i noticed that mingw adds alot of code before calling main(), i assumed its for parsing command line parameters since one of those functions is called __getmainargs(), and also lots of strings are added to the final executable, such as mingwm.dll and some error strings (incase the app crashed) says mingw runtime error or something like that.
my question is: is there a way to remove all this stuff? i dont need all these things, i tried tcc (tiny c compiler) it did the job. but not cross platform like gcc (solaris/mac)
any ideas?
thanks.
Yes, you really do need all those things. They're the startup and teardown code for the C environment that your code runs in.
Other than non-hosted environments such as low-level embedded solutions, you'll find pretty much all C environments have something like that. Things like /lib/crt0.o under some UNIX-like operating systems or crt0.obj under Windows.
They are vital to successful running of your code. You can freely omit library functions that you don't use (printf, abs and so on) but the startup code is needed.
Some of the things that it may perform are initialisation of atexit structures, argument parsing, initialisation of structures for the C runtime library, initialisation of C/C++ pre-main values and so forth.
It's highly OS-specific and, if there are things you don't want to do, you'll probably have to get the source code for it and take them out, in essence providing your own cut-down replacement for the object file.
You can safely assume that your toolchain does not include code that is not needed and could safely be left out.
Make sure you compiled without debug information, and run strip on the resulting executable. Anything more intrusive than that requires intimate knowledge of your toolchain, and can result in rather strange behaviour that will be hard to debug - i.e., if you have to ask how it could be done, you shouldn't try to do it.
Related
I got to know of a way to print the source code of a running code in C using the __FILE__ macro. As such I can seek the location and use putchar() to alter the contents of the file.
Is it possible to dynamically change the running code using this method?
Is it possible to dynamically change the running code using this method ?
No, because once a program is compiled it no longer depends on the source file.
If you want learn how to alter the behavior of an process that is already running from within the process itself, you need to learn about assembly for the architecture you're using, the executable file format on your system, and the process API on your system, at the very least.
As most other answers are explaining, in practical terms, most C implementations are compilers. So the executable that is running has only an indirect (and delayed) relation with the source code, because the source code had to be processed by the compiler to produce that executable.
Remember that a programming language is (not a software but...) a specification, written in some report. Read n1570, draft specification of C11. Most implementations of C are command-line compilers (e.g. GCC & Clang/LLVM in the free software realm), even if you might find interpreters.
However, with some operating systems (notably POSIX ones, such as MacOSX and Linux), you could dynamically load some plugin. Or you could create, in some other way (such as JIT compilation libraries like libgccjit or LLVM or libjit or GNU lightning), a fresh function and dynamically get a pointer to it (and that is not stricto sensu conforming to the C standard, where a function pointer should point to some existing function of your program).
On Linux, you might generate (at runtime of your own program, linked with -rdynamic to have its names usable from plugins, and with -ldl library to get the dynamic loader) some C code in some temporary source file e.g. /tmp/gencode.c, run a compilation (using e.g. system(3) or popen(3)) of that emitted code as a /tmp/gencode.so plugin thru a command like e.g. gcc -O1 -g -Wall -fPIC -shared /tmp/gencode.c -o /tmp/gencode.so, then dynamically load that plugin using dlopen(3), find function pointers (from some conventional name) in that loaded plugin with dlsym(3), and call indirectly that function pointer. My manydl.c program shows that is possible for many hundred thousands of generated C files and loaded plugins. I'm using similar tricks in my GCC MELT. See also this and that. Notice that you don't really "self-modify" C code, you more broadly generate additional C code, compile it (as some plugin, etc...), and then load it -as an extension or plugin- then use it.
(for pragmatical reasons including ease of debugging, I don't recommend overwriting some existing C file, but just emitting new C code in some fresh temporary .c file -from some internal AST-like representation- that you would later feed to the compiler)
Is it possible to dynamically change the running code?
In general (at least on Linux and most POSIX systems), the machine code sits in a read-only code segment of the virtual address space so you cannot change or overwrite it; but you can use indirection thru function pointers (in your C code) to call newly loaded code (e.g. from dlopen-ed plugins).
However, you might also read about homoiconic languages, metaprogramming, multi-staged programming, and try to use Common Lisp (e.g. using its SBCL implementation, which compile to machine code at every REPL interaction and at every eval). I also recommend reading SICP (an excellent and freely available introduction to programming, with some chapters related to metaprogramming approaches)
PS. Dynamic loading of plugins is also possible in Windows -which I don't know- with LoadLibrary, but with a very different (and incompatible) model. Read Levine's linkers and loaders.
