It seems we are free to use Windows API simply by including header files needed. However, i couldn't make myself understand how this is possible given that header files do not have function definitions but declarations, which is supposed to be considered as an error in that it lacks implementation details. In what way does a compiler locate an implementation detail and map it into memory?
The Windows API is implemented in DLLs that are installed when you install Windows. Those DLLs are in the System directory and have names like User32.dll, Kernel32.dll, etc.
As you correctly noted, the Windows API header files supplied with your compiler contain only the declarations. When your C program calls one of those functions (or any other function that's identified in a header file but not actually compiled with your project), the compiler places a record in the generated object file that says, in effect, "I need to call a function called GetWindowRect (or whatever the name of the function you called)."
The linker is what actually resolves the names. If you look at your linker options, you'll see that it's linking some libraries like User32.lib, Kernel32.lib, etc. Those libraries contain compiled functions that are little more than stubs--code that causes the corresponding DLL to be loaded, and then calls the function in the DLL.
It's a little bit more involved than that, but that's the general idea. In summary:
You include the Windows API header files.
Your code makes a call to one or more Windows API functions that are declared in those header files.
The compiler makes a note for the linker to resolve those API function calls.
The linker resolves the calls by finding the stub functions in the libraries that you specify on the linker command line.
At runtime, a call to one of those functions causes the corresponding DLL to be loaded, and then control is branched to the function in the DLL.
It works the same as any other library, for example C stdlib - your program only needs to 'know' the prototypes of functions (and thus the underlying symbol names). After compilation comes linking - that's when the symbols (function definitions) that are missing get 'linked' with a correct library.
Related
I have a binary library and a binary executable using that library, both written in C. I know the C API provided by the library, but neither the source of the library or the executable. I would like to understand how the executable uses the library (compare my previous question How to know which functions of a library get called by a program).
The proposed solutions did not give satisfactory results. A possibility not mentioned seems to be to implement a wrapper library that imitates the known interface of the binary library I am interested in. My idea is to forward all of the calls to the wrapper to the binary library. This should allow me to log all the calls and passed parameters, in other words to instrument the library.
I succeeded in implementing the wrapper library on Linux as a dynamic link library (*.so), together with my own sample application connecting to the wrapper. The wrapper, in turn, uses the original binary library. Both libraries are used with dlopen and dlsym to access the API. However, I am facing the following practical problem: I do not manage to link the original binary executable to my wrapper library. That is related to the fact that the executable expects the library under a certain name. However, if I name my rapper library that way, it conflicts with the original library. Surprisingly (to me) simply renaming the .so-file of that one and linking the wrapper library against it does not work (The result stops without error message when the wrapper library calls dlopen and I do not get more information from the debugger than that it seems to happen in an malloc).
I tried a number of things like using symbolic links to move one of the libraries out of the search path of the run-time linker, to add paths to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable, different relative locations of the .so-files (and corresponding paths for dlopen), as well as different compiler options, so far without success.
To summarize, I would like
(executable)_orig->(lib.so)->(lib.so)_orig
where (executable)_orig and (lib.so)_orig (both binaries that I cannot influence) are such that
(executable)_orig->(lib.so)_orig
works. I have the sources of (lib.so) and can modify it as I wish. Also, I can modify the Linux host system as I like. The task of (lib.so) is to tell me how (executable)_orig and (lib.so)_orig interact.
I also have
(executable)->(wrapper.so)->(lib.so)_orig
working, which seems to indicate that the issue is related to the naming and loading conventions for the libraries.
This is a separate new question because it deals with the specific practical issue sketched above. Beyond that, some background info on why renaming the file corresponding to (lib.so)_orig to circumvent the issue may fail could also prove useful.
I have learned that you can:
Convert a .DLL file into a .DEF file, which includes its exports
(Edit: This doesn't work with many conventions)
Convert a .DEF file into a .LIB file, which you can use to link to the DLL
Why can't (most) linkers link to a DLL given only a .DEF file, instead of a .LIB file?
Ultimately, the answer here is 'because noone wanted it badly enough and it doesn't really help anything'.
The DEF file is an input file that creates an import lib for the DLL. And then, later, when the DLL is being consumed by another link, the importlib is itself an input. The importlib looks like something special on the outside, but when you look at the inside it's really just a slightly special lib with objects in it.
It totally would be possible to modify the linker to take a def file (or a DLL, for that matter) directly.
But the design centre of the linker is that it takes objects as inputs and outputs a PE executable. So taking a DEF or DLL as an input goes outside the design pattern.
