I'm reading a book about gcc and the following paragraph puzzles me now:
Furthermore, shared libraries make it possible to update a library with-
out recompiling the programs which use it (provided the interface to the
library does not change).
This only refers to the programs which are not yet linked, right?
I mean, in C isn't executable code completely independent from the compiler? In which case any alteration to the library, whether its interface or implementation is irrelevant to the executable code?
A shared library is not linked until the program is executed, so the library can be upgraded/changed without recompiling (nor relinking).
EG, on Linux, one might have
/bin/myprogram
depending upon
/usr/lib64/mylibrary.so
Replacing mylibrary.so with a different version (as long as the functions/symbols that it exports are the same/compatible) will affect myprogram the next time that myprogram is started. On Linux, this is handled by the system program /lib64/ld-linux-x864-64.so.2 or similar, which the system runs automatically when the program is started.
Contrast with a static library, which is linked at compile-time. Changes to static libraries require the application to be re-linked.
As an added benefit, if two programs share the same shared library, the memory footprint can be smaller, as the kernel can “tell” that it's the same code, and not copy it into RAM twice. With static libraries, this is not the case.
No, this is talking about code that is linked. If you link to a static libary, and change the library, the executable will not pick up the changes because it contains its own copy of the original version of the library.
If you link to a shared library, also known as dynamic linking, the executable does not contain a copy of the library. When the program is run, it loads the current version of the library into memory. This allows you to fix the library, and the fixes will be picked up by all users of the library without needing to be relinked.
Libraries provide interfaces (API) to the outside world. Applications using the libraries (a .DLL for example) bind to the interface (meaning they call functions from the API). The library author is free to modify the library and redistribute a newer version as long as they don't modify the interface.
If the library authors were to modify the interface, they could potentially break all of the applications that depend on that function!
Related
My host application took over the ownership of e.g. a FILE object which came from a dynamic library. Can I call fclose() on this object safely even though my host application and the dynamic library are compiled with different versions of clang / gcc?
Background
On Windows (with different VS runtimes) it would be illegal and I have to first extract the fclose() function from the runtime library which is used by the dynamic library since all runtimes have their own pools and internal structures for file or memory objects.
An illustration for the situation in Windows would look like this:
Does this restriction apply for Linux and macOS as well?
The issue is not whether your application and the dynamic libraries were compiled with different versions of clang and/or gcc. The issue is whether, ultimately, there's one underlying C library that manipulates one kind of FILE * object and has one, compatible implementation of fclose().
Under MacOS and Linux, at least, the answer to all these questions is likely to be "yes". In my experience it's hard to get two different, incompatible C libraries into the mix; you'd have to really work at it.
Addendum: I suppose I should admit, however, that my experience may be getting dated. In my experience, on any Unix-like system, there's exactly one C library, generally /lib/libc.{a,so}. But I gather that "modern" compilers are tending to access their own compiler- and version-specific libraries off in special places, meaning that the scenario you're worried about could be a problem. To me, it seems, this way lies madness, but then again, it seems that more and more of the world seems to be embracing dependency hell, rather than trying to eliminate it.
It is not generally safe to use a library designed for one compiler with code compiled by a different compiler. A compiler may generate code that implements the nominal functions in the standard library using internal routines or interfaces, and those routines or interfaces may be different or missing in the library designed for another compiler.
Nor is it safe to take any pointer to some internal data structure from one library and use it with another library.
If the sources are just compiled with different versions of one compiler (e.g., clang 73 and clang 89), not different compilers (e.g., Apple clang versus GCC), the compiler might offer some guarantee about library compatibility. You would have to check its documentation. Or, if the compiler is intended to use the library provided with the operating system, that could work. Again, you would have to check its documentation.
On Linux, if both your code and the other library dynamically link to the same library (such as libc.so.6), both will get the same version and implementation of that library at runtime. You can check which libraries a given dynamic library links to with ldd.
If you were linking to a library that statically linked in a supporting library, you would need to be careful to pass any structures to or from it against the same version of the library. But this is more likely to come up in practice with libc++ and libstdc++ than with libc.
So, don't statically link your library to another and then pass a data structure that requires client code to separately link to the same library.
I know these questions have been asked before - but I still can't reconcile everything together into an overall picture.
static vs dynamic library
static libraries have their code copied and linked into the resulting executable
static libraries have only copy and link the required modules into the executable, not the entire library implementation
static libraries don't need to be compiled as PIC as they are apart of the resulting executable
dynamic libraries copy and link in stubs that describe how to load/link (?) the function implementation at runtime
dynamic libraries can be PIC or relocatable
why are there separate static and dynamic libraries? All of the above seems to be be the job of the static or dynamic linker. Why do I need 2 libraries that implement scanf?
(bonus #1) what does a shared library refer to? I've heard it being used as (1) the overall umbrella term, synonymous to library, (2) directly to a dynamic library, (3) using virtual memory to map the same physical memory of a library to multiple address spaces. Can you do this only with dynamic libraries? (4) having different versions of the same dynamic library in memory.
