I was trying to write a common function for other files could reuse it, the example as following, I have three files:
The first file: cat test1.h
void say();
The second file: cat test1.c
void say(){
printf("This is c example!");
}
The third file: cat test2.c
include "test1.h"
void main(){
say();
}
but when I ran: gcc -g -o test2 test2.c
it threw error as：
undefined reference to `say'
Additionally: I knew this would work:gcc -g -o test2 test1.c test2.c
but I don't wanna do this, because the other team would use the server, and I hope them directly use my binary code not source code. I hope that just like we use printf() function, we just need include .
You can build yourself a library from the object files containing your useful functions, and store the header(s) that describe them in a convenient location. You and your colleagues then compile with the headers and link that library with any executables that use any of those functions. That's very much the same general mechanism that the C compiler uses to include the standard headers and automatically link with the standard C library.
The mechanics vary a bit depending on platform (Windows vs Unix being the primary distinction, though there are differences between Unix platforms too), and also on the type of library (static archive vs dynamic linked / loaded libraries — also known as shared objects or shared libraries).
In broad outline, for a Unix system with a static library, you'd:
Compile library object files libfile1.o, libfile2.o, … using (for example) gcc -c libfile1.c libfile2.c.
Create an archive from the object files — using for example ar r libname.a libfile1.o libfile2.o.
Copy the headers to a standard location such as /usr/local/include.
Copy the library to a standard location such as /usr/local/lib.
You'd compile any code that uses the library functions with -I/usr/local/include (if that is not already a standard compilation option).
You'd link the programs with -L/usr/local/lib -lname (you might not need to specify -L… but you would need to specify -lname).
Including a header file does not make a function available. It simply informs the compiler that the function will be provided at a later time.
You should compile the file with the function into a shareable object file (or a library if there is more than one function that you want to share). Mind the switch -c which tells gcc not to build an executable file:
gcc -o test1.o test1.c -c
Similarly, compile the main function into its own object file. Now you or anyone else can link the object file with their main program:
gcc -o test2 test2.o test1.o
The process can be automated using make.
Other programmers can use compiled object files (`*.o') in their programs. They need only to have a header file with function prototypes, extern data declarations and type definitions.
You can also wrap many object files into the library.
On many systems you can also create the dynamic linked libraries which do not have to be linked into the executable.
you also need to compile test1:
gcc -g -o test2 test1.c test2.c.
Related
I am attempting to compile this code:
#include <GLFW/glfw3.h>
int main() {
glfwInit();
glfwTerminate();
return 0;
}
Using this command in MSYS2 on Windows 10:
gcc -Wall runVulkan.c -o runVulkan
as well as this:
gcc -Wall -Llibs/glfw runVulkan.c -o runVulkan
libs/glfw is where I downloaded the library to.
For some reason I keep getting this:
runVulkan.c:1:10: fatal error: GLFW/glfw3.h: No such file or directory
1 | #include <GLFW/glfw3.h>
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.
It seems like I'm getting something very basic wrong.
I'm just getting started with C, I'm trying to import Vulkan libraries.
Run pacman -S mingw-w64-x86_64-glfw to install GLFW.
Then build using gcc -Wall runVulkan.c -o runVulkan runVulkan.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs glfw3`.
The pkg-config command prints the flags necessary to use GLFW, and the ` backticks pass its output to GCC as flags. You can run it separately and manually pass any printed flags to GCC.
Note that any -l... flags (those are included in pkg-config output) must be specified after .c or .o files, otherwise they'll have no effect.
For me pkg-config prints -I/mingw64/include -L/mingw64/lib -lglfw3.
-I fixes No such file or directory. It specifies a directory where the compiler will look for #included headers. Though it's unnecessrary when installing GLFW via pacman, since /mingw64/include is always searched by default.
-l fixes undefined reference errors, which you'd get after fixing the previous error. -lglfw3 needs a file called libglfw3.a or libglfw3.dll.a (or some other variants).
-L specifies a directory where -l should search for the .a files, though it's unnecessrary when installing GLFW via pacman, since /mingw64/lib is always searched by default.
#include are just headers, for declarations. gcc, as any compilers, needs to know where those .h should be searched.
You can specify that with -I option (or C_INCLUDE_PATH environment variable).
You'll also need -L option, this times to provide the library itself (.h does not contain the library. Just declarations that the compiler needs to know how to compile codes that use the library function's and types).
-L option tells the compiler where to search for libraries.
But here, you haven't specify any libraries (just headers. And I know that it seems logical that they go together. But strictly speaking, there is no way to guess from #include <GLFW/glfw3.h> which library that file contain headers for (that is not just theory. In practice, for example, the well known libc declarations are in many different headers)
So, you will also have to specify a -l option. In your case -lglfw.
This seems over complicated, because in your case you compile and like in a single command (goes from .c to executable directly). But that are two different operations done in one command.
