If I just want to use the gsl_histogram.h library from Gnu Scientific Library (GSL), can I copy it from an existing machine (Mac OS Snow Leopard) that has GSL installed to a different machine (Linux CentOS 5.7) that doesn't have GSL installed, and just use an #include <gls_histogram.h> statement in my c program? Would this work?
Or, do I have to go through the full install of GSL on the Linux box, even though I only need this one library?
Just copying a header gsl_histogram.h is not enough. Header states merely the interface that is exposed by this library. You would need to copy also binaries like *.so and *.a files, but it's hard to tell which ones to copy. So I think the you'd better just install it on your machine. It's pretty easy, just use this tutorial to find and install GSL package.
So there are surely a lot of libraries out there. However the particular one is Gnuplot. Using it you even do not need to compile the code, however you do need to read a bit of documentation. But luckily there is already a question about how to draw a histogram with Gnuplot on Stackoverflow: Histogram using gnuplot? It worth noting that Gnuplot is actually very powerful tool, so invested time into reading its documentation will certainly pay off.
You cannot copy libraries from OS and expect them to work unchanged.
OS X uses the Mach-O object file format while modern Linux systems use the ELF object file format. The usual ld.so(8) linker/loader will not know how to load the Mach-O format object files for your executable to execute. So you would need the Apple-provided ld.so(8) -- or whatever they call their loader. (It's been a while.)
Furthermore, the object files from OS X will be linked against the Apple-supplied libc, and require the corresponding symbols from the Apple-supplied library. You would also need to provide the Apple-provided libc on the Linux system. This C library would try to make system calls using the OS X system call numbers and calling conventions. I guarantee the system call numbers have changed and almost certainly calling conventions are different.
While the Linux kernel's binfmt_misc generic object loader can be used to teach the kernel how to load different object file formats, and the kernel's personality(2) system call can be used to select between different calling conventions, system call numbers, and so on, the amount of work required to make this work is nothing short of immense: the WINE Project has been working on exactly this issue (but with the Windows format COFF and supporting libraries) since 1993.
It would be easier to run:
apt-get install libgs0-dev
or whatever the equivalent is on your distribution of choice. If your distribution does not make it easily available, it would still be easier to compile and install the library by hand rather than try to make the OS X version work.
Related
I have a program written in C that uses dlopen for loading plug-in modules. When the library is dynamically loaded, it runs constructor code which register pointer to structure with function implementations with the main application by use of exported function. I want to use absolute path for specifying the file to dlopen.
Then I have other part of the program with takes file, determine if it is ELF, then looks into the ELF header for specific ELF section, read this section and extract from it pertinent information. This way it filters only shared libraries which I have previously tagged as a plug-in module.
However, I am solving a problem how to discover them on the fly (in portable Linux way, i.e. it will run on Debian and on Fedora too and so on) from the main program. I have been thinking about using ldconfig for this. (As the modules will be installed by way of distro packaging system, APT for example.) Is there any way how to programmatically get the string list of known libraries from C program other than directly reading the /etc/ld.co.cache file? I was thinking that maybe there is some header library which will give char** when I ask.
Or, maybe is there any better solution to my problem?
(I am proponent of using standard system components that programming one-off solutions which will need support in the future.)
I have written a program code in c compiled and executed in gcc compiler. I want to share the executable file of program without sharing actual source code. Is there any way to share my program without revealing actual source code so that executable file could run on other computers with gcc compilers??
Is there any way to share my program without revealing actual source code so that executable file could run on other computers with gcc compilers?
TL;DR: yes, provided a greater degree of similarity than just having GCC. One simply copies the binary file and any needed auxiliary files to a compatible system and runs it.
In more detail
It is quite common to distribute compiled binaries without source code, for execution on machines other than the ones on which those binaries were built. This mode of distribution does present potential compatibility issues (as described below), but so does source distribution. In broad terms, you simply install (copy) the binaries and any needed supporting files to suitable locations on a compatible system and execute them. This is the manner of distribution for most commercial software.
Architecture dependence
Compiled binaries are certainly specific to a particular hardware architecture, or in certain special cases to a small, predetermined set of two or more architectures (e.g. old Mac universal binaries). You will not be able to run a binary on hardware too different from what it was built for, but "architecture" is quite a different thing from CPU model.
For example, there is a very wide range of CPUs that implement the x86_64 architecture. Most programs targeting that architecture will run on any such CPU. Indeed, the x86 architecture is similar enough to x86_64 that most programs built for x86 will also run on x86_64 (but not vise versa). It is possible to introduce finer-grained hardware dependency, but you do not generally get that by default.
Operating system dependence
Furthermore, most binaries are built to run in the context of a host operating system. You will not be able to run a binary on an operating system too different from the one it was built for.
For example, Linux binaries do not run (directly) on Windows. Windows binaries do not run (directly) on OS X. Etc.
Library dependence
Additionally, a program built against shared libraries require a compatible version of each required shared library to be available in the runtime environment. That does not necessarily have to be exactly the same version against which it was built; that depends on the library, which of its functions and data are used, and whether and how those changed over time.
You can sidestep this issue by linking every needed library statically, up to and including the C standard library, or by distributing shared libraries along with your binary. It's fairly common to just live with this issue, however, and therefore to support only a subset of all possible environments with your binary distribution(s).
Other
There is a veritable universe of other potential compatibility issues, but it's unlikely that any of them would catch you by surprise with respect to a program that you wrote yourself and want to distribute. For example, if you use nVidia CUDA in your program then it might require an nVidia GPU, but such a requirement would surely be well known to you.
Executable are often specific to the environment/machine they were created on. Even if the same processor/hardware is involved, there may be dependencies on libraries that may prevent executables from just running on other machines.