Beyond that it'd be rather pointless - allowing the linker to take a DEF file or DLL as input would neither enable any important new scenarios, nor does leaving this feature out block anything. Converting a DEF file you have (even without the actual DLL) into a usable importlib is the work of a few moments (simply create fake empty function for each DEF entry and link that). So there's no reason to add the ability to link a DEF file directly.
Martyn
In terms of MSVC, .lib files are always static libraries. They get linked in as a compilation unit along with all your compiled .c/.cpp files, so all of the library's code is included in your final executable.
Some .lib files, however, (in particular most of the Windows system ones) merely contain stubs which tell the OS to load the desired DLL at loadtime and then the stubs route function calls to the DLL. But, those stubs are statically linked into your executable. Your program will then use DLLs (and gain all the advantages and disadvantages thereof), but since the named DLL functions it requires are happily located in the .lib (and thus actually located in the executable itself), your code doesn't have to know it's using a DLL (specifically using declspec(dllimport)).
A .def file is merely used as a sort of "settings" or "configuration" file during the creation of a .dll to specify what functions the file should export. It cannot be linked to, as it doesn't really describe anything that the linker understands.
You do not convert a dll to a DEF file. The DEF just indicates which dll functions will be accessible from the outside, exported.
From the docs:
A DLL file has a layout very similar to an .exe file, with one
important difference — a DLL file contains an exports table. The
exports table contains the name of every function that the DLL exports
to other executables. These functions are the entry points into the
DLL; only the functions in the exports table can be accessed by other
executables. Any other functions in the DLL are private to the DLL.
The exports table of a DLL can be viewed by using the DUMPBIN tool
with the /EXPORTS option.
You can export functions from a DLL using two methods:
Create a module definition (.def) file and use the .def file when
building the DLL. Use this approach if you want to export functions
from your DLL by ordinal rather than by name.
Use the keyword __declspec(dllexport) in the function's definition.
When exporting functions with either method, make sure to use the
__stdcall calling convention.
Use the provided link to learn more about exporting from your dll's.
I think you got down voted because your point is not really clear, at least not to me. Also check this. It explains how to choose the export method.
Mehrdad, this isn't always a question of how to LINK to a DLL, as I, personally have NEVER linked a DLL using a .DEF file. What I HAVE done is take someone else's DLL, and very painstakingly constructed a header file, or rather, function prototypes that I could use with
LoadLibrary() in C, Declare Function ... Lib "Foo.dll" Alias "OrdinalName" in VB, and
[DllImport()] in C#.
Of course, this is RARELY done, as if you are using a DLL for something, normally you have permission to do so, and the authors provide the .lib's, and the headers to go with the binary DLL file.
I've never done the exact techniques you speak of, by converting a .DEF info a .LIB, etc... But, I suppose it would be easy to take a lib, or the DLL itself and export .DEF from it. Now, THAT I actually HAVE done, in a project where the DLL code was built with a vbScript that took code from the main project, and created an API out of all the existing, compiled, and tested code. This level of complication was only done because I had no idea what functions were going to BE in the DLL, as the main project could change at any time, so a static .DEF file would have never worked. So, I had to build the DLL once, capture the dimpbin /exports, undecorate the functions, and then build the .DEF file, and re-link the DLL.
If you find yourself in that type of situation, perhaps you need to re-think your original designs, and fix the problem from there...
As for .LIB files, USUALLY you'd only NEED those for static linkage, but they are also used when the .H file is available, often making debugging a just a little nicer...
I have a dll which I'd like to use in a c program,
Do you think is efficient to have a dll (lots of common functions) and then create a program that will eventually use them, or have all the source code?
To include the dll, What syntax must be followed?
Do you think is efficient to have a dll (lots of common functions) and then create a program that will eventually use them,or have all the source code.
For memory and disk space, it is more efficient to use a shared library (a DLL is the Windows implementation of shared libraries), assuming that at least two programs use this component. If only one program will ever use this component, then there is no memory or disk space savings to be had.
Shared libraries can be slightly slower than statically linking the code; however, this is likely to be incredibly minor, and shared libraries carry a number of benefits that make it more than worthwhile (such as the ability to load and handle symbols dynamically, which allows for plugin-like architectures). That said, there are also some disadvantages (if you are not careful about where your DLLs live, how they are versioned, and who can update them, then you can get into DLL hell).
To include the dll, What syntax must be followed?
