Many papers and such mention that calls to 'system()' are unsafe and unportable. I do not dispute their arguments.
I have noticed, though, that many Unix utilities have a C library equivalent. If not, the source is available for a wide variety of these tools.
While many papers and such recommend against goto, there are those who can make an argument for its use, and there are simple reasons why it's in C at all.
So, why do we need system()? How much existing code relies on it that can't easily be changed?
sarcastic answer Because if it didn't exist people would ask why that functionality didn't exist...
better answer
Many of the system functionality is not part of the 'C' standard but are part of say the Linux spec and Windows most likely has some equivalent. So if you're writing an app that will only be used on Linux environments then using these functions is not an issue, and as such is actually useful. If you're writing an application that can run on both Linux and Windows (or others) these calls become problematic because they may not be portable between system. The key (imo) is that you are simply aware of the issues/concerns and program accordingly (e.g. use appropriate #ifdef's to protect the code etc...)
The closest thing to an official "why" answer you're likely to find is the C89 Rationale. 4.10.4.5 The system function reads:
The system function allows a program to suspend its execution temporarily in order to run another program to completion.
Information may be passed to the called program in three ways: through command-line argument strings, through the environment, and (most portably) through data files. Before calling the system function, the calling program should close all such data files.
Information may be returned from the called program in two ways: through the implementation-defined return value (in many implementations, the termination status code which is the argument to the exit function is returned by the implementation to the caller as the value returned by the system function), and (most portably) through data files.
If the environment is interactive, information may also be exchanged with users of interactive devices.
Some implementations offer built-in programs called "commands" (for example, date) which may provide useful information to an application program via the system function. The Standard does not attempt to characterize such commands, and their use is not portable.
On the other hand, the use of the system function is portable, provided the implementation supports the capability. The Standard permits the application to ascertain this by calling the system function with a null pointer argument. Whether more levels of nesting are supported can also be ascertained this way; assuming more than one such level is obviously dangerous.
Aside from that, I would say mainly for historical reasons. In the early days of Unix and C, system was a convenient library function that fulfilled a need that several interactive programs needed: as mentioned above, "suspend[ing] its execution temporarily in order to run another program". It's not well-designed or suitable for any serious tasks (the POSIX requirements for it make it fundamentally non-thread-safe, it doesn't admit asynchronous events to be handled by the calling program while the other program is running, etc.) and its use is error-prone (safe construction of command string is difficult) and non-portable (because the particular form of command strings is implementation-defined, though POSIX defines this for POSIX-conforming implementations).
If C were being designed today, it almost certainly would not include system, and would either leave this type of functionality entirely to the implementation and its library extensions, or would specify something more akin to posix_spawn and related interfaces.
Many interactive applications offer a way for users to execute shell commands. For instance, in vi you can do:
:!ls
and it will execute the ls command. system() is a function they can use to do this, rather than having to write their own fork() and exec() code.
Also, fork() and exec() aren't portable between operating systems; using system() makes code that executes shell commands more portable.
Imagine a situation where you can't or don't want to use any of the libraries provided by the compiler as "standard", nor any external library. You can't use even the compiler extensions (such as gcc extensions).
What is the remaining part you get if you strip C language of all the things a lot of people use as a matter of course?
In such a way, probably a list of every callable function supported by any big C compiler (not only ANSI C) out-of-box would be satisfying as as answer as it'd at least approximately show the use-case of the language.
First I thought about sizeof() and printf() (those were already clarified in the comments - operator + stdio), so... what remains? In-line assembly seem like an extension too, so that pretty much strips even the option to use assembly with C if I'm right.
Probably in the matter of code it'd be easier to understand. Imagine a code compiled with only e.g. gcc main.c (output flag permitted) that has no #include, nor extern.
int main() {
// replace_me
return 0;
}
What can I call to actually do something else than "boring" type math and casting from type to type?
Note that switch, goto, if, loops and other constructs that do nothing and only allow repeating a piece of code aren't the thing I'm looking for (if it isn't obvious).
(Hopefully the edit clarified wtf I'm actually asking, but Matteo's answer pretty much did it.)
If you remove all libraries essentially you have something similar to a freestanding implementation of C (which still has to provide some libraries - say, string.h, but that's nothing you couldn't easily implement yourself in portable C), and that's what normally you start with when programming microcontrollers and other computers that don't have a ready-made operating system - and what operating system writers in general use when they compile their operating systems.