Creation of an executable from .c code source is done in two stage.
Compilation itself. Creating .o from .c (many .c for big codes), so many compilation commands. Using command such as
gcc -I /path/where/to/find/headers -c mycode.c -o mycode.o
Those are not related to the library. So no -l (and therefore no -L) for that. What is compiled is your code, so just your code is needed at this stage. Plus the header files, because your code refers to unknown function and types, and the compiler needs to know, not their code, but at least declarations that they really exist, and what are the types expected and returned by the functions is the headers files.
Then, once all the .o are compiled, you need to put together all compiled code, yours (the .o) and the libraries (which are somehow a sort of .zip of .o) to create an executable. That is called linking. And is done with commands like
gcc -o myexec mycode1.o mycode2.o -L /path/where/to/search/for/libraries -lrary
(-lbla is a compact way to include /path/where/to/search/for/libraries/libbla.so or /path/where/to/search/for/libraries/libbla.a)
At this stage, you no longer need -I or anything related to headers. The code is already compiled, headers has no role left. But you need everything needed to find the compile code of the libraries.
So, tl;dr
At compilation stage (the stage that raises the error you have for now), you need -I option so that the compiler knows where to find GLFW/glfw3.h
But that alone wont avoid you the next error that will occur at linking stage. At this stage, you need -lglfw to specify that you want to use that library, and a -L option so that the compiler knows where to find a libglfw.so
Since every time when we link against a static library we also need to include the header files, I am wondering if it is possible to archive into the static library, when creating it, those heads?
Say I have two object files foo1.o and foo2.o generated by
gcc foo1.c -I foo1.h -c -o foo1.o
gcc foo2.c -I foo2.h -c -o foo2.o
Gcc tutorials tell us we can generate libfoo.a using
ar libfoo.a foo1.o foo2.o
This must sound silly, but is it possible to put those header files inside libfoo.a when archiving? In this way, when linking against libfoo.a, people no more need to spend hours in order to find and include foo1.h and foo2.h, so there seems to be some benefits in doing so, right?
Thanks for your ideas.
First, the header is required to compile your source, not to link it. You do not need the header to link your objects with static libraries.
Second, no, there is no standard or common way to generate an archive with both the library and it's header. Probably there is no way to do this with common C compilers.
You could declare the library's prototypes inside your source, and than ignore the header. But this would be unsafe, since there will be no guarantee that both library and you source where compiled with compatible prototypes.
Following Paul Griffiths comments. If you just want to not have to include a path for every library, you should install those headers and those libraries and set the path in you environment.
Example:
export C_INCLUDE_PATH=$HOME/install/include
export LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/install/lib
You must export this every time you open an new shell, or you can define it in you .bashrc
You can compile everything you want into a static library, but the counterpart is that you won't be able to call the functions from outside (ie by linking) because if you want to do so, you'll always need their prototypes
EDITS: Including link to my makefile
I have a main program that calls a bunch of functions defined in other source files. This is not a problem because I am using cc -c functionSource.c functionHeader.h and generating object files before compiling my main program with cc main.c func1.o func2.o .... -o test.o
I am having problems when one of my functions depends on another function.
For example:
My main program calls an shuffle function which is defined in it's own source file and the shuffle function calls a swap function which in turn is defined in it's own source file.
When i try to generate the shuffle.o file for my main program using cc -c shuffle.o I get an undefined reference to swap error.
When I try to cc shuffle.c swap.o i get an undefined reference to main error.
Here is my makefile
How do I go about fixing this?
Found the problem. I had a swap function declared inside insertionSort.h and shuffle.h but no implementations.
Have a look to the man page: '-c' makes the compiler generating object files only (not trying to link).
Do the following:
cc -c insertionSort.c # => gives insertionSort.o
cc -c -c functionSource.c # => gives functionSource.o
cc insertionSort.o functionSource.o ...and-so-on... main.c -o test
It's not necessary to specify header files - it doesn't help.
BTW: If you have mor than one implementation file, it is rather useful
(a) to learn make
(b) stick to the convention that object files and programs should be named like th sources.
E.g:
foo.c => foo.o
bar.c => bar
etc - you get the picture.
This has nothing to do with make. You need to get a book on introductory C programming, that will explain how to use the preprocessor, and you need to examine the documentation for your compiler so you understand what the different compiler flags do (such as when you want to use the -c flag and when you don't, and what the difference is).
It's wrong to include header files (.h files) on the compile line. Only source files (.c) should be included on the command line when building object (.o) files. You should be adding the headers you need into your .c files using the #include directive: #include "insertionSort.h". If you're missing a reference to a function, then #include the header file that declares that function: #include "swap.h".
