I have a c-library which I use in gcc. The library has the extension .lib but is always linked as a static library. If i write a program which uses the library as c-code, everything as a-ok. If I however rename the file to .cpp (doing simple stuff that works in both c/c++) I get undefined reference. These are simple small programs I write for testing purposes so no fancy stuff. I compile using:
gcc -g -Wall -I <path to custom headers> -o program main.c customlibrary.lib -lm -lpthread
The above works like a charm. However:
g++ -g -Wall -I <path to custom headers> -o program main.cpp customlibrary.lib -lm -lpthread
or
gcc -g -Wall -I <path to custom headers> -o program main.cpp customlibrary.lib -lm -lpthread -lstdc++
results in undefined reference to any function in customlibrary.lib. I tried creating a symbolic link named customlibrary.a but no luck.
Why won't g++ find recognize my library. Unfortunately I have no access to the source code of the libraries but linking a c-lib to c++ should not be a problem right?
Your library appears to have an API that assumes it will be called from C, not C++. This is important because C++ effectively requires that the symbols exported from a library have more information in them than just the function name. This is handled by "name mangling" the functions.
I assume your library has an include file that declares its public interface. To make it compatible with both C and C++, you should arrange to tell a C++ compiler that the functions it declares should be assumed to use C's linkage and naming.
A likely easy answer to test this is to do this:
extern "C" {
#include "customlibrary.h"
}
in your main.cpp instead of just including customlibrary.h directly.
To make the header itself work in both languages and correctly declare its functions as C-like to C++, put the following near the top of the header file:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
and the following near the bottom:
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
The C++ compiler performs what is known as name-mangling - the names that appear in your code are not the same ones as your linker sees. The normal way round this is to tell the compiler that certain functions need C linkage:
// myfile.cpp
extern "C" int libfun(); // C function in your library
or do it for a whole header file:
// myfile.cpp
extern "C" {
#include "mylibdefs.h" // defs for your C library functions
}
Does your header file have the usual
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
// ...
#ifdef __cplusplus
} /* extern "C" */
#endif
to give the library functions C linkage explicitly.
.cpp files are compiled with C++ linkage i.e. name mangling by default.
Related
I would like to compile this.
program.c
#include <libavcodec/avcodec.h>
int main(){
int i = avpicture_get_size(AV_PIX_FMT_RGB24,300,300);
}
Running this
gcc -I$HOME/ffmpeg/include program.c
gives error
/tmp/ccxMLBme.o: In function `main':
program.c:(.text+0x18): undefined reference to `avpicture_get_size'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
However, avpicture_get_size is defined. Why is this happening?
However, avpicture_get_size is defined.
No, as the header (<libavcodec/avcodec.h>) just declares it.
The definition is in the library itself.
So you might like to add the linker option to link libavcodec when invoking gcc:
-lavcodec
Please also note that libraries need to be specified on the command line after the files needing them:
gcc -I$HOME/ffmpeg/include program.c -lavcodec
Not like this:
gcc -lavcodec -I$HOME/ffmpeg/include program.c
Referring to Wyzard's comment, the complete command might look like this:
gcc -I$HOME/ffmpeg/include program.c -L$HOME/ffmpeg/lib -lavcodec
For libraries not stored in the linkers standard location the option -L specifies an additional search path to lookup libraries specified using the -l option, that is libavcodec.x.y.z in this case.
For a detailed reference on GCC's linker option, please read here.
Are you mixing C and C++? One issue that can occur is that the declarations in the .h file for a .c file need to be surrounded by:
#if defined(__cplusplus)
extern "C" { // Make sure we have C-declarations in C++ programs
#endif
and:
#if defined(__cplusplus)
}
#endif
Note: if unable / unwilling to modify the .h file(s) in question, you can surround their inclusion with extern "C":
extern "C" {
#include <abc.h>
} //extern
Consider the following test project:
test.h:
#ifndef TEST_H
#define TEST_H
void test1(int);
void test2(int);
#endif /* TEST_H */
text.c:
#include "test.h"
void test1(int x) { (void) x; }
Oops, I forgot to define test2()! I would like some kind of feedback when I do this, preferably refusal to compile although a warning at least would be nice. However GCC 10.2 (on Ubuntu 20.10) compiles it fine with no warnings:
gcc -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -std=c11 -o libtest.o -c test.c
I think I understand why: what if test2() is actually meant to come from another library, maybe a system library? Make it the problem of whichever program ends up linking everything into an executable! But I want to know about it before then. In this case, it's not declared in any included header file. It's not called anywhere. Can that be detected?
I've tried:
--no-undefined which resulted in gcc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘--no-undefined’; did you mean ‘-Wno-undef’?
