I've known that I should use -l option for liking objects using GCC.
that is gcc -o test test.c -L./ -lmy
But I found that "gcc -o test2 test.c libmy.so" is working, too.
When I use readelf for those two executable I can't find any difference.
Then why people use -l option for linking objects? Does it have any advantage?
Because you may have either a static or a shared version of the library in your library directory, e. g. libmy.a and libmy.so, or both of them. This is more relevant to system libraries: if you link to libraries in your local build tree, you know which version you build, static or shared, but you may not know other systems' configuration and libraries mix.
In addition to that, some platforms may have different suffixes. So it's better to specify it in a canonical way.
The main reason is, -lname will search for libname.a (or libname.so, etc.) on the library search list. You can add directories to the library search list with the -L option. It's a convenience built into the compiler driver program, making it easier to find libraries that have been installed in standard places on the system.
Related
I have an application - let's call it "P" - that uses custom SO's: A.so, B.so, and C.so
The A.so library uses another custom library - D.so - as well as SSL and the math library.
The "P" application makes no calls whatsoever to SSL or math routines.
On macOS (with clang), I could build P with -lA -lB -lC and all was good.
I'm migrating everything to Linux (Debian) with GCC.
Now, when I bulid P, I have to -lA -lB -lC -lD -lm -lssl
What am I doing wrong?
I'm using simple makefiles - no autoconfig, no cmake, etc.
Could this be an "install_name_tool" vs. "chrpath" issue when I build the libraries?
This is because of a combination of the following two factors:
On macOS, the standard C library (libSystem.dylib) which is automatically linked by the compiler already includes a lot more functionality than on Linux. It may include some (or all) the necessary functions for your program. For example, as you can read from this documentation page, libSystem already includes the math library (which is a separate file on Linux and needs to be linked with -lm).
The shared libraries you are linking were compiled for macOS with additional functions already embedded into them, so those don't need to link to other shared libraries. It is not uncommon for a library to depend on different other libraries on different operating systems.
On the other hand, on Linux, the standard C library is split into different files: -lc is automatically linked by the compiler, but the math library (-lm) and other parts (-ldl, -lpthread, etc) are not, and therefore need to be linked manually.
Solved it. Turns out that clang - regardless of development platform - is a lot more forgiving with the order of parameters and options when linking. With clang, you can pretty much put your -I, -L, -l, other options and object files in whatever order you want. Not so with gcc; it's much more particular. clang made me lazy.
I don't understand the difference between the two types of libraries, and many websites say that they are the same thing, but at school we use two different commands to create them
dynamic library
$ gcc -shared -o libsample.so lib.c
$ gcc -o main main.c -ldl
to execute:
$ ./main ./libsample.so
shared library
$ gcc -shared -o libsample.so lib.c
$ gcc -o main main.c -L. -lsample
to execute:
$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./main
Can someone help me in understanding the difference between the two "codes"?
Dynamic Linked Library (.DLL) is the terminology used by Microsoft Windows. Shared Object (.so) is the terminology used by Unix and Linux.
Other than that, conceptually they're the same.
Regarding your snippets of commands, I guess the difference (and I'm only guessing here, because you didn't show us the relevant parts) is how the library is loaded. There is "link time loading" where the library is tied to the executable by the linker¹. And there is "runtime loading", where the program sort of "ingests" the dynamic/shared library.
runtime loading is done in Windows with the LoadLibrary (there's an …A and a …W variant) function, and on Unix/Linux with dlopen (which is made available by libdl which is linked to by that -ldl library link statement).
1: The linker is the program that creates the actually executable file from the intermediary objects created by the various compiler stages.
Dynamic and shared libraries are usually the same. But in your case, it looks as if you are doing something special.
In the shared library case, you specify the shared library at compile-time. When the app is started, the operating system will load the shared library before the application starts.
In the dynamic libary case, the library is not specified at compile-time, so it's not loaded by the operating system. Instead, your application will contain some code to load the library.
The first case is the normal case. The second case is a special use and it's mainly relevant if your application support extensions such a plug-ins. The dynamic loading is required because there can be many plug-ins and they are built after your application. So their names are not available at compile-time.
I inherited a code which has a makefile, but so far I was unable to run it on a linux server. The main complain of the compiler is that it is unable to load libgmp.so.3 : error while loading shared libraries: libgmp.so.3. I know that libgmp.so.10 exists on this server, but I was wondering which part of the makefile needs to be changed so the compiler looks for libgmp.so.10 rather than libgmp.so.3.
OPTFLAG = -O2 -Wall -fPIC -fexceptions -DNDEBUG
LDFLAGS = -O2 -Wl,-no_compact_unwind -DNDEBUG -lm -pthread
COMPILER = gcc ${OPTFLAG}
LINKER = gcc ${LDFLAGS}
# CPLEX directory
CPLEX_HOME = /opt/ibm/ILOG/CPLEX_Studio1263/cplex
CPLEX_INC = ${CPLEX_HOME}/include/
CPLEX_LIB = ${CPLEX_HOME}/lib/x86-64_linux/static_pic/ -lcplex
# Compile the main file
code: code.c
${COMPILER} -c code.c -o code.o -I${CPLEX_INC}
${LINKER} -o code code.o -L${CPLEX_LIB}
clean::
rm -f *.o
rm -f ${LIB}/*.o
rm -f *~
rm -f ${SRC}/*~ ${INCLUDE}/*~
You need to rebuild whatever program or library uses libgmp.so.3 from source code. Could you provide the exact command run by make and the error message it produces?
