I was looking into using Apple's Blocks runtime with clang on Linux, and I uncovered the incompatibility issues with the GNU libc's <unistd.h>. Looking around a bit for more information I found one user suggesting:
Oh well time to use a different libc? I hear FreeBSD has a nice one! :-)
As seemingly implied, this is a rather silly reason to use a different libc. But that did make me think:
Why would you ever swap your C library? Are there advantages/disadvantages to using one over the other (e.g. GNU libc vs. FreeBSD libc)? (I suppose this also applies to libstdc++ vs. libc++).
I can think of three reasons off the top of my head.
Legacy Reasons: You have code written against the old Rogue Wave,
Size: There's musl and dietlibc,
To Perform Android Cross Compile using Bionic
Related
I have been doing a lot reading lately about how glibc functions wrap system calls in linux. I am wondering however about the relationship between glibc and the GNU C Compiler.
Lets say for example I wanted to write my own C Standard implementation and write a new library called "newglibc" and I change things just slightly. Like for example I take more checks and actions before and after the system calls. Would I have to write a new compiler? Or would I be able to use the same GNU gcc compiler?
If the compiler is completely separate from the library, then would someone be able to, THEORETICALLY, use the gcc on windows system if they could turn it into a .exe and provide the standard C library that windows provides?
Thank you
The Linux kernel, the GNU C Library ("glibc"), and the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc) are three separate development projects. They are often used all together, but they don't have to be. The ones with "GNU" in their name are offically part of the GNU Project; Linux isn't.
The C standard does not make a distinction between the "compiler" and the "library"; it's all one "implementation" to the committee. It is largely a historical accident that GCC is a separate development project from glibc—but a motivated one: back in the day, each commercial Unix variant shipped with its own C library and compiler, and they were terrible, 90% bugs by volume was typical. GNU got its start providing a less terrible replacement for the compiler (and the shell utilities, which were also terrible).
Replacing the compiler on a traditional commercial Unix is a lot easier than replacing the C library, because the C library isn't just the functions defined in clause 7 of the C standard; as you have noticed, it also provides the lowest-level interface to the kernel, and often that wasn't very well documented. glibc did at one time at least sort-of support a bunch of these Unixes, but nowadays it can only be used with Linux and an experimental kernel called the Hurd. By contrast, GCC supports dozens of different CPUs and kernels, and Linux supports dozens of different CPUs.
If you write your own C library and/or kernel, it is relatively easy to write a "back end" so that GCC can generate code for them as a cross-compiler, and somewhat more difficult to port GCC to run in that environment. You may also need to write a back end for the assembler and linker, which are yet a fourth project ("GNU Binutils"). Porting glibc to a new CPU running Linux is a large but straightforward task; porting glibc to a new operating system is hard, especially if that OS is not Unix-ish. (Windows is decidedly not Unix-ish, so much so that when Microsoft wanted to make it easier to run programs written for Unix under Windows, the path of least resistance was to bolt an in-house clone of the Linux kernel onto the side of the NT kernel. I am not making this up.)
If you write your own C compiler, you will have to make it conform to the expectations of the library and kernel that it is generating code for. A lot of that is documented in the "ABI" specification for the environment you're working in, but not all, unfortunately.
If that doesn't clarify, please let us know what is still unclear.
So I have a minimal OS that doesn't do much. There's a bootloader, that loads a basic C kernel in 32-bit protected mode. How do I port in a C library so I can use things like printf? I'm looking to use the GNU C Library. Are there any tutorials anywhere?
Ok, porting in a C library isn't that hard, i'm using Newlib in my kernel. Here is a tutorial to start: http://wiki.osdev.org/Porting_Newlib.
You basically need to:
Compile the library (for example Newlib) using your cross compiler
Provide stub-implementations for a list of system functions (like fork, fstat, etc.) in your kernel
Link the library and your kernel together
If you want to use functions like malloc or printf (which uses malloc internally), you need some kind of memory management and simplest working implementation of sbrk.
I strongly recommend against glibc. It is a beast.
Try newlib instead. Porting it to a new kernel is easy. You just need to write a few support functions, as explained here.
Another new kid on the block is musl which specifically aims to improve the situation in embedded space.
It's probably not the best choice for a beginner, though, since it's still pretty much work in progress.
Better look for a small libc, like uClibc. The GNU C library is huge. And as the comments tell, the first step is to get a C compiler going.
What are you trying to do? Building a full operating system is a job for a group of people lasting a few years... better start with something that already works, and hack on the parts that most interest you.
I'm an avid Python user and it seems that I require MinGW to be installed on my Windows machine to compile some libraries. I'm a little confused about MinGW and GCC. Here's my question (from a real dummy point of view):
So Python is language which both interpreted and compiled. There are Linux and Windows implementations of Python which one simply installs and used the binary to a execute his code. They come bundled with a bunch of built-in libraries that you can use. It's the same with Ruby from what I've read.
Now, I've done a tiny bit a of C and I know that one has a to compile it. It has its built-in libraries which seem to be called header files which you can use. Now, back in the school day's, C, was writing code in a vi-like IDE called Turbo-C and then hitting F9 to compile it. That's pretty much where my C education ends.
What is MinGW and what is GCC? I've been mainly working on Windows systems and have even recently begun using Cygwin. Aren't they the same?
A simple explanation hitting these areas would be helpful.