This depends. There are two ways that shared libraries can be used. In the first way, you tell the linker to reference the shared library, and the shared library will automatically be loaded on program startup, and you would basically reference the code like normal (include the various headers and just use the name of the symbol when you want to reference it). The second way is to dynamically load the shared library (on Windows this is done via LoadLibrary while it is done on UNIX with dlopen). This second way makes it possible to change the behavior of the program based on the presence or absence of symbols in the shared library and to inspect the available set of symbols. For the second way, you would use GetProcAddress (Windows) or dlsym (UNIX) to obtain a pointer to a function defined in the library, and you would pass around function pointers to reference the functions that were loaded.
You can put your functions into either a static library ( a .lib) which is merged into your application at compile time and is basically the same as putting the .c files in the project.
Or you can use a dll where the functions are included at run time. the advantage of a dll is that two programs which use the same functions can use the same dll (saving disk space) and you can upgrade the dll without changing the program - neither of these probably matters for you.
The dll is automatically loaded when your program runs there is nothing special you need to do to include it ( you can load a dll specifically in your code - there are sometimes special reasons to do this)
Edit - if you need to create a stub lib for an existing dll see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/131313
I just downloaded curl and managed to build a programe with it.
What I don't understand is why it requires both curllib.lib and curllib.dll ?
In my opinion either curllib.lib or curllib.dll should be enough, why both?
Also I've searched through the source but doesn't find anywhere it uses dlopen to load curllib.dll, so why is curllib.dll required to run?
curllib.lib is the import library. It contains stubs for all the functions whose actual code is in the DLL, and it contains code to load the DLL. The .lib is automatically generated by the build system (e.g. Visual Studio), which is why you won't find any references in the code. You will find, however, some directives that tell the compiler/linker to export certain functions:
__declspec(dllexport) on a function declaration will export that function. This is convenient, but Microsoft-specific. For example:
void __declspec(dllexport) foobar(int qux);
More information here.
Alternatively, a .def file can be used, that explicitly lists all functions that are exported. For example:
LIBRARY MYFOO
EXPORTS
foobar #1
More information here.
You can do without the .lib if you really want to, but you'll have to manually use LoadLibrary, GetProcAddress and friends to call the function in the DLL.
The .dll is required to run. The .lib exists so the linker can resolve the ordinals and addresses from function names, and is only required at link time.
Other systems (such as Linux) maintain full linkage information in shared libraries and would not require this.
When you use a DLL on Windows, you typically use it with a .lib file that tells the linker enough to be able to create an executable. The executable then uses the .dll file at run time.
OTOH, dlopen is a UNIX/Linux/POSIX kind of thing -- the equivalent on Windows would be LoadLibrary. You'd normally use dlopen with a .so file.
please, could someone explain to me a few basic things about working with languages like C? Especially on Windows?
If I want to use some other library, what do I need from the library? Header files .h and ..?
What is the difference between .dll and .dll.a.? .dll and .lib? .dll and .exe? What is .def?
Does it matter how was the library compiled? I mean, is it possible to use, on Windows, a C++ library compiled by VC from within my C code compiled by MinGW?
To use another library, what is preferred way? LoadLibrary() or #include <>?
There are some libraries which only provide the source code or .dll - how to use such libraries? Do I have to recompile them every time I rebuild my project?
How do I create one big .exe? Is this called "static linking"?
How to include some random file into .exe? Say a program icon or start-up song?
How do I split my huge .c into smaller ones? Do I need to create for every part a header file which then I include in the part with WinMain() or main()?
If there is a library which needs another library, is it possible to combine these two into one file? Say, python26.dll needs msvcr90.dll and Microsoft.VC90.CRT.manifest
What happens if I don't free previously allocated memory? Is this going to be cleaned up if the program (process) dies?
Well, so many question... Thanks for every info!
1: If I want to use some other library, what do I need from the library? Header files .h and ..?
... and, usually a *.lib file which you pass as an argument to your linker.
2: What is the difference between .dll and .dll.a.? .dll and .lib? .dll and .exe? What is .def?
This might be useful: Static libraries, dynamic libraries, DLLs, entry points, headers … how to get out of this alive?
3: Does it matter how was the library compiled? I mean, is it possible to use, on Windows, a C++ library compiled by VC from within my C code compiled by MinGW?
Yes, it matters. For interop between compilers, the normal way is to use a C-style (not C++-style) API, with well-defined parameter-passing conventions (e.g. __stdcall), or to use 'COM' interfaces.
4: To use another library, what is preferred way? LoadLibrary() or #include <>?