There you typically have two ways of doing stuff besides "raw" computation:
assembly blocks (where you can do literally anything the underlying machine can do);
memory mapped IO (you set a volatile pointer to some hardware dependent location and read/write from it; that affects hardware stuff).
That's really all you need to build anything - and after all, it all boils down to that stuff anyway, the C library of a regular hosted implementation is normally written in C itself, with some assembly used either for speed or to communicate with the operating system1 (typically the syscalls are invoked through some kind of interrupt).
Again, it's nothing you couldn't implement yourself. But the point of having a standard library is both to avoid to continuously reinvent the wheel, and to have a set of portable functions that spare you to have to rewrite everything knowing the details of each target platform.
And mainstream operating systems, in turn, are generally written in a mix or C and assembly as well.
C has no "built-in" functions as such. A compiler implementation may include "intrinsic" functions that are implemented directly by the compiler without provision of an external library, although a prototype declaration is still required for intrinsics, so you would still normally include a header file for such declarations.
C is a systems-level language with a minimal run-time and start-up requirement. Because it can directly access memory and memory mapped I/O there is very little that it cannot do (and what it cannot do is what you use assembly, in-line assembly or intrinsics for). For example, much of the library code you are wondering what you can do without is written in C. When running in an OS environment however (using C as an application-level rather then system-level language), you cannot practically use C in that manner - the OS has control over such things as I/O and memory-management and in modern systems will normally prevent unmediated access to such resources. Of course that OS itself is likely to largely written in C (and/or C++).
In a standalone of bare-metal environment with no OS, C is often used very early in the bootstrap process initialising hardware and establishing an application execution environment. In fact on ARM Cortex-M processors it is possible to boot directly into C code from reset, since the hardware loads an initial stack-pointer and start address from the vector table on start-up; this being enough to run C code that does not rely on library or static data initialisation - such initialisation can however be written in C before calling main().
Note that sizeof is not a function, it is an operator.
I don't think you really understand the situation.
You don't need a header to call a function in C. You can call with unchecked parameters - a bad idea and an obsolete feature, but still supported. And if a compiler links a library by default instead of only when you explicitly tell it to, that's only a little switch within the compiler to "link libc". Notoriously Unix compilers need to be told to link the math library, it wasn't linked by default because some very early programs didn't use floating point.
To be fair, some standard library functions like memcpy tend to be special-cased these days as they lend themselves to inlining and optimisation.
The standard library is documented and is usually available, though in effect deprecated by Microsoft for security reasons. You can write pretty much any function quite easily with only stdlib functions, what you can't do is fancy IO.
I have read that C language does not include instructions for input and for output and that printf, scanf, getchar, putchar are actually functions.
Which are the primitive C language instructions to obtain the function printf , then?
Thank you.
If you want to use printf, you have to #include <stdio.h>. That file declares the function.
If you where thinking about how printf is implemented: printf might internally call any other functions and probably goes down to putc (also part of the C runtime) to write out the characters one-by-one. Eventually one of the functions needs to really write the character to the console. How this is done depends on the operating system. On Linux for example printf might internally call the Linux write function. On Windows printf might internally call WriteConsole.
The function printf is documented here; in fact, it is not part of the C language itself. The language itself does not provide a means for input and output. The function printf is defined in a library, which can be accessed using the compiler directive #include <stdio.h>.
No programming language provides true "primitives" for I/O. Any I/O "primitives" rely on lower abstraction levels, in this language or another.
I/O, at the lowest level, needs to access hardware. You might be looking at BIOS interrupts, hardware I/O ports, memory-mapped device controlers, or something else entirely, depending on the actual hardware your program is running on.
Because it would be a real burden to cater for all these possibilities in the implementation of the programming language, a hardware abstraction layer is employed. Individual I/O controllers are accessed by hardware drivers, which in turn are controlled by the operating system, which is providing I/O services to the application developer through a defined, abstract API. These may be accessed directly (e.g. by user-space assembly), or wrapped further (e.g. by the implementation of a programming language's interpreter, or standard library functions).
Whether you are looking at "commands" like (bash) echo or (Python) print, or library functions like (Java) System.out.println() or (C) printf() or (C++) std::cout, is just a syntactic detail: Any I/O is going through several layers of abstraction, because it is easier, and because it protects you from all kinds of erroneous or malicious program behaviour.
Those are the "primitives" of the respective language. If you're digging down further, you are leaving the realm of the language, and enter the realm of its implementation.
