Since the system calls which any library function of C (say printf()) makes is OS dependant , does that imply that we have a different function printf() for different OS ?
It depends on your definition of "different", because I can think of at least three levels of difference:
Interface differences
High-level code differences
Machine code differences
The C standard suggests an interface, and this interface is supposed to be respected across the board. This means that for any OS with a C standard library, the OS should show your program an outlet called printf, and if your program plugs into it, it can expect it to behave as documented. This means that for all you're concerned, printf is the same across the board.
This doesn't mean that printf has to be the same piece of code in every standard library. If someone told me to write a printf function and told you to write a printf function, we could have a different approach, and that would still be fine as long as we both respected the documented behavior. As a matter of fact, for copyright reasons, you can be certain that the code for Windows's printf is different from Linux's printf code.
And finally, even with the same source code, printf would have to be different to accommodate platform differences. You can't expect an x86 printf to work on ARM, for instance. And as you noted, you can't expect a Linux printf to work on Windows because of platform conventions and system call differences.
So the machine code behind the printf outlet will be different, but the point of the standard is to make it work the same.
If you mean "printf behave differently on different OSes", then the answer is:
externally (from the user of the function viewpoint) no, its semantics is standardized. That means that a given call to such a function leads to the same results, whatever is the OS.
internally probably, its implementation is free. That means, that the computation that such a function will really do to produce you the result can be different.
Related
I'm generating machine code to call functions from existing system libraries. Most system libraries were written in C, so I'll take C as an example, but the question probably applies to any other language.
If I understand this answer correctly, C compilers are free to choose the ABI/calling convention of a function as long as they preserve the semantics. For instance they can choose to pass a pointer for the returned value as an argument to obtain copy-elision.
Does this mean that no one can ever truly know what's the right way to call a function from a library, even if its C signature is known?
Is this a real concern in practice? Or is it safe to assume that all the functions with non-mangled names from system libraries always use the system's default calling convention?
What other assumptions or considerations can I make about the ABI/calling convention of functions with non-mangled names in system libraries?
C compilers are free to choose the ABI/calling convention of a function as long as they preserve the semantics.
Well, yes and no. The ABI is often defined by the target system, in which case the compiler has to fall in line. In case there exists no ABI for the target system (often the case in microcontroller programming), the compiler is free to do as it pleases, essentially inventing the ABI.
Does this mean that no one can ever truly know what's the right way to call a function from a library, even if its C signature is known?
No you can't unless you know the target system and calling convention. Some systems have several "de facto" standards such as x86 Windows __cdecl vs __stdcall see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions
Is this a real concern in practice?
Not within a program written entirely in C. But it becomes a big problem in case the program links external libs such as Windows DLLs, possibly written in other languages. Then you have to use the right calling convention or the program will soon crash.
It's also a very real concern whenever you attempt to mix assembler and C for the given system - the C compiler will handle stacking according to the calling convention, but in the assembler part you have to write this manually. This can also affect the C code, if it is written with care to suit assembler. You'd then pick parameter and return types that are convenient to use.
If I understand this answer correctly, C compilers are free to choose
the ABI/calling convention of a function as long as they preserve the
semantics. For instance they can choose to pass a pointer for the
returned value as an argument to obtain copy-elision.
I don't see how you conclude that from the answer you referenced. Calling conventions are a characteristic of the function, as it appears in compiled form. The compiler can do all manner of tricks at the point of call, but changing or ignoring the calling conventions of the function implementation is not one of them. Where it is possible, copy elision for returned structure values (the subject of that answer) does not rely on any such thing.
Does this mean that no one can ever truly know what's the right way to
call a function from a library, even if its C signature is known?
Yes and no. The function signature alone does not convey anything about calling convention (with some caveats; see below), but libraries simply could not work if there were no way to know calling conventions. In practice, it is usually the case that calling convention (and ABI overall) is standardized on a per-platform basis.
Thus, for example, Linux implementations for x86_64 substantially all follow the same conventions. All the toolchains targeting that platform both use that convention for function calls and provide for functions to be called according to it. Compilers for Win64 likewise follow the appropriate (different) conventions.
