag -v to gcc for verbose output and see what arguments, flags and libraries it uses.
I want clang to compile my C/C++ code to LLVM bitcode rather than a binary executable. How can I achieve that?
And if I have the LLVM bitcode, how can I further compile it to a binary executable?
I want to add some of my own code to the LLVM bitcode before compiling to a binary executable.
Given some C/C++ file foo.c:
> clang -S -emit-llvm foo.c
Produces foo.ll which is an LLVM IR file.
The -emit-llvm option can also be passed to the compiler front-end directly, and not the driver by means of -cc1:
> clang -cc1 foo.c -emit-llvm
Produces foo.ll with the IR. -cc1 adds some cool options like -ast-print. Check out -cc1 --help for more details.
To compile LLVM IR further to assembly, use the llc tool:
> llc foo.ll
Produces foo.s with assembly (defaulting to the machine architecture you run it on). llc is one of the LLVM tools - here is its documentation.
Use
clang -emit-llvm -o foo.bc -c foo.c
clang -o foo foo.bc
If you have multiple source files, you probably actually want to use link-time-optimization to output one bitcode file for the entire program. The other answers given will cause you to end up with a bitcode file for every source file.
Instead, you want to compile with link-time-optimization
clang -flto -c program1.c -o program1.o
clang -flto -c program2.c -o program2.o
and for the final linking step, add the argument -Wl,-plugin-opt=also-emit-llvm
clang -flto -Wl,-plugin-opt=also-emit-llvm program1.o program2.o -o program
This gives you both a compiled program and the bitcode corresponding to it (program.bc). You can then modify program.bc in any way you like, and recompile the modified program at any time by doing
clang program.bc -o program
although be aware that you need to include any necessary linker flags (for external libraries, etc) at this step again.
Note that you need to be using the gold linker for this to work. If you want to force clang to use a specific linker, create a symlink to that linker named "ld" in a special directory called "fakebin" somewhere on your computer, and add the option
-B/home/jeremy/fakebin
to any linking steps above.
If you have multiple files and you don't want to have to type each file, I would recommend that you follow these simple steps (I am using clang-3.8 but you can use any other version):
generate all .ll files
clang-3.8 -S -emit-llvm *.c
link them into a single one
llvm-link-3.8 -S -v -o single.ll *.ll
(Optional) Optimise your code (maybe some alias analysis)
opt-3.8 -S -O3 -aa -basicaaa -tbaa -licm single.ll -o optimised.ll
Generate assembly (generates a optimised.s file)
llc-3.8 optimised.ll
Create executable (named a.out)
clang-3.8 optimised.s
Did you read clang documentation ? You're probably looking for -emit-llvm.