-Wno-undef - accepted but no warning
-z,defs - accepted but no warning
-Wimplicit-function-declaration - accepted but no warning
-Werror=missing-declarations - I know this is for the opposite situation but I was getting desperate.
This isn't possible, as no linking is performed at the stage of assembling a static library.
I'd suggest having a "test container" for your library. Set up your build system to build the test executable any time you are building the library. It could even just be a single .c file in the same directory as the library sources, but obviously not in the list of objects that are part of the library.
The test executable calls all of the functions that you wish to be entry points for the library.
Probably that is something you should be doing anyway in order to test the library's functionality before doing a release.
How a standard library like libc.a (static library) which is included using #include <stdio.h> in our main.c differ from user defined header file (cube.h) included in main.c with its implementation file (cube.c) in C ?
I mean both are header files but one's implementation is a static library (.a) and others is source file (.c) .
You would have the definition (implementation) in, say, cube.c
#include "cube.h"
int cube( int x ) {
return x * x * x;
}
Then we'll put the function declaration in another file. By convention, this is done in a header file, cube.h in this case.
int cube( int x );
We can now call the function from somewhere else, main.c for instance, by using the #include directive (which is part of the C preprocessor) .
#include "cube.h"
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int c = cube( 10 );
printf("%d", c);
...
}
Also if I included include guards in cube.h what would happen when I include cube.h in both main.c and cube.c . Where it will get included?
A programming language is not the same as its implementation.
A programming language is a specification (written on paper; you should read n1570, which practically is the C11 standard), it is not a software. The C standard specifies a C standard library and defines the headers to be #include-d.
(you could run your C program with a bunch of human slaves and without any computers; that would be very unethical; you could also use some interpreter like Ch and avoid any compiler or object or executable files)
How a standard library like libc.a (static library) which is included using #include <stdio.h> ... differs from a user file cube.c
The above sentence is utterly wrong (and makes no sense). libc.a does not #include -or is not included by- the <stdio.h> header (i.e. file /usr/include/stdio.h and other internal headers e.g. /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h). That inclusion happens when you compile your main.c or cube.c.
In principle, <stdio.h> might not be any file on your computer (e.g. #include <stdio.h> could trigger some magic in your compiler). In practice, the compiler is parsing /usr/include/stdio.h (and other included files) when you #include <stdio.h>.
Some standard headers (notably <setjmp.h>, <stdreturn.h>, <stdarg.h>, ....) are specified by the standard but are implemented with the help of special builtins or attributes (that is "magic" things) of the GCC compiler.
The C standard knows about translation units.
Your GCC compiler processes source files (grossly speaking, implementing translation units) and starts with a preprocessing phase (processing #include and other directives and expanding macros). And gcc runs not only the compiler proper (some cc1) but also the assembler as and the linker ld (read Levine's Linkers and Loaders book for more).
For good reasons, your header file cube.h should practically start with include guards. In your simplistic example they are probably useless (but you should get that habit).
You practically should almost always use gcc -Wall -Wextra -g (to get all warnings and debug info). Read the chapter about Invoking GCC.
You may pass also -v to gcc to understand what programs (e.g. cc1, ld, as) are actually run.
You may pass -H to gcc to understand what source files are included during preprocessing phase. You can also get the preprocessed form of cube.c as the cube.i file obtained with gcc -C -E cube.c > cube.i and later look into that cube.i file with some editor or pager.
You -or gcc- would need (in your example) to compile cube.c (the translation unit given by that file and every header files it is #include-ing) into the cube.o object file (assuming a Linux system). You would also compile main.c into main.o. At last gcc would link cube.o, main.o, some startup files (read about crt0) and the libc.so shared library (implementing the POSIX C standard library specification and a bit more) to produce an executable. Relocatable object files, shared libraries (and static libraries, if you use some) and executables use the ELF file format on Linux.
If you code a C program with several source files (and translation units) you practically should use a build automation tool like GNU make.
If I included include guards in cube.h what would happen when I include cube.h in both main.c and cube.c ?
These should be two different translation units. And you would compile them in several steps. First you compile main.c into main.o using
gcc -Wall -Wextra -g -c main.c
and the above command is producing a main.o object file (with the help of cc1 and as)
Then you compile (another translation unit) cube.c using
gcc -Wall -Wextra -g -c cube.c
hence obtaining cube.o
(notice that adding include guards in your cube.h don't change the fact that it would be read twice, once when compiling cube.c and the other time when compiling main.c)
At last you link both object files into yourprog executable using
gcc -Wall -Wextra -g cube.o main.o -o yourprog
(I invite you to try all these commands, and also to try them with gcc -v instead of gcc above).