I once worked on a C library implementation myself. Ownership of the project has passed on since, but basically it worked like this:
printf() was implemented by means of vfprintf() (as was, eventually, every function of the *printf() family).
vfprintf() used a couple of internal helpers to do the fancy formatting, writing into a buffer.
If the buffer needed to be flushed, it was passed to an internal writef() function.
this writef() function needed to be implemented differently for each target system. On POSIX, it would call write(). On Win32, it would call WriteFile(). And so on.
I'm contributing to a C library. It has a function that takes a char* parameter for a file path name. The authors are mostly UNIX developers, and this works fine on unixes where char* mostly means UTF-8. (At least in GCC, the character set is configurable and UTF-8 is the default.)
However, char* means ANSI on Windows, which implies that it is currently impossible to use Unicode path names with this library on Windows, where wchar_t* should be used and only UTF-16 is supported. (A quick search on StackOverflow reveals that the ANSI Windows API functions can not be used with UTF-8.)
The question is, what is the right way to deal with this? We've come up with various ways to do it, but neither of us are Windows experts, so we can't really decide how to do it properly. Our goal is that the users of the library should be able to write cross-platform code that would work on unixes as well as windows.
Under the hood, the library has #ifdefs in place to differentiate between operating systems so that it can use POSIX functions on UNIXes and Win32 APIs on Windows.
So far, we've come up with the following possibilities:
Offer a separate windows-only function that accepts a wchar_t*.
Require UTF-16 on Windows and #ifdef the library header in such a way that the function would accept wchar_t* on Windows.
Add a flag that would tell the function to cast the given char* to wchar_t* and call the widechar Windows APIs.
Create a variant of the function that takes a file descriptor (or file handle on Windows) instead of a file path.
Always require UTF-8 (even on Windows), and then inside the function, convert UTF-8 to UTF-16 and call the widechar Windows APIs.
The problem with options 1-4 is that they would require the user to consciously take care of portability themselves. Option 5 sounds good, but I'm not sure if this is the right way to go.
I'm also open to other suggestions or ideas that can solve this. :)
Since portability is an important goal for you, I think it is imperative for your function semantics to be precisely defined. Among other things, that means that the arguments' types and meanings don't vary across platforms. So, if you have a function that accepts regular char based paths then it should accept such paths on all systems, and the encoding expected of those paths should be well-defined (which does not necessarily mean "the same"). That rules out options (2) and (3).
Moreover, portability requires the same functions to be usable across all platforms; that rules out (1). Option (4) could be ok if a stream- and/or file descriptor-based approach were the only one provided by your library, but it yields portability only with respect to those functions, not with respect to the path-based ones. (And note that stream (FILE *) APIs are defined by C, whereas file descriptors are a POSIX concept, not native to C. In principle, therefore, streams are more portable than file descriptors.)
(5) could work, but it places stronger constraints than you actually need. It is not essential for the function to define the encoding expected (though it can); it suffices for it to define how that encoding is determined.
Additionally, you could add wchar_t-based functions that work everywhere (as opposed to Windows-only). Those might be more convenient for Windows users. Similar to alternative (4), however, that provides portability only with respect to those functions. Supposing that you don't want to drop the char-based ones, you would need to pair this alternative with some variation on (5).
I apologize if this is a subjective or repeated question. It's sort of awkward to search for, so I wasn't sure what terms to include.
What I'd like to know is what the basic foundation tools/functions are in C when you don't include standard libraries like stdio and stdlib.
What could I do if there's no printf(), fopen(), etc?
Also, are those libraries technically part of the "C" language, or are they just very useful and effectively essential libraries?
The C standard has this to say (5.1.2.3/5):
The least requirements on a conforming
implementation are:
— At sequence points, volatile objects
are stable in the sense that previous
accesses are complete and subsequent
accesses have not yet occurred.
— At program termination, all data
written into files shall be identical
to the result that execution of the
program according to the abstract
semantics would have produced.
— The input and output dynamics of
interactive devices shall take place
as specified in
7.19.3.
So, without the standard library functions, the only behavior that a program is guaranteed to have, relates to the values of volatile objects, because you can't use any of the guaranteed file access or "interactive devices". "Pure C" only provides interaction via standard library functions.
Pure C isn't the whole story, though, since your hardware could have certain addresses which do certain things when read or written (whether that be a SATA or PCI bus, raw video memory, a serial port, something to go beep, or a flashing LED). So, knowing something about your hardware, you can do a whole lot writing in C without using standard library functions. Potentially, you could implement the C standard library, although this might require access to special CPU instructions as well as special memory addresses.
