(I'm on Windows.)
I'm testing a DLL I have compiled (libsox) with a C program which looks this way:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "sox.h"
int main(void) {
char const * versionText = sox_version();
printf(versionText);
return 0;
}
The function that is defined in the DLL has the following prototype in sox.h (something of this contains cdecl):
LSX_RETURN_VALID_Z LSX_RETURN_PURE
char const *
LSX_API
sox_version(void);
Here's the problem: When I try to build the file with gcc -lsox -o test.exe test.c I get the following error:
C:\DOKUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOKALE~1\Temp\ccSS2h2z.o:test.c:(.text+0xf): undefined reference to `sox_version'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
A word to -lsox: I have the library file "libsox.dll.a" in MinGW's lib folder. If I write -lsoxnonsense, then it says there is no library. That means in the shown case it finds the library. So why doesn't it want to create a link.
gcc -lsox -o test.exe test.c
You have to put your source file first:
gcc test.c -lsox -o test.exe
It is because the linker goes through the input files in order, finding undefined references and satisfying references that it saw before. So in your command line, it reads libsox.a (or something like that), finds undefined references (there would be none). Then, it goes to your test.c, finds undefined references in there, but there are no further libraries to satisfy them.
See this answer for more info.
Related
I have following two source codes and want to link them.
// test.c
#include <stdio.h>
void lib2();
void lib1(){
lib2();
return 0;
}
// main.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
return 0;
}
I've used gcc -c main.c and gcc -c test.c to generate objects files
$ ls *.o
main.o test.o
and I've used ar rcs test.a test.o command to generate static library(test.a) from object file test.o
Then, I tried to build executable by linking main.o with test.a or test.o. As far as I know, a static library file(.a extension) is a kind of simple collection of object files(.o). so I expected both would give same result: error or success. but it didn't.
Linking with the object file gives undefined reference error.
$ gcc -o main main.o test.o
/usr/bin/ld: test.o: in function `lib1':
test.c:(.text+0xe): undefined reference to `lib2'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
$
but linking with the static library doesn't give any error and success on compilation.
$ gcc -o main main.o test.a
$
Why is this happening? and how can I get undefined reference errors even when linking with static libraries?
If your code contains a function call expression then the language standard requires a function definition exists. (See C11 6.9/3). If you don't provide a definition then it is undefined behaviour with no diagnostic required .
The rule was written this way so that implementation vendors aren't forced to perform analysis to determine if a function is ever called or not; for example in your library scenario the compiler isn't forced to dig around in the library if none of the rest of the code contains anything that references that library.
It's totally up to the implementation what to do, and in your case it decides to give an error in one case and not the other. To avoid this, you can provide definitions for all the functions you call.
You might be able to modify the behaviour in the first case by using linker options such as elimination of unused code sections. Another thing you can do is call lib1() from main() -- this is still not guaranteed to produce an error but is more likely to.
Force the linker to do some work use -flto option and the error will go away.
ld does not search libraries for objects which are not used it only searches for symbols used in object files. Imagine that you have a library where some functions require defined callbacks. If you do not have them in every program you link against the library even if you do not use those functions.
I expected both would give same result: error or success. but it didn't.
Your expectation is incorrect. A good explanation of the difference between .o and .a with respect to linking is here.
Say I have a parent directory A with two subdirectories B and C.
Sub-directory C has a helper.c and helper.h as shown:
//helper.c
void print(){
printf("Hello, World!\n");
}
//helper.h
void print();
Now, in sub directory B, I have a main.c which just calls the print function:
//main.c
#include<stdio.h>
#include"../C/helper.h"
void main(){
print();
}
I tried the following commands for compiling main.c:
Command 1: gcc main.c //Gives undefined reference to 'print' error
Command 2: gcc main.c ../C/helper.c //Compiles successfully
Now I removed the #include"../C/helper.h" from main .c and tried the Command 2 again. It still works.
So I have the following questions:
i) What difference does it make whether the helper.h file is included or
helper.c?
ii) Why command 1 fails?
iii) Is there a way to compile my C program without having to specify
helper.c everytime?
What happens when you execute:
Command 1: gcc main.c //Gives undefined reference to 'print' error
When execute gcc main.c
Compiler compiles main.c and creates objective file. This file will contain unresolved link to function print(). Because there is no implementation of function print() in main.c file.