Notice that gcc -Wall -Wextra -g cube.c main.c -o yourprog is running all the steps above (check with gcc -v). You really should write a Makefile to avoid typing all these commands (and just compile using make, or even better make -j to run compilation in parallel).
Finally you can run your executable using ./yourprog (but read about PATH), but you should learn how to use gdb and try gdb ./yourprog.
Where it cube.h will get included?
It will get included at both translation units; once when running gcc -Wall -Wextra -g -c main.c and another time when running gcc -Wall -Wextra -g -c cube.c. Notice that object files (cube.o and main.o) don't contain included headers. Their debug information (in DWARF format) retains that inclusion (e.g. the included path, not the content of the header file).
BTW, look into existing free software projects (and study some of their source code, at least for inspiration). You might look into GNU glibc or musl-libc to understand what a C standard library really contains on Linux (it is built above system calls, listed in syscalls(2), provided and implemented by the Linux kernel). For example printf would ultimately sometimes use write(2) but it is buffering (see fflush(3)).
PS. Perhaps you dream of programming languages (like Ocaml, Go, ...) knowing about modules. C is not one.
TL;DR: the most crucial difference between the C standard library and your library function is that the compiler might intimately know what the standard library functions do without seeing their definition.
First of all, there are 2 kinds of libraries:
The C standard library (and possibly other libraries that are part of the C implementation, like libgcc)
Any other libraries - which includes all those other libraries in /usr/lib, /lib, etc.., or those in your project.
The most crucial difference between a library in category 1 and a library in category 2 library is that the compiler is allowed to assume that every single identifier that you use from category 1 library behaves as if it is the standard library function and behaves as if in the standard and can use this fact to optimize things as it sees fit - this even without it actually linking against the relevant routine from the standard library, or executing it at the runtime. Look at this example:
% cat foo.c
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
printf("%f\n", sqrt(4.0));
}
We compile it, and run:
% gcc foo.c -Wall -Werror
% ./a.out
2.000000
%
and correct result is printed out.
So what happens when we ask the user for the number:
% cat foo.c
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
double n;
scanf("%lf\n", &n);
printf("%f\n", sqrt(n));
}
then we compile the program:
% gcc foo.c -Wall -Werror
/tmp/ccTipZ5Q.o: In function `main':
foo.c:(.text+0x3d): undefined reference to `sqrt'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Surprise, it doesn't link. That is because sqrt is in the math library -lm and you need to link against it to get the definition. But how did it work in the first place? Because the C compiler is free to assume that any function from standard library behaves as if it was as written in the standard, so it can optimize all invocations to it out; this even when we weren't using any -O switches.
Notice that it isn't even necessary to include the header. C11 7.1.4p2 allows this:
Provided that a library function can be declared without reference to any type defined in a header, it is also permissible to declare the function and use it without including its associated header.
Therefore in the following program, the compiler can still assume that the sqrt is the one from the standard library, and the behaviour here is still conforming:
% cat foo.c
int printf(const char * restrict format, ...);
double sqrt(double x);
int main(void) {
printf("%f\n", sqrt(4.0));
}
% gcc foo.c -std=c11 -pedantic -Wall -Werror
% ./a.out
2.000000
If you drop the prototype for sqrt, and compile the program,
int printf(const char * restrict format, ...);
int main(void) {
printf("%f\n", sqrt(4));
}
A conforming C99, C11 compiler must diagnose constraint violation for implicit function declaration. The program is now an invalid program, but it still compiles (the C standard allows that too). GCC still calculates sqrt(4) at compilation time. Notice that we use int here instead of double, so it wouldn't even work at runtime without proper declaration for an ordinary function because without prototype the compiler wouldn't know that the argument must be double and not the int that was passed in (without a prototype, the compiler doesn't know that the int must be converted to a double). But it still works.
% gcc foo.c -std=c11 -pedantic
foo.c: In function ‘main’:
foo.c:4:20: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘sqrt’
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
printf("%f\n", sqrt(4));
^~~~
foo.c:4:20: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function ‘sqrt’
foo.c:4:20: note: include ‘<math.h>’ or provide a declaration of ‘sqrt’
% ./a.out
2.000000
This is because an implicit function declaration is one with external linkage, and C standard says this (C11 7.1.3):
[...] All identifiers with external linkage in any of the following subclauses (including the future library directions) and errno are always reserved for use as identifiers with external linkage. [...]
and Appendix J.2. explicitly lists as undefined behaviour:
[...] The program declares or defines a reserved identifier, other than as allowed by 7.1.4 (7.1.3).