But in pure C, with no extensions, and the standard library functions removed, you basically can't do anything other than read the command line arguments, do some work, and return a status code from main. That's not to be sniffed at, it's still Turing complete subject to resource limits, although your only resource is automatic and static variables, no heap allocation. It's not a very rich programming environment.
The standard libraries are part of the C language specification, but in any language there does tend to be a line drawn between the language "as such", and the libraries. It's a conceptual difference, but ultimately not a very important one in principle, because the standard says they come together. Anyone doing something non-standard could just as easily remove language features as libraries. Either way, the result is not a conforming implementation of C.
Note that a "freestanding" implementation of C only has to implement a subset of standard includes not including any of the I/O, so you're in the position I described above, of relying on hardware-specific extensions to get anything interesting done. If you want to draw a distinction between the "core language" and "the libraries" based on the standard, then that might be a good place to draw the line.
What could I do if there's no printf(), fopen(), etc?
As long as you know how to interface the system you are using you can live without the standard C library. In embedded systems where you only have several kilobytes of memory, you probably don't want to use the standard library at all.
Here is a Hello World! example on Linux and Windows without using any standard C functions:
For example on Linux you can invoke the Linux system calls directly in inline assembly:
/* 64 bit linux. */
#define SYSCALL_EXIT 60
#define SYSCALL_WRITE 1
void sys_exit(int error_code)
{
asm volatile
(
"syscall"
:
: "a"(SYSCALL_EXIT), "D"(error_code)
: "rcx", "r11", "memory"
);
}
int sys_write(unsigned fd, const char *buf, unsigned count)
{
unsigned ret;
asm volatile
(
"syscall"
: "=a"(ret)
: "a"(SYSCALL_WRITE), "D"(fd), "S"(buf), "d"(count)
: "rcx", "r11", "memory"
);
return ret;
}
void _start(void)
{
const char hwText[] = "Hello world!\n";
sys_write(1, hwText, sizeof(hwText));
sys_exit(12);
}
You can look up the manual page for "syscall" which you can find how can you make system calls. On Intel x86_64 you put the system call id into RAX, and then return value will be stored in RAX. The arguments must be put into RDI, RSI, RDX, R10, R9 and R8 in this order (when the argument is used).
Once you have this you should look up how to write inline assembly in gcc.
The syscall instruction changes the RCX, R11 registers and memory so we add this to the clobber list make GCC aware of it.
The default entry point for the GNU linker is _start. Normally the standard library provides it, but without it you need to provide it.
It isn't really a function as there is no caller function to return to. So we must make another system call to exit our process.
Compile this with:
gcc -nostdlib nostd.c
And it outputs Hello world!, and exits.
On Windows the system calls are not published, instead it's hidden behind another layer of abstraction, the kernel32.dll. Which is always loaded when your program starts whether you want it or not. So you can simply include windows.h from the Windows SDK and use the Win32 API as usual:
#include <windows.h>
void _start(void)
{
const char str[] = "Hello world!\n";
HANDLE stdout = GetStdHandle(STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE);
DWORD written;
WriteFile(stdout, str, sizeof(str), &written, NULL);
ExitProcess(12);
}
The windows.h has nothing to do with the standard C library, as you should be able to write Windows programs in any other language too.
You can compile it using the MinGW tools like this:
gcc -nostdlib C:\Windows\System32\kernel32.dll nostdlib.c
Then the compiler is smart enough to resolve the import dependencies and compile your program.
If you disassemble the program, you can see only your code is there, there is no standard library bloat in it.
So you can use C without the standard library.
What could you do? Everything!
There is no magic in C, except perhaps the preprocessor.
The hardest, perhaps is to write putchar - as that is platform dependent I/O.
It's a good undergrad exercise to create your own version of varargs and once you've got that, do your own version of vaprintf, then printf and sprintf.
I did all of then on a Macintosh in 1986 when I wasn't happy with the stdio routines that were provided with Lightspeed C - wrote my own window handler with win_putchar, win_printf, in_getchar, and win_scanf.
This whole process is called bootstrapping and it can be one of the most gratifying experiences in coding - working with a basic design that makes a fair amount of practical sense.
You're certainly not obligated to use the standard libraries if you have no need for them. Quite a few embedded systems either have no standard library support or can't use it for one reason or another. The standard even specifically talks about implementations with no library support, C99 standard 5.1.2.1 "Freestanding environment":
In a freestanding environment (in which C program execution may take place without any benefit of an operating system), the name and type of the function called at program startup are implementation-defined. Any library facilities available to a freestanding program, other than the minimal set required by clause 4, are implementation-defined.