After compilation gcc tries to make full executable file. To do this gcc combines all objective files and tries to resolve all unresolved links. As you remember there is unresolved link for function print(), gcc can't find implementation and raise the error.
When you execute
Command 2: gcc main.c ../C/helper.c //Compiles successfully
gcc compiles both files. Second file ../C/helper.c contains implementation of function print(), so linker can find it and resolve reference to it in function main().
i) What difference does it make whether the helper.h file is included or helper.c?
In your case helper.h contains forward declaration of function print(). This gives information to compiler how to make call of function print().
ii) Why command 1 fails?
See above.
iii) Is there a way to compile my C program without having to specify helper.c everytime?
Use make utility. Compile helper.c in separate objective file helper.o and use it in linkage command.
helper.o: ../C/helper.c ../C/helper.h
gcc -c ../C/helper.c
main.o: main.c main.h
gcc -c main.c
testprog: main.o helper.o
g++ main.o helper.o -o testprog
See make utility manual for details.
Commands should be indented by TAB.
First you need to understand that #include simply adds whatever text is in the #include parameter to the position in the file the statement is in, for example:
//file1.h
void foo();
//main.c
#include "file1.txt"
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
foo();
return 0;
}
Will cause the pre-compilation to generate this unified file for compilation:
//main.c.tmp
void foo();
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
foo();
return 0;
}
So to answer your first and second questions:
When you include a header file (or any file) that only contains declarations (i.e function signatures) without definitions (i.e function implementations), as in the example above, the linker will fail in finding the definitions and you will get the 'undefined reference' error.
When you include a c code file (or any file) that contains definitions, these definitions will be merged to your code and the linker will have them, that's why it works.
and as for your third question
It is bad practice to include c files directly in other c files, the common approach is to keep separate c files with headers exposing the functionality they provide, include the header files and link against the compiled c files, for example in your case:
gcc main.c helper.c -o out
Will allow you to include helper.c in main.c and still work because you instructed the compiler to compile both files instead of just main.c so when linking occurs the definitions from the compilation will be found and you will not get the undefined behavior error
This is, in a nutshell. I abstracted a lot of what's going on to pass on the general idea. this is a nice article describing the compilation process in fair detail and this is a nice overview of the entire process.
I'll try to answer:
i) What difference does it make whether the helper.h file is included or helper.c?
When you include a file, you don't want to expose your implementation, hence its better to include h files, that contains only the "signatures" - api of your implementation.
ii) Why command 1 fails?
When you compile you must add all your resources to the executable, otherwise he won't compile.
iii) Is there a way to compile my C program without having to specify
helper.c everytime?
You can use Makefile to compile your program. Maybe this tutorial can help you.
i) What difference does it make whether the helper.h file is included
or helper.c?
Including helper.c means that helper.c gets compiled each time as if it were part of main.c
Including helper.h lets the compiler know what argument types the function print() takes and returns so the compiler can give an error or warning if you call print() incorrectly
ii) Why command 1 fails?
The compiler is not being told where to find the actual code for the print function. As explained, including the .h file only helps the compiler with type checking.
iii) Is there a way to compile my C program without having to specify
helper.c everytime?
You can compile it once into an object file and optionally you can add that obj to a static or dynamically loaded library. You still need to help the compiler find that obj or library. For example,
gcc -c helper.c
gcc main.c helper.o
The correct way to avoid compiling modules that don't need compiling is to use a Makefile. A Makefile compares when a module was last compiled compared to when it was last modified and that way it knows what needs to be compiled and what doesn't.
I'm trying to compile this pure C source code which used hunspell library with gcc (version 4.6.3) on Ubuntu 10.10:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <hunspell/hunspell.h>
int main() {
Hunhandle *spellObj = Hunspell_create("/home/artem/en_US.aff", "/home/artem/en_US.dic");
char str[60];
scanf("%s", str);
int result = Hunspell_spell(spellObj, str);
if(result == 0)
printf("Spelling error!\n");
else
printf("Correct Spelling!");
Hunspell_destroy(spellObj);
return 0;
}
With command:
gcc -lhunspell-1.3 example.c
But I've got some linker issues:
/tmp/cce0QZnA.o: In function `main':
example.c:(.text+0x22): undefined reference to `Hunspell_create'
example.c:(.text+0x52): undefined reference to `Hunspell_spell'
example.c:(.text+0x85): undefined reference to `Hunspell_destroy'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Also, I checked /usr/include/hunspell/ folder, file hunspell.h exists and contains all functions from my source.