#include is for the compiler (e.g. so that it can compile calls to the library); and LoadLibrary (or, using a *.lib file) is for the run-time linker/loader (so that it can substitute the actual address of those library methods into your code): i.e. you need both.
5: There are some libraries which only provide the source code or .dll - how to use such libraries? Do I have to recompile them every time I rebuild my project?
If it's only source then you can compile that source (once) into a library, and then (when you build your project) link to that library (without recompiling the library).
6: How do I create one big .exe? Is this called "static linking"?
Yes, compile everything and pass it all to the linker.
7: How to include some random file into .exe? Say a program icon or start-up song?
Define that in a Windows-specific 'resource file', which is compiled by the 'resource compiler'.
8: How do I split my huge .c into smaller ones? Do I need to create for every part a header file which then I include in the part with WinMain() or main()?
Yes.
9: If there is a library which needs another library, is it possible to combine these two into one file? Say, python26.dll needs msvcr90.dll and Microsoft.VC90.CRT.manifest
I don't understand your question/example.
10: What happens if I don't free previously allocated memory? Is this going to be cleaned up if the program (process) dies?
Yes.
If I want to use some other library, what do I need from the library? Header files .h and ..?
You need header .h or .hpp for C,C++ although some languages don't require header files. You'll also need .a, .so, .dll, .lib, .jar etc files. These files contain the machine code that you linker can link into your program. Goes without saying that the format of library is must be understood by you linker.
What is the difference between .dll and .dll.a.? .dll and .lib? .dll and .exe? What is .def?
dll and .a are library files, that contain code components that you can link into your own program. a .exe is your final program into which .a or .dll has already been linked.
Does it matter how was the library compiled? I mean, is it possible to use, on Windows, a C++ library compiled by VC from within my C code compiled by MinGW?
Yes, it is important that the library that you are using is compatible with your platform. Typically Unix libraries will not run on windows and vice versa, if you are using JAVA you are better off since a .jar files will usually work on any platform with JAVA enabled (though versions matter )
To use another library, what is preferred way? LoadLibrary() or #include <>?
include is not a way to use a library its just a preprocessor directive telling you preprocessor to include a external source file in your current source file. This file can be any file not just .h although usually it would be .h or a .hpp
You'll be better off my leaving the decision about when to load a library to you runtime environment or your linker, unless you know for sure that loading a library at a particular point of time is going to add some value to your code. The performance cost and exact method of doing this is platform dependent.
There are some libraries which only provide the source code or .dll - how to use such libraries? Do I have to recompile them every time I rebuild my project?
If you have source code you'll need to recompile it every time you make a change to it.
however if you have not changed the source of library in anyway there is no need to recompile it. The build tool like Make are intelligent enough to take this decision for you.
How do I create one big .exe? Is this called "static linking"?
Creating a static .exe is dependent on the build tool you are using.
with gcc this would usually mean that you have to you -static option
gcc -static -o my.exe my.c
How to include some random file into .exe? Say a program icon or start-up song?
Nothing in programming is random. If it were we would be in trouble. Again the way you can play a song or display an icon is dependent on the platform you are using on some platforms it may even be impossible to do so.
How do I split my huge .c into smaller ones? Do I need to create for every part a header file which then I include in the part with WinMain() or main()?
You'll need a header file with all your function prototypes and you can split you program into several .c files that contain one or more functions. You main files will include the header file. All source files need to be compiled individually and then linked into one executable. Typically you'll get a .o for every .c and then you link all the .o together to get a .exe
If there is a library which needs another library, is it possible to combine these two into one file? Say, python26.dll needs msvcr90.dll and Microsoft.VC90.CRT.manifest
Yes one library may require another library however its not advisable to package different libraries together, you may be violating the IPR and also for the fact that each library is usually a well define unit with a specific purpose and combining them into one usually doesn't make much sense.
What happens if I don't free previously allocated memory? Is this going to be cleaned up if the program (process) dies?
Again depends on the platform, usually on most OS the memory will be recovered after the program dies but on certain platforms like an embedded system it may be permanently lost.
It always a good idea to clean up the resources your program has used.
In all seriousness, the place to go to learn how to run your local environment is the documentation for your local environment. After all we on not even know exactly what your environment is, much less have it in front of us.
But here are some answers:
1. You need the headers, and a linkable object of some kind. Or you need the source so that you can build these.
3. It matters that the library is in a format that your linker understands. In c++ and perhaps other languages, it also needs to understand the name mangling that was used.
6. Forcing all the library code to be included in the executable is, indeed, called "static linking".
7. There is at least one StackOverflow question on "resource compilers".