(My apologies if this post sounds silly/stupid. I thought I'd ask here. Ignoring these core bits never made anyone a better programmer.)
Thanks everyone.
MinGW is a complete GCC toolchain (including half a dozen frontends, such as C, C++, Ada, Go, and whatnot) for the Windows platform which compiles for and links to the Windows OS component C Runtime Library in msvcrt.dll. Rather it tries to be minimal (hence the name).
This means, unlike Cygwin, MinGW does not attempt to offer a complete POSIX layer on top of Windows, but on the other hand it does not require you to link with a special compatibility library.
It therefore also does not have any GPL-license implications for the programs you write (notable exception: profiling libraries, but you will not normally distribute those so that does not matter).
The newer MinGW-w64 comes with a roughly 99% complete Windows API binding (excluding ATL and such) including x64 support and experimental ARM implementations. You may occasionally find some exotic constant undefined, but for what 99% of the people use 99% of the time, it just works perfectly well.
You can also use the bigger part of what's in POSIX, as long as it is implemented in some form under Windows. The one major POSIX thing that does not work with MinGW is fork, simply because there is no such thing under Windows (Cygwin goes through a lot of pain to implement it).
There are a few other minor things, but all in all, most things kind of work anyway.
So, in a very very simplified sentence: MinGW(-w64) is a "no-frills compiler thingie" that lets you write native binary executables for Windows, not only in C and C++, but also other languages.
To compile C program you need a C implementation for your specific computer.
C implementations consist, basically, of a compiler (its preprocesser and headers) and a library (the ready-made executable code).
On a computer with Windows installed, the library that contains most ready-made executable code is not compatible with gcc compiler ... so to use this compiler in Windows you need a different library: that's where MinGW enters. MinGW provides, among other things, the library(ies) needed for making a C implementation together with gcc.
The Windows library and MSVC together make a different implementation.
MinGW is a suite of development tools that contains GCC (among others), and GCC is a C compiler within that suite.
MinGW is an implementation of most of the GNU building utilities, like gcc and make on windows, while gcc is only the compiler. Cygwin is a lot bigger and sophisticated package, wich installs a lot more than MinGW.
The only reason for existence of MinGW is to provide linux-like environment for developers not capable of using native windows tools. It is inferior in almost every respect to Microsoft tooolchains on Win32/Win64 platforms, BUT it provides environment where linux developer does not have to learn anything new AND he/she can compile linux code almost without modifications. It is a questionable approach , but many people find that convenience more important than other aspects of the development .
It has nothing to do with C or C++ as was indicated in earlier answers, it has everything to do with the environment developer wants. Argument about GNU toolchains on windows and its nessessety, is just that - an argument
GCC - unix/linux compiler,
MinGW - approximation of GCC on Windows environment,
Microsoft compiler and Intel compiler - more of the same as names suggest(both produce much , much better programs on Windows then MinGW, btw)
Just wondering, is the GNU C Library (glibc) usable on non-GNU and/or non-POSIX platforms such as Microsoft Windows?
Yes, its possible in theory, but not really worth it in practice. You would need to port the syscall interface, dynamic linker, and other parts to Windows or your platform of choice, and Glibc is not an ideal candidate for this.
If you really need a self contained C library, I would consider newlib or uClibc (or FreeBSD's/OpenBSD's libc) over glibc. Glibc is a complex beast, the alternatives are much smaller and easier to understand.
It is provided that glibc has been ported to the kernel in question. It may however be easier to use Gnulib instead as a wrapper around the native API.
I'm compiling newlib for a bespoke PowerPC platform with no OS. Reading information on the net I realise I need to implement stub functions in a <newplatform> subdirectory of libgloss.
My confusion is to how this is going to be picked up when I compile newlib. Is it the last part of the --target argument to configure e.g. powerpc-ibm-<newplatform> ?
If this is the case, then I guess I should use the same --target when compiling binutils and gcc?
Thank you
I ported newlib and GCC myself too. And i remember i didn't have to do much stuff to make newlib work (porting GCC, gas and libbfd was most of the work).
Just had to tweak some files about floating point numbers, turn off some POSIX/SomeOtherStandard flags that made it not use some more sophisticated functions and write support code for longjmp / setjmp that load and store register state into the jump buffers. But you certainly have to tell it the target using --target so it uses the right machine sub-directory and whatnot. I remember i had to add small code to configure.sub to make it know about my target and print out the complete configuration trible (cpu-manufacturer-os or similar). Just found i had to edit a file called configure.host too, which sets some options for your target (for example, whether an operation systems handles signals risen by raise, or whether newlib itself should simulate handling).
I used this blog of Anthony Green as a guideline, where he describes porting of GCC, newlib and binutils. I think it's a great source when you have to do it yourself. A fun read anyway. It took a total of 2 months to compile and run some fun C programs that only need free-standing C (with dummy read/write functions that wrote into the simulator's terminal).
So i think the amount of work is certainly manageable. The one that made me nearly crazy was libgloss's build scripts. I certainly was lost in those autoconf magics :) Anyway, i wish you good luck! :)
Check out Porting Newlib.
Quote:
I decided that after an incredibly difficult week of trying to get newlib ported to my own OS that I would write a tutorial that outlines the requirements for porting newlib and how to actually do it. I'm assuming you can already load binaries from somewhere and that these binaries are compiled C code. I also assume you have a syscall interface setup already. Why wait? Let's get cracking!