What I'm doing wrong, and why I can't compile this source?
Try:
$ gcc example.c -lhunspell-1.3
See the documentation for the -l option:
It makes a difference where in the command you write this option; the linker searches and processes libraries and object files in the order they are specified. Thus, 'foo.o -lz bar.o' searches library 'z' after file 'foo.o' but before 'bar.o'. If 'bar.o' refers to functions in 'z', those functions may not be loaded.
So, you asked GCC to first search the library, then compile your code. You need to do it the other way around, you generally specify the libraries to link against last on the command line.
Also verify the on-disk name of the library file, often there are symlinks that remove the version number from the name, so perhaps your command should just be:
$ gcc example.c -lhunspell
to link against the "current" library version available on your system.
I have read the other answers on this topic, and unfortunately they have not helped me. I am attempting to link several c programs together, and I am getting an error in response:
$ gcc -o runexp.o scd.o data_proc.o -lm -fopenmp
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/crt1.o: In function `_start':
(.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make: * [runexp] Error 1
I have exactly one main function and it is in runexp. The form is
int main(void) {
...;
return 0;
}
Any thoughts on why I might get this error? Thanks!
You should provide output file name after -o option. In your case runexp.o is treated as output file name, not input object file and thus your main function is undefined.
You're not including the C file that contains main() when compiling, so the linker isn't seeing it.
You need to add it:
$ gcc -o runexp runexp.c scd.o data_proc.o -lm -fopenmp
You are overwriting your object file runexp.o by running this command :
gcc -o runexp.o scd.o data_proc.o -lm -fopenmp
In fact, the -o is for the output file.
You need to run :
gcc -o runexp.out runexp.o scd.o data_proc.o -lm -fopenmp
runexp.out will be you binary file.
Generally you compile most .c files in the following way:
gcc foo.c -o foo. It might vary depending on what #includes you used or if you have any external .h files. Generally, when you have a C file, it looks somewhat like the following:
#include <stdio.h>
/* any other includes, prototypes, struct delcarations... */
int main(){
*/ code */
}
When I get an 'undefined reference to main', it usually means that I have a .c file that does not have int main() in the file. If you first learned java, this is an understandable manner of confusion since in Java, your code usually looks like the following:
//any import statements you have
public class Foo{
int main(){}
}
I would advise looking to see if you have int main() at the top.
I'm getting the following error and can't for the life of me figure out what I'm doing wrong.
$ gcc main.c -o main
Undefined symbols:
"_wtf", referenced from:
_main in ccu2Qr2V.o
ld: symbol(s) not found
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
main.c:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "wtf.h"
main(){
wtf();
}
wtf.h:
void wtf();
wtf.c:
void wtf(){
printf("I never see the light of day.");
}
Now, if I include the entire function in the header file instead of just the signature, it complies fine so I know wtf.h is being included. Why doesn't the compiler see wtf.c? Or am I missing something?
Regards.
You need to link wtf with your main. Easiest way to compile it together - gcc will link 'em for you, like this:
gcc main.c wtf.c -o main
Longer way (separate compilation of wtf):
gcc -c wtf.c
gcc main.c wtf.o -o main
Even longer (separate compilation and linking)
gcc -c wtf.c
gcc -c main.c
gcc main.o wtf.o -o main
Instead of last gcc call you can run ld directly with the same effect.
You are missing the fact that merely including a header doesn't tell the compiler anything about where the actual implementation (the definitions) of the things declared in the header are.
They could be in a C file next to the one doing the include, they could come from a pre-compiled static link library, or a dynamic library loaded by the system linker when reading your executable, or they could come at run-time user programmer-controlled explicit dynamic loading (the dlopen() family of function in Linux, for instance).
C is not like Java, there is no implicit rule that just because a C file includes a certain header, the compiler should also do something to "magically" find the implementation of the things declared in the header. You need to tell it.