For example I have following c++ source file
// define global variables here
int Label = 1234;
char Hash[] = "0x11231abc";
compile this to *.o file, and may be later linked to an executable binary. Is it possible to get the value from ELF file by using some existing tools, like readelf, objdump?
Is it possible to get the value from ELF file by using some existing tools, like readelf, objdump?
Whether this is possible at all depends on how exactly these variables are used, whether they are local or global, whether they have their address taken, which compiler is used and what optimizations are in effect.
If the variables are global and the code is not optimized, sure some combination of readelf and objdump commands could possibly get you the answer.
In general, GDB would be a better tool to use here.
Related
I have a big project with many Objective C and Swift files.
There's a Constants.h file which contains many constants with #define. It looks like this:
#define kConstant1 #"constant1"
#define kConstant2 #"constant2"
#define kConstant3 #"constant3"
#define kConstant4 #"constant4"
...
In the project there are many files (Swift and Objective C) which use these constants. Unfortunately there are also constants which aren't used by any file in the code, so they are unused variables. I want to find out which constants are used and which are not, to delete the constants which aren't used. There are about 3000 constants in this file so it would take too long to search through the code manually for each constant.
Is there any other way to find out which #define variable is used by the code?
Three suggestions:
Download JetBrains AppCode and try running your code through its diagnostics. AppCode tools might find the unused constants.
Write a script to go through each file and look check for the presence of the constants. If a constant is found, mark it as found. When all the files are checked, whatever isn't marked can be deleted. You can write this script in anything you want -- bash, ruby, python, swift, etc -- and you can either hard code the constants in or extract them from the Constants.h file.
Comment or remove each constant one by one and build the project. The compiler will throw an error if one of the constants you removed is used in the project.
Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet here. This is fundamentally a time-consuming process. :(
I've got a program written in C++, with some subfolders containing libraries linked in. There's a top level SConscript, which calls SConscript files in the subfolders/libraries.
Inside a library cpp, there is a GTest test function:
TEST(X, just_a_passing_test) {
EXPECT_EQ(true, true);
}
There is main() in the top level program source, which just calls GTests main, and has another GTest test within it:
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
::testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv);
return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
}
TEST(Dummy, should_pass){
EXPECT_EQ(true, true);
}
Now the issue is that when I run the program, GTest only runs the test in the main.cpp source. Ignoring the test in the library. Now it gets bizarre when I reference an unrelated class in the same library cpp in main.cpp, in a no side-effect kind of way (eg. SomeClass foo;), the test magically appears. I've tried using -O0 and other tricks to force gcc to not optimize out code that isn't called. I've even tried Clang.
I suspect it's something to do with how GTest does test discovery during compilation, but I can't find any info on this issue. I believe it uses static initialization, so maybe there's some weird ordering going on there.
Any help/info is greatly appreciated!
Update: Found a section in the FAQ that sounds like this problem, despite it referring specifically to Visual C++. Which includes a trick/hack to force the compiler to not discard the library if not referenced.
It recommends not putting tests in libraries, but that leaves me wondering how else would you test libraries, without having an executable for every one, making quickly running them a pain and with bloated output.
https://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/Primer#Important_note_for_Visual_C++_users
From the scene-setting one gathers that the library whose gtest test case
goes missing is statically linked in the application build. Also that the
GNU toolchain is in use.
The cause of the problem behaviour is straightforward. The test
program contains no references to anything in the library that contains
TEST(X, just_a_passing_test). So the linker doesn't need to link any
object file from that library to link the program. So it doesn't. So the
gtest runtime doesn't find that test in the executable, because it's not there.
It helps to understand that a static library in GNU format is an archive
of object files, adorned with a house-keeping header block and a global symbol table.
The OP discovered that by coding in the program an ad hoc reference to
any public symbol in the problem library, he could "magically" compel its
test case into the program.
No magic. To satisfy the reference to that public symbol, the linker is
now obliged to link an object file from the library - the one that contains
the definition of the symbol. And the OP imparts that the library is made
from a .cpp. So there is only one object file in the library, and it
contains the definition of the test case, too. With that object file in the
linkage, the test case is in program.
The OP twiddled in vain with the compiler options, switching from GCC to clang,
in search of a more respectable way to achieve the same end. The compiler is
irrelevant. GCC or clang, it gets its linking done by the system linker, ld
(unless unusual measures have been taken to replace it).
Is there a more respectable way to get ld to link an object file from a
static library even when the program refers to no symbols in that object file?
There is. Say the problem program is app and the problem static library is
libcool.a
Then the usual GCC commandline that links app resembles this, in the relevant
points:
g++ -o app -L/path/to/the/libcool/archive -lcool
This delegates a commandline to ld, with additional linker options and
libraries that g++ deems to be defaults for the system where it finds itself.
When the linker comes to consider -lcool, it will figure out this is a request
for the archive /path/to/the/libcool/archive/libcool.a. Then it will figure
out whether at this point it has still got any unresolved symbol references in hand
whose definitions are compiled in object files in libcool.a. If there are
any, then it will link those object files into app. If not, then it links
nothing from libcool.a and passes on.
But we know there are symbol definitions in libcool.a that we want to
link, even though app does not refer to them. In that case, we can tell
the linker to link the object files from libcool.a even though they are
not referenced. More precisely, we can tell g++ to tell the linker to do that,
like so:
g++ -o app -L/path/to/the/libcool/archive -Wl,--whole-archive -lcool -Wl,-no-whole-archive
Those -Wl,... options tell g++ to pass the options ... to ld. The --whole-archive
option tells ld to link all object files from subsequent archives, whether they
are referenced or not, until further notice. The -no-whole-archive tells the
ld to stop doing that and resume business as usual.
It may look as if -Wl,-no-whole-archive is redundant, as it's the last thing on the
g++ commandline. But it's not. Remember that g++ appends system default libraries
to the commandline, behind the scenes, before passing it to the ld. You definitely
do not want --whole-archive to be in force when those default libraries are linked.
(The linkage will fail with multiple definition errors).
Apply this solution to the problem case and TEST(X, just_a_passing_test)
will be executed, without the hack of forcing the program to make some no-op
reference into the object file that defines that test.
There's an obvious downside to this solution in the general case. If it happens that the library from
which we want to force linkage of some unreferenced object file contains a
bunch of other unreferenced object files that we really don't need.
--whole-archive links them all of them too, and they're just bloat in the program.
The --whole-archive solution may be more respectable that the no-op reference
hack, but it's not respectable. It doesn't even look respectable.
The real solution here is just to do the reasonable thing. If you want the
linker to link the definition of something in your program, then don't keep that a secret from
the linker. At least declare the thing in each compilation unit where you
expect its definition to be used.
Doing the reasonable thing with gtest test-cases involves understanding that
a gtest macro like TEST(X, just_a_passing_test) expands to a class definition,
in this