(bonus #2) are the standard libraries (libc, libc++, stdlibc++, ..) linked dynamically or statically by default? I never need to dlopen()..
static vs dynamic linking
how is this any different than static vs dynamic libraries? I don't understand why there isn't just 1 library, and we use either a static or dynamic linker (other than the PIC issue). Instead of talking about static vs dynamic libraries, should we instead be discussing the more general static s dynamic linking?
is symbol resolution still performed at compile-time for both?
static vs dynamic loading
Static loading means copying the full executable into MM before executing it
Dynamic loading means that only the executable header copied into MM before executing, additional functionality is loaded into MM when requested. How is this any different from paging?
If the executable is dynamically linked, why would it not be dynamically loaded?
both static loading and dynamic loading may or may not perform relocation
I know there are a lot of things I'm confused about here - and I'm not necessary looking for someone to address each issue. I'm hoping by listing out everything that is confusing me, that someone that understands this will see where a lapse in my understanding is at a broad level, and be able to paint a larger picture about how these things cooperate together..
why 2 types of lib loading
dynamic saves space (you dont have hundreds of copies of the same code in all binaries using foo.lib
dynamic allows foo.lib vendor can ship a new version of the library and existing code takes advantage of it
static makes dependency management easier - in theory a binary can be one file
What is 'shared library'
unix name for dynamic library. Windows calls it DLL
Are standard libraries static or dynamic
depends on platform. On some you can choose on others its chosen for you. For example on windwos there are compiler switchs to say if you want static or dynamic runtimes. Not dont confuse dynamic library usage with dlopen - see later
'why we talk about 2 different types of library'
Typically a static library is in a different format from a dynamic one. Typically a static library is input to the linker just like any other compile unit. A dynamic library is typically output by the linker. They are used differently even though they both deliver the same chunk of code to your app
Symbol resolution is finalized at load time for a DLL
Full dynamic loading. This is the realm of dlopen. This is where you want to call entry points in a library that might not have even existing when you compiled. Use cases:
plugins that conform to a well known interface but there can be many implementations (PAM and NSS are good examples). The app chooses to load one or more implementations from specified files at run time
an app needs to load a library and call an arbitrary function. Imagine how , for example , how a scripting language can load and call an arbitrary method
To use a .so on unix you dont need to use dlopen. You can have it loaded for you (Same on windows). To really dynamically load a shared lib / dll you need dlopen or LoadLibrary
Note that statically linked libraries load faster, since there is less disk searching for all the runtime library files. If the libraries are small, and very unusual, probably better to link statically. If there are serious version dependencies / functional differences like MFC, the DLLs need different names.
When I run a program (in linux) does it all get loaded into the physical memory? If so, is using shared libraries, instead of static libraries, help in terms of caching? In general, when should I use shared libraries and when should I use static libraries? My codes are either written in C or in C++ if that matters.
This article hits covers some decent ground on what you want. This article goes much deeper about the advantages of shared libraries
SO also has covered this topic in depth
Difference between static and shared libraries?
When to use dynamic vs. static libraries
Almost all the above mentioned articles are shared library biased. Wikipedia tries to rescue static libraries :)
From wiki,
There are several advantages to statically linking libraries with an
executable instead of dynamically linking them. The most significant
is that the application can be certain that all its libraries are
present and that they are the correct version. This avoids dependency
problems. Usually, static linking will result in a significant
performance improvement.
Static linking can also allow the application
to be contained in a single executable file, simplifying distribution
and installation.
With static linking, it is enough to include those
parts of the library that are directly and indirectly referenced by
the target executable (or target library).
With dynamic libraries, the
entire library is loaded, as it is not known in advance which
functions will be invoked by applications. Whether this advantage is
significant in practice depends on the structure of the library.
Shared libraries are used mostly when you have functionality that could be used and "shared" across different programs. In that case, you will have a single point where all the programs will get their methods. However, this creates a dependency problem since now your compiled programs are dependent on that specific version of the library.
Static libraries are used mostly when you don't want to have dependency issues and don't want your program to care which X or Y libraries are installed on your target system.
So, which one to use?. for that you should answer the following questions:
Will your program be used on different platforms or Linux distributions? (e.g. Red Hat, Debian, SLES11-SP1)
Do you have replicated code that is being used by different binaries?
Do you envision that in the future other programs could benefit from your work?
I think this is a case by case decision, and it is not a one size fits all kind of answer.
I wrote a program, that uses a shared library installed on my system. This library is seldom installed on other systems. How do I compile my program so that the library doesn't need to be installed on other systems? I have the source code for the library available. What's the best way?
The other systems of course have the same architecture and OS.
Compile it as a static library and link that into the executable.
Though the OP had solved his problem by answering a different question, there are (at least) two ways to wedge a shared library into your binary in case
there is no source code available
there is no compiler (or build-chain) available
static link does not work or it's not obvious how do it
to preserve memory layout - static link will change it and may "wake-up" hidden bugs
for "permanent link" LD_PRELOAD library into executable
The first is statifier (open source but limited to x86 and x86_64 and only object code)
The second that I know of is magic ermine (by the same developer). It is closed source, but the developer is friendly to opensource projects and ermine has the advantage of supporting more platforms as well as the ability to include all necessary data files within its virtual file system.
http://statifier.sourceforge.net/ and http://www.magicermine.com/
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