EDIT The problem here is that the system has installed a version of the IBM CPLEX software which comes with its own GCC binary, and that GCC binary uses libgmp.so.3. The easiest way to fix this would be to upgrade the CPLEX software to a version which supports the operating system being used, or use the software on the operating system for which it was written (i.e., something really old that actually ships libgmp.so.3).
The most easy way it to install libgmp-dev package, from your linux distribution. GMP is a package library to do multiple precision calculations on large integers, which is probably needed by your program. As you put in some comments, adding -L/usr/lib64/libgmp.so.10 is an error, as -L option allows to add a directory to search for libraries, and not a specific library.
If only the library is needed and no header file is missing in your compilation (this is something strange, but sometimes happen) then you can still link with only the libgmp.so.10 object, but you have to do in a something nasty way. Just add /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.10 as an object file (not a library, with -l option) to your link command.
EDIT
From looking more closely your Makefile I see no reference to the libgmp.so.3 library, so I only can assume this is a indirect reference from some other already compiled library that comes from outside with your package. Just use
ldd lib<nameOfLibrary>.so.x.x
with all the libraries needed by your final executable, so see which shared objetc is the one that requests libgmp.so.3 soname, and then recompile it, reinstall it, or use your system's libraries ONLY, and not mesh anymore with libraries coming from another system. For example you can try (this is an expensive command, but it will get the answer)
find / -name "lib*.so.*" -print | xargs ldd > all_libs.lddout
and then find all_libs.lddout to see which library uses libgmp.so.3 (this will be the outdated library) You'll need to deinstall it or upgrade it, to be able to continue.
Linux systems have a library version system that allows an executable to be able to load different versions of the same library and allow them to live together in the same system. One of two: or you are able to locate the sources of version 3 of the shared libgmp.so.3 library and install it on your system, or you'll need to update the libraries your program uses to be able to link with the libgmp.so.10 already installed on your system.
2ND EDIT
As I see in the comments, you have changed the default compiler on your system by another coming possibly from other linux distribution (as your installed library is libgmp.so.10 while the one cc1 requests is libgmp.so.3, which is not installed on your system.
Installing a different compiler from the one you have installed, and doing that without previously deinstalling the other compiler, can lead you to this kind of problems.
The most reliable thing you can do is to reinstall the compiler from your distribution, or better, reinstall the whole linux system, as you have probably broken many things that will be emerging as you use your system. There's very poor info on what you have done to go further in your problem. Anyway, my recommendation is to not use the comment parts to add new information about your problem, just edit your question and add all those new information to it.
TL;DR - I need to compile archive.a with test.o to make an executable.
Background - I am trying to call a function in a separate library from a software package I am modifying but the function (a string parser) is creating a segmentation violation. The failure is definitely happening in the library and the developer has asked for a test case where the error occurs. Rather than having him try to compile the rather large software package that I'm working on I'd rather just send him a simple program that calls the appropriate function (hopefully dying at the same place). His library makes use of several system libraries as well (lapack, cblas, etc.) so the linking needs to hit everything I think.
I can link to the .o files that are created when I make his library but of course they don't link to the appropriate system libraries.
This seems like it should be straight forward, but it's got me all flummoxed.
The .a extension indicates that it is a static library. So in order to link against it you can use the switches for the linking stage:
gcc -o myprog -L<path to your library> main.o ... -larchive
Generally you use -L to add the path where libraries are stored (unless it is in the current directory) and you use -l<libname> to sepecify a library. The libraryname is without extension. If the library is named libarchive.a you would still give -larchive.
If you want to specify the full name of the library, then you would use i.e. -l:libname.a
update
If the libraypath is /usr/lib/libmylibrary.a you would use
-L/usr/lib -lmylibrary
How do I convince LibTools to generate a library identical to what gcc does automatically?
This works if I do things explicitly:
gcc -o libclique.dylib -shared disc.c phylip.c Slist.c clique.c
cp libclique.dylib [JavaTestDir]/libclique.dylib
But if I do:
Makefile libclique.la (which is what automake generates)
cp .libs/libclique.1.dylib [JavaTestDir]/libclique.dylib
Java finds the library but can't find the entry point.
I read the "How to create a shared library (.so) in an automake script?" thread and it helped a lot. I got the dylib created with a -shared flag (according to the generated Makefile). But when I try to use it from Java Native Access I get a "symbol not found" error.
Looking at the libclique.la that is generated by Makefile it doesn't seem to have any critical information in it, just looks to be link overloads and moving things around for the convenience of subsequent C/C++ compiler steps (which I don't have), so I would expect libclique.1.dylib to be a functioning dynamic library.
I'm guessing that is where I'm going wrong, but, given that JNA links directly to a dylib and is not compiled with it (per the example in the discussion cited above), it seems all the subsequent compilation steps described in the LibTools manual are moot.
Note: I'm testing on a Mac, but I'm going to have to do this on Windows and Linux machines also, which is why I'm trying to put this into Automake.
Note2: I'm using Eclipse for my Java development and, yes, I did import the dylib.
Thanks
You should be building a plugin and in particular pass
libclique_la_LDFLAGS = -avoid-version -module -shared -export-dynamic
This way you tell libtool you want a dynamically loadable module rather than a shared library (which for ELF are the same thing, but for Mach-O are not.)