A computer doesn't understand the code as we do. It compiles or interprets it and loads into memory. Our modification of code is just changing the file. One needs to compile it and link it with other libraries and load it into memory.
ptrace() is a syscall used to inject code into a running program. You can probably look into that and achieve whatever you are trying to do.
Inject hello world in a running program. I have tried and tested this sometime before.
I'm writing a small operating system for microcontrollers in C (not C++, so I can't use templates). It makes heavy use of some gcc features, one of the most important being the removal of unused code. The OS doesn't load anything at runtime; the user's program and the OS source are compiled together to form a single binary.
This design allows gcc to include only the OS functions that the program actually uses. So if the program never uses i2c or USB, support for those won't be included in the binary.
The problem is when I want to include optional support for those features without introducing a dependency. For example, a debug console should provide functions to debug i2c if it's being used, but including the debug console shouldn't also pull in i2c if the program isn't using it.
The methods that come to mind to achieve this aren't ideal:
Have the user explicitly enable the modules they need (using #define), and use #if to only include support for them in the debug console if enabled. I don't like this method, because currently the user doesn't have to do this, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.
Have the modules register function pointers with the debug module at startup. This isn't ideal, because it adds some runtime overhead and means the debug code is split up over several files.
Do the same as above, but using weak symbols instead of pointers. But I'm still not sure how to actually accomplish this.
Do a compile-time test in the debug code, like:
if(i2cInit is used) {
debugShowi2cStatus();
}
The last method seems ideal, but is it possible?
This seems like an interesting problem. Here's an idea, although it's not perfect:
Two-pass compile.
What you can do is first, compile the program with a flag like FINDING_DEPENDENCIES=1. Surround all the dependency checks with #ifs for this (I'm assuming you're not as concerned about adding extra ifs there.)
Then, when the compile is done (without any optional features), use nm or similar to detect the usage of functions/features in the program (such as i2cInit), and format this information into a .h file.
#ifndef FINDING_DEPENDENCIES
#include "dependency_info.h"
#endif
Now the optional dependencies are known.
This still doesn't seem like a perfect solution, but ultimately, it's mostly a chicken-and-the-egg problem. When compiling, the compiler doesn't know what symbols are going to be gc'd out. You basically need to get this information from the linker stage and feed it back to the compilation stage.
Theoretically, this might not increase build times much, especially if you used a temp file for the generated h, and then only replaced it if it was different. You'd need to use different object dirs, though.
Also this might help (pre-strip, of course):
How can I view function names and parameters contained in an ELF file?
I would like to use GCC kind of as a JIT compiler, where I just compile short snippets of code every now and then. While I could of course fork a GCC process for each function I want to compile, I find that GCC's startup overhead is too large for that (it seems to be about 50 ms on my computer, which would make it take 50 seconds to compile 1000 functions). Therefore, I'm wondering if it's possible to run GCC as a daemon or use it as a library or something similar, so that I can just submit a function for compilation without the startup overhead.
In case you're wondering, the reason I'm not considering using an actual JIT library is because I haven't found one that supports all the features I want, which include at least good knowledge of the ABI so that it can handle struct arguments (lacking in GNU Lightning), nested functions with closure (lacking in libjit) and having a C-only interface (lacking in LLVM; I also think LLVM lacks nested functions).
And no, I don't think I can batch functions together for compilation; half the point is that I'd like to compile them only once they're actually called for the first time.
I've noticed libgccjit, but from what I can tell, it seems very experimental.
My answer is "No (you can't run GCC as a daemon process, or use it as a library)", assuming you are trying to use the standard GCC compiler code. I see at least two problems:
The C compiler deals in complete translation units, and once it has finished reading the source, compiles it and exits. You'd have to rejig the code (the compiler driver program) to stick around after reading each file. Since it runs multiple sub-processes, I'm not sure that you'll save all that much time with it, anyway.
You won't be able to call the functions you create as if they were normal statically compiled and linked functions. At the least you will have to load them (using dlopen() and its kin, or writing code to do the mapping yourself) and then call them via the function pointer.
The first objection deals with the direct question; the second addresses a question raised in the comments.
I'm late to the party, but others may find this useful.
There exists a REPL (read–eval–print loop) for c++ called Cling, which is based on the Clang compiler. A big part of what it does is JIT for c & c++. As such you may be able to use Cling to get what you want done.