I.e. if the program did actually have its own sqrt then the behaviour is simply undefined, because the compiler can assume that the sqrt is the standard-conforming one.
This is a question from job interview.Let's say we have "a.c" source file with some function and "a.h" as its header file.Also we have main.c file which calls that function.Now let's suppose we have "a.h" and "a.o"(object file) and a.c is unavailable.How do we call this function now?
(I had a hint that we need to use function pointers.Another hint is to do this using pre-compiler directives such as #define and #ifndef).
Also i would like to know how in .h file we know if we are linked properly to source file?
Thank You
Just include a.h from main.c and you can use the functions declared in a.h. Then just compile it with the same compiler version as a.o is build:
gcc -c main.c
gcc main.o a.o
To compile main.c, you need the function definition. You already have that in a.h. So you would write:
// main.c
#include "a.h"
int main()
{
foobar(); // Let's say this is the function from a.h
}
When compiling it, you would have to include the object file at the linking stage. So using gcc...
gcc -c main.c // Compile main.c to main.o
gcc -o main main.o a.o
No function pointers or macros needed.
The way you describe it, you only need a header file to call the function. The header file contains the prototype of the function, which allows the compiler to know what the signature of the function is.
You would then link in your object file (which contains the compiled version of function) and everything would be OK.
I don't know why you would need functions pointers or pre-compiler directives. Maybe you didn't understand the question 100%?
In main.c, call the function as normal.
Then compile main.c to main.o. gcc -c main.c
Then link a.o and main.o. gcc main.o a.o
Something about this question sounds garbled. How you write the function call in main depends solely on its declaration in a.h. The presence or absence of a.c doesn't change that. Certainly nothing involving macros or function pointers.
Compiling and linking are two distinct steps; the compiler checks that you're passing the right number and types of arguments and assigning the result to the right type of object based on the function's declaration, while the linker attempts to resolve the reference to the function's implementation in the machine code.
The result of compiling and linking is a binary sludge that may or may not have any obvious relationship to the original source code1. Debug versions preserve varying levels of information to support source-level debuggers, but you can pretty much rely on release versions not preserving any useful source information.
1. Every now and again someone asks for a tool to recover source code from an executable; this is often described as attempting to turn hamburger back into cows.
So I get the point of headers vs source files. What I don't get is how the compiler knows to compile all the source files. Example:
example.h
#ifndef EXAMPLE_H
#define EXAMPLE_H
int example(int argument); // prototype
#endif
example.c
#include "example.h"
int example(int argument)
{
return argument + 1; // implementation
}
main.c
#include "example.h"
main()
{
int whatever;
whatever = example(whatever); // usage in program
}
How does the compiler, compiling main.c, know the implementation of example() when nothing includes example.c?
Is this some kind of an IDE thing, where you add files to projects and stuff? Is there any way to do it "manually" as I prefer a plain text editor to quirky IDEs?
Compiling in C or C++ is actually split up into 2 separate phases.
compiling
linking
The compiler doesn't know about the implementation of example(). It just knows that there's something called example() that will be defined at some point. So it just generated code with placeholders for example()
The linker then comes along and resolves these placeholders.
To compile your code using gcc you'd do the following
gcc -c example.c -o example.o
gcc -c main.c -o main.o
gcc example.o main.o -o myProgram
The first 2 invocations of gcc are the compilation steps. The third invocation is the linker step.
Yes, you have to tell the compiler (usually through a makefile if you're not using an IDE) which source files to compile into object files, and the compiler compiles each one individually. Then you give the linker the list of object files to combine into the executable. If the linker is looking for a function or class definition and can't find it, you'll get a link error.
It doesn't ... you have to tell it to.
For example, whe using gcc, first you would compile the files:
gcc file1.c -c -ofile1.o
gcc file2.c -c -ofile2.o
Then the compiler compiles those files, assuming that symbols that you've defined (like your example function) exist somewhere and will be linked in later.
Then you link the object files together:
gcc file1.o file2.o -oexecutable
At this point of time, the linker looks at those assumtions and "clarifies" them ie. checks whether they're present. This is how it basically works...
As for your IDE question, Google "makefiles"
The compiler does not know the implementation of example() when compiling main.c - the compiler only knows the signature (how to call it) which was included from the header file. The compiler produces .o object files which are later linked by a linker to create the executable binary. The build process can be controlled by an IDE, or if you prefer a Makefile. Makefiles have a unique syntax which takes a bit of learning to understand but will make the build process much clearer. There are lots of good references on the web if you search for Makefile.
The compiler doesn't. But your build tool does. IDE or make tool. The manual way is hand-crafted Makefiles.