A program that uses only "standard libraries" and that links all libraries statically, does not need any other dependency (in the sense that all the code it need is in the binary itself or into OS libraries that -being part of the system itself- are already on the system).
You have to link the standard library statically. Otherwise it will only work if the version of the standard library for your compiler is installed in your OS by default (which you can't rely on, in general).
Is it possible to write code in C, then statically build it and make a binary out of it like an ELF/PE then remove its header and all unnecessary meta-data so to create a raw binary and at last be able to put this raw binary in any other kind of OS specific like (ELF > PE) or (PE > ELF)?!
have you done this before?
is it possible?
what are issues and concerns?
how this would be possible?!
and if not, just tell me why not?!!?!
what are my pitfalls in understanding the static build?
doesn't it mean that it removes any need for 3rd party and standard as well as os libs and headers?!
Why cant we remove the meta of for example ELF and put meta and other specs needed for PE?
Mention:
I said, Cross OS not Cross Hardware
[Read after reading below!]
As you see the best answer, till now (!) just keep going and learn cross platform development issues!!! How crazy is this?! thanks to philosophy!!!
I would say that it's possible, but this process must be crippled by many, many details.
ABI compatibility
The first thing to think of is Application Binary Interface compatibility. Unless you're able to call your functions the same way, the code is broken. So I guess (though I can't check at the moment) that compiling code with gcc on Linux/OS X and MinGW gcc on Windows should give the same binary code as far as no external functions are called. The problem here is that executable metadata may rely on some ABI assumptions.
Standard libraries
That seems to be the largest hurdle. Partly because of C preprocessor that can inline some procedures on some platforms, leaving them to run-time on others. Also, cross-platform dynamic interoperation with standard libraries is close to impossible, though theoretically one can imagine a code that uses a limited subset of the C standard library that is exposed through the same ABI on different platforms.
Static build mostly eliminates problems of interaction with other user-space code, but still there is a huge issue of interfacing with kernel: it's int $0x80 calls on x86 Linux and a platform-specifc set of syscall numbers that does not map to Windows in any direct way.
OS-specific register use
As far as I know, Windows uses register %fs for storing some OS-wide exception-handling stuff, so a binary compiled on Linux should avoid cluttering it. There might be other similar issues. Also, C++ exceptions on Windows are mostly done with OS exceptions.
Virtual addresses
Again, AFAIK Windows DLLs have some predefined address they're must be loaded into in virtual address space of a process, whereas Linux uses position-independent code for shared libraries. So there might be issues with overlapping areas of an executable and ported code, unless the ported position-dependent code is recompiled to be position-independent.
So, while theoretically possible, such transformation must be very fragile in real situations and it's impossible to re-plant the whole static build code - some parts may be transferred intact, but must be relinked to system-specific code interfacing with other kernel properly.
P.S. I think Wine is a good example of running binary code on a quite different system. It tricks a Windows program to think it's running in Windows environment and uses the same machine code - most of the time that works well (if a program does not use private system low-level routines or unavailable libraries).
Why the /lib/libc.so.1 (linker/loader) is always mounted on Solaris 10 ? I have tried both mount and df output. It shows me /lib/libc.so.1 entry.
For both SPARC and x86 architectures, Solaris provides optimized C standard libraries. At boot time, the best suited for your machine, i.e. the one taking advantage of CPU specific instructions and features, is lofs mounted on top of the standard one.
Since Solaris 10, no static libc is provided so this dynamic libc, being the interface between the kernel and the userland, is a mandatory component of every program running on Solaris.
More details here.
One might ask why is this done with a lofs mount and not by a lightweight feature like a symlink.
The reason is a symlink is persistent, i.e. survives a reboot. Using a symlink might then render a system unusable should the hardware capabilities evolve or should should for some other reason the wrong library would have been linked to. Again, all Solaris commands are dynamically linked to libc.so. There has not been a libc.a since a long time.
Using a lofs mount ensure the first stage of system boot are done with using the safe default libc.so, and the optimized one is only selected at the right time and in particular allows a safe boot with all services disabled (-m milestone=none) not to be affected by a capabilities change.
libc.so is required to run unix commands like ssh or awk that were written in C and use dynamic (runtime) linking. libc.so is a link to libc.so.1 which is the "base" version of the C library for the implementation of Solaris 10 you are running.
Solaris does not work exactly the way Linux does with versions of libc because there are different versions of sparc architecure. The lowest common denominator is sparc 1. I have a Ultrasparc III box and other more modern boxes.
Try the file command on libc.so.1: file /lib/libc.so.1 In order for the utilities and other code to get the max from the box, the architecture "sparc setting" of libc matches the box. Read about and try the isalist and isainfo commands.
I'm trying to make an audio file I create slow down using SoX, and although I can easily compile the source files on the linux machine I use regularly, I need to transfer the binary to another linux machine with limited permissions and memory. I tried to copy the binary from the usr/local/bin folder on my machine to the other one and it could not find function references.
Is there a standard way to compile binaries with no dependencies, and if not, how do I set up the SoX binary so that it sees the correct dependencies when I only have write privileges in a temp folder?
You can compile, adding the -static flag to the compilation options in the Makefile. But be aware of any differences in glibc versions between your two (or more) Linux workstations. You want to make sure that you compile on (or target for) the workstation with the older (or oldest) kernel, or your binary may not work due to dependencies on a newer kernel, which cannot be met by an older installation of Linux. So: basically, compile on your oldest machine for better results.
The most important thing you need to generate executables without dependencies is the static version of all libraries this executable will use. Usually, libraries are shares as well, meaning if they need to call another library's functions, they use shared linking. To not get 2nd-grade dependencies you need to compile all required libraries statically.