Windows is in fact an interesting case, however, because historically, it has supported multiple calling conventions. In its case, there is a default convention, and different conventions can be specified in function declarations via extension keywords. The compiler knows which convention to use based on the function declaration.
Additionally, where it is not concerned about interoperability, compilers can do anything within their power. So, for example, when compiling a function with internal linkage, it could, in principle, use whatever calling convention it wants, as it is in full control of both the function and all callers (ignoring the possible effect of function pointers). This is not different in kind from compilers' ability to inline functions. As a practical matter, however, I would not expect compilers to use variant calling conventions under such circumstances, and I am not aware of any that do.
Is this a real concern in practice? Or is it safe to assume that all
the functions with non-mangled names from system libraries always use
the system's default calling convention?
Name mangling has nothing to do with it. That's part of a higher-level mapping of C++ (usually) semantics onto system-level, source-language-independent object-file formats.
Generally speaking, it is safe to assume that where the appropriate function declarations are in scope (from the library's header files, typically), the compiler will generate correct calls. This is an essential interoperability characteristic that is rarely violated in practice. It cannot be construed as a universal guarantee, but in practice, it is not something that you should worry about.
What other assumptions or considerations can I make about the
ABI/calling convention of functions with non-mangled names in system
libraries?
I'm unsure what kinds of assumptions you have in mind, and I suspect you're overcomplicating things. You make sure to include the header(s) from the relevant library that declare the functions you want to call. Having done so, you rely on your compiler to generate correct calls.
I am new to programming and while reading Charles Petzold book Programming Windows, I stumbled upon WINAPI (actually was surprised by the presence of another word before a function's name besides the return type) and found that it is a calling convention and to the best of my understanding it is a way of how a function pushes variables on the stack and gets the return value, I wondered why we do not use them in every C programs? Are they just exclusive to OS programming?
Calling conventions are typically tied to compiler, architecture and (when it comes to using system runtime libraries) the OS; they're not part of the C standard at all. In most cases, there's only one calling convention for a given architecture/compiler/OS combo, so you don't need to think about it; it just uses the only convention that OS supports.
The one place where it has mattered a lot in recent history was on 32 bit x86 systems, particularly on Windows. x86 had very few general purpose registers, so only a few were available at all, less than what a typical function might need for its arguments, and using them for argument passing meant you often needed to push whatever they used to contain to the stack, so there were a lot of trade-offs involved in calling conventions (it's faster to pass arguments in registers, but only if the caller could spare the registers or at least not be forced into excessive spilling to stack), and Windows went with "we'll use 'em all in different scenarios".
In modern usage on x86-64 (which is far less register starved) and on non-x86 architectures (which usually had enough registers), most compilers/OSes stick with a single common calling convention, so again, you don't need to pay attention. It's a curiosity, not something you need to personally pay attention to unless you're hand-writing whole functions in assembly.
We DO use calling conventions in all C programs, but they are typically defaulted in the compiler settings and so do not have to be expressed explicitly in code, unless actually necessary (library interactions, etc).
Calling conventions are not part of the C language itself, but are handled by compiler vendors as extensions to the language.
Most C compilers typically default to the __cdecl calling convention, but this can be changed by the compiler user if needed. Once upon a time, Windows APIs used to use __pascal, but for a very long time now __stdcall is being used instead. Hence the existence of the WINAPI preprocessor macro so Microsoft could switch between them without requiring most existing code to be rewritten.
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.
Something I still don't fully understand. For example, standard C functions such as printf() and scanf() which deal with sending data to the standard output or getting data from the standard input. Will the source code which implements these functions be different depending on if we are using them for Windows or Linux?
I'm guessing the quick answer would be "yes", but do they really have to be different?
I'm probably wrong , but my guess is that the actual function code be the same, but the lower layer functions of the OS that eventually get called by these functions are different. So could any compiler compile these same C functions, but it is what gets linked after (what these functions depend on to work on lower layers) is what gives us the required behavior?
Will the source code which implements these functions be different
depending on if we are using them for Windows or Linux?