The even better news is that Cling is undergoing an attempt to upstream a lot of the Cling infrastructure into Clang and LLVM.
#acorn pointed out that you'd ruled out LLVM and co. for lack of a c API, but Clang itself does have one which is the only one they guarantee stability for: https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/group__CINDEX.html
Hullo,
When one disasembly some win32 exe prog compiled by c compiler it
shows that some compilers links some 'hidden' routines in it -
i think even if c program is an empty one and has a 5 bytes or so.
I understand that such 5 bytes is enveloped in PE .exe format but
why to put some routines - it seem not necessary for me and even
somewhat annoys me. What is that? Can it be omitted? As i understand
c program (not speaking about c++ right now which i know has some
initial routines) should not need such complementary hidden functions..
Much tnx for answer, maybe even some extended info link, cause this
topic interests me much
//edit
ok here it is some disasembly Ive done way back then
(digital mars and old borland commandline (i have tested also)
both make much more code, (and Im specialli interested in bcc32)
but they do not include readable names/symbols in such dissassembly
so i will not post them here
thesse are somewhat readable - but i am not experienced in understending
what it is ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/42887985/prog_devcpp.htm
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/42887985/prog_lcc.htm
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/42887985/prog_mingw.htm
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/42887985/prog_pelles.htm
some explanatory comments whats that heere?
(I am afraid maybe there is some c++ sh*t here, I am
interested in pure c addons not c++ though,
but too tired now to assure that it was compiled in c
mode, extension of compiled empty-main prog was c
so I was thinking it will be output in c not c++)
tnx for longer explanations what it is
Since your win32 exe file is a dynamically linked object file, it will contain the necessary data needed by the dynamic linker to do its job, such as names of libraries to link to, and symbols that need resolving.
Even a program with an empty main() will link with the c-runtime and kernel32.dll libraries (and probably others? - a while since I last did Win32 dev).
You should also be aware that main() is only the entry point of your program - quite a bit has already gone on before this point such as retrieving and tokening the command-line, setting up the locale, creating stderr, stdin, and stdout and setting up the other mechanism required by the c-runtime library such a at_exit(). Similarly, when your main() returns, the runtime does some clean-up - and at the very least needs to call the kernel to tell it that you're done.
As to whether it's necessary? Yes, unless you fancy writing your own program prologue and epilogue each time. There are probably are ways of writing minimal, statically linked applications if you're sufficiently masochistic.
As for storage overhead, why are you getting so worked up? It's not enough to worry about.
There are several initialization functions that load whenever you run a program on Windows. These functions, among other things, call the main() function that you write - which is why you need either a main() or WinMain() function for your program to run. I'm not aware of other included functions though. Do you have some disassembly to show?
You don't have much detail to go on but I think most of what you're seeing is probably the routines of the specific C runtime library that your compiler works with.
For instance there will be code enabling it to run from the entry point 'main' which portable executable format understands to call the main(char ** args) that you wrote in your C program.
I'm trying to learn x86. I thought this would be quite easy to start with - i'll just compile a very small program basically containing nothing and see what the compiler gives me. The problem is that it gives me a ton of bloat. (This program cannot be run in dos-mode and so on) 25KB file containing an empty main() calling one empty function.
How do I compile my code without all this bloat? (and why is it there in the first place?)
Executable formats contain a bit more than just the raw machine code for the CPU to execute. If you want that then the only option is (I think) a DOS .com file which essentially is just a bunch of code loaded into a page and then jumped into. Some software (e.g. Volkov commander) made clever use of that format to deliver quite much in very little executable code.
Anyway, the PE format which Windows uses contains a few things that are specially laid out:
A DOS stub saying "This program cannot be run in DOS mode" which is what you stumbled over
several sections containing things like program code, global variables, etc. that are each handled differently by the executable loader in the operating system
some other things, like import tables
You may not need some of those, but a compiler usually doesn't know you're trying to create a tiny executable. Usually nowadays the overhead is negligible.
There is an article out there that strives to create the tiniest possible PE file, though.
You might get better result by digging up older compilers. If you want binaries that are very bare to the bone COM files are really that, so if you get hold of an old compiler that has support for generating COM binaries instead of EXE you should be set. There is a long list of free compilers at http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml, I assume that Borland's Turbo C would be a good starting point.
The bloated module could be the loader (operating system required interface) attached by linker. Try adding a module with only something like:
void foo(){}
and see the disassembly (I assume that's the format the compiler 'gives you'). Of course the details vary much from operating systems and compilers. There are so many!