They say that main() is a function like any other function, but "marked" as an entry point inside the binary, an entry point that the operating system may find (Don't know how) and start the program from there. So, I'm trying to find out more about this function. What have I done? I created a simple .C file with this code inside:
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
return (0);
}
I saved the file, installed the GCC compiler (in Windows, MingW environment) and created a batch file like this:
gcc -c test.c -nostartfiles -nodefaultlibs -nostdlib -nostdinc -o test.o
gcc -o test.exe -nostartfiles -nodefaultlibs -nostdlib -nostdinc -s -O2 test.o
#%comspec%
I did this to obtain a very simplistic compiler and linker, no library, no header, just the compiler. So, the compiling goes well but the linking stops with this error:
test.c:(.text+0xa): undefined reference to '___main'
collect2.exe: error: Id returned 1 exit status
I thought that the main function is exported by the linker but I believed that you didn't need any library with additional information about it. But it looks like it does. In my case I supposed that it must be the standard GCC library, so I downloaded the source code of it and opened this file: libgcc2.c
Now, I don't know if that is the file where the main function is constructed to be linked by GCC. In fact, I don't understand how the main function is used by GCC. Why does the linker need the gcc standard libraries? To know what about main? I hope this has made my question quite specific and clear. Thanks!
When gcc puts together all object files (test.o) and libraries to form a binary it also prepends a small object (usually crt0.o or crt1.o), which is responsible for calling your main(). You can see what gcc is doing, when you add -v on the command line:
$ gcc -v -o test.exe test.o
crt0/crt1 does some setup and then calls into main. But the linker is finally responsible for building the executable according to the OS. With -v you can see also an option for the target system. In my case it's for Linux 64 bit: -m elf_x86_64. For your system this will be something like -m windows or -m mingw.
The error happens because you use these two options: -nodefaultlibs -nostdlib
These tell GCC that it should not link your code against libc.a/c.lib which contains the code which really calls main(). In a nutshell, every OS is slightly different and most of them don't care about C and main(). Each has their own special way to start a process and most of them are not compatible with the C API.
So the solution of the C developers was to put "glue code" into the C standard library libc.a which contains the interface which the OS expects, creates the standard C environment (setting up the memory allocation structures so malloc() will map the OS's memory management functions, set up stdio, etc) and eventually calls main()
For C developers, this means they get a libc.a for their OS (along with the compiler binaries) and they don't need to care about how the setup works.
Another source of confusion is the name of the reference. On most systems, the symbolic name of main() is _main (i.e. one underscore) while __main is the name of an internal function called by the setup code which eventually calls the real main()
So I get the point of headers vs source files. What I don't get is how the compiler knows to compile all the source files. Example:
example.h
#ifndef EXAMPLE_H
#define EXAMPLE_H
int example(int argument); // prototype
#endif
example.c
#include "example.h"
int example(int argument)
{
return argument + 1; // implementation
}
main.c
#include "example.h"
main()
{
int whatever;
whatever = example(whatever); // usage in program
}
How does the compiler, compiling main.c, know the implementation of example() when nothing includes example.c?
Is this some kind of an IDE thing, where you add files to projects and stuff? Is there any way to do it "manually" as I prefer a plain text editor to quirky IDEs?
Compiling in C or C++ is actually split up into 2 separate phases.
compiling
linking
The compiler doesn't know about the implementation of example(). It just knows that there's something called example() that will be defined at some point. So it just generated code with placeholders for example()
The linker then comes along and resolves these placeholders.
To compile your code using gcc you'd do the following
gcc -c example.c -o example.o
gcc -c main.c -o main.o
gcc example.o main.o -o myProgram
The first 2 invocations of gcc are the compilation steps. The third invocation is the linker step.
Yes, you have to tell the compiler (usually through a makefile if you're not using an IDE) which source files to compile into object files, and the compiler compiles each one individually. Then you give the linker the list of object files to combine into the executable. If the linker is looking for a function or class definition and can't find it, you'll get a link error.
It doesn't ... you have to tell it to.
For example, whe using gcc, first you would compile the files:
gcc file1.c -c -ofile1.o
gcc file2.c -c -ofile2.o
Then the compiler compiles those files, assuming that symbols that you've defined (like your example function) exist somewhere and will be linked in later.
Then you link the object files together:
gcc file1.o file2.o -oexecutable
At this point of time, the linker looks at those assumtions and "clarifies" them ie. checks whether they're present. This is how it basically works...
As for your IDE question, Google "makefiles"
The compiler does not know the implementation of example() when compiling main.c - the compiler only knows the signature (how to call it) which was included from the header file. The compiler produces .o object files which are later linked by a linker to create the executable binary. The build process can be controlled by an IDE, or if you prefer a Makefile. Makefiles have a unique syntax which takes a bit of learning to understand but will make the build process much clearer. There are lots of good references on the web if you search for Makefile.
The compiler doesn't. But your build tool does. IDE or make tool. The manual way is hand-crafted Makefiles.