The headers required by C99 to be available in a freestanding implemenation are <float.h>, <iso646.h>, <limits.h>, <stdarg.h>, <stdbool.h>, <stddef.h>, and <stdint.h>. These headers define only types and macros so there's no need for a function library to support them.
Without the standard library, you're entire reliant on your own code, any non-standard libraries that might be available to you, and any operating system system calls that you might be able to interface to (which might be considered non-standard library calls). Quite possibly you'd have to have your C program call assembly routines to interface to devices and/or whatever operating system might be on the platform.
You can't do a lot, since most of the standard library functions rely on system calls; you are limited to what you can do with the built-in C keywords and operators. It also depends on the system; in some systems you may be able to manipulate bits in a way that results in some external functionality, but this is likely to be the exception rather than the rule.
C's elegance is in it's simplicity, however. Unlike Fortran, which includes much functionality as part of the language, C is quite dependent on its library. This gives it a great degree of flexibility, at the expense of being somewhat less consistent from platform to platform.
This works well, for example, in the operating system, where completely separate "libraries" are implemented, to provide similar functionality with an implementation inside the kernel itself.
Some parts of the libraries are specified as part of ANSI C; they are part of the language, I suppose, but not at its core.
None of them is part of the language keywords. However, all C distributions must include an implementation of these libraries. This ensures portability of many programs.
First of all, you could theoretically implement all these functions yourself using a combination of C and assembly, so you could theoretically do anything.
In practical terms, library functions are primarily meant to save you the work of reinventing the wheel. Some things (like string and library functions) are easier to implement. Other things (like I/O) very much depend on the operating system. Writing your own version would be possible for one O/S, but it is going to make the program less portable.
But you could write programs that do a lot of useful things (e.g., calculate PI or the meaning of life, or simulate an automata). Unless you directly used the OS for I/O, however, it would be very hard to observe what the output is.
In day to day programming, the success of a programming language typically necessitates the availability of a useful high-quality standard library and libraries for many useful tasks. These can be first-party or third-party, but they have to be there.
The std libraries are "standard" libraries, in that for a C compiler to be compliant to a standard (e.g. C99), these libraries must be "include-able." For an interesting example that might help in understanding what this means, have a look at Jessica McKellar's challenge here:
http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/03/libc-free-world/
Edit: The above link has died (thanks Oracle...)
I think this link mirrors the article: https://sudonull.com/post/178679-Hello-from-the-libc-free-world-Part-1
The CRT is part of the C language just as much as the keywords and the syntax. If you are using C, your compiler MUST provide an implementation for your target platform.
Edit:
It's the same as the STL for C++. All languages have a standard library. Maybe assembler as the exception, or some other seriously low level languages. But most medium/high levels have standard libs.
The Standard C Library is part of ANSI C89/ISO C90. I've recently been working on the library for a C compiler that previously was not ANSI-compliant.
The book The Standard C Library by P.J. Plauger was a great reference for that project. In addition to spelling out the requirements of the standard, Plauger explains the history of each .h file and the reasons behind some of the API design. He also provides a full implementation of the library, something that helped me greatly when something in the standard wasn't clear.
The standard describes the macros, types and functions for each of 15 header files (include stdio.h, stdlib.h, but also float.h, limits.h, math.h, locale.h and more).
A compiler can't claim to be ANSI C unless it includes the standard library.
Assembly language has simple commands that move values to registers of the CPU, memory, and other basic functions, as well as perform the core capabilities and calculations of the machine. C libraries are basically chunks of assembly code. You can also use assembly code in your C programs. var is an assembly code instruction. When you use 0x before a number to make it Hex, that is assembly instruction. Assembly code is the readable form of machine code, which is the visual form of the actual switch states of the circuits paths.
So while the machine code, and therefore the assembly code, is built into the machine, C languages are combined of all kinds of pre-formed combinations of code, including your own functions that might be in part assembly language and in part calling on other functions of assembly language or other C libraries. So the assembly code is the foundation of all the programming, and after that it's anyone's guess about what is what. That's why there are so many languages and so few true standards.
Yes you can do a ton of stuff without libraries.
The lifesaver is __asm__ in GCC. It is a keyword so yes you can.
Mostly because every programming language is built on Assembly, and you can make system calls directly under some OSes.