Probably. It may even be different on different Linuxes, and for different Windows programs. There are several distinct implementations of the C standard library available for Linux, and maybe even more than one for Windows. Distinct implementations will have different implementation code, otherwise lawyers get involved.
my guess is that the actual function code be the same, but the lower
layer functions of the OS that eventually get called by these
functions are different. So could any compiler compile these same C
functions, but it is what gets linked after (what these functions
depend on to work on lower layers) is what gives us the required
behavior?
It is conceivable that standard library functions would be written in a way that abstracts the environment dependencies to some lower layer, so that the same source for each of those functions themselves can be used in multiple environments, with some kind of environment-specific compatibility layer underneath. Inasmuch as the GNU C library supports a wide variety of environments, it serves as an example of the general principle, though Windows is not among the environments it supports. Even then, however, the environment distinction would be effective even before the link stage. Different environments have a variety of binary formats.
In practice, however, you are very unlikely to see the situation you describe for Windows and Linux.
Yes, they have different implementations.
Moreover you might be using multiple different implementations on the same OS. For example:
MinGW is shipped with its own implementation of standard library which is different from the one used by MSVC.
There are many different implementations of C library even for Linux: glibc, musl, dietlibc and others.
Obviously, this means there is some code duplication in the community, but there are many good reasons for that:
People have different views on how things should be implemented and tested. This alone is enough to "fork" the project.
License: implementations put some restrictions on how they can be used and might require some actions from the end user (GPL requires you to share your code in some cases). Not everyone can follow those requirements.
People have very different needs. Some environments are multithreaded, some are not. printf might need or might not need to use some thread synchronization mechanisms. Some people need locale support, some don't. All this can bloat the code in the end, not everyone is willing to pay for things they do not use. Even strerror is vastly different on different OSes.
Aforementioned synchronization mechanisms are usually OS-specific and work in specific ways. Same can be said about locale handling, signal handling and other things, including the actual data writing and reading.
Some implementations add non-standard extensions that can make your life easier. Not all of those make sense on other OSes. For example glibc adds 'e' mode specifier to open file with O_CLOEXEC flag. This doesn't make sense for Windows.
Many complex things cannot be implemented in pure C and require some compiler-specific extensions. This can tie implementation to a limited number of compilers.
In the end, it is much simpler to have many C libraries, than trying to create a one-size-fits-all implementation.
As you say the higher level parts of the implementation of something like printf, like the code used to format the string using the arguments, can be written in a cross-platform way and be shared between Linux and Windows. I'm not sure if there's a C library that actually does it though.
But to interact with the hardware or use other operating system facilities (such as when printf writes to the console), the libc implementation has to use the OS's interface: the system calls. And these are very different between Windows and Unix-likes, and different even among Unix-likes (POSIX specifies a lot of them but there are OS specific extensions). For example here you can find system call tables for Linux and Windows.
There are two parts to functions like printf(). The first part parses the format string, and assembles an array of characters ready for output. If this part is written in C, there's no reason preventing it being common across all C libraries, and no reason preventing it being different, so long the standard definition of what printf() does is implemented. As it happens, different library developers have read the standard's definition of printf(), and have come up with different ways of parsing and acting on the format string. Most of them have done so correctly.
The second part, the bit that outputs those characters to stdout, is where the differences come in. It depends on using the kernel system call interface; it's the kernel / OS that looks after input/output, and that is done in a specific way. The source code required to get the Linux kernel to output characters is very different to that required to get Windows to output characters.
On Linux, it's usual to use glibc; this does some elaborate things with printf(), buffering the output characters in a pipe until a newline is output, and only then calling the Linux system call for displaying characters on the screen. This means that printf() calls from separate threads are neatly separated, each being on their own line. But the same program source code, compiled against another C library for Linux, won't necessarily do the same thing, resulting in printf() output from different threads being all jumbled up and unreadable.
There's also no reason why the library that contains printf() should be written in C. So long as the same function calling convention as used by the C compiler is honoured, you could write it in assembler (though that'd be slightly mad!). Or Ada (calling convention might be a bit tricky...).
Will the source code which implements these functions be different
Let us try another point-of-view: competition.
No. Competitors in industry are not required by the C spec to share source code to issue a compliant compiler - nor would various standard C library developers always want to.
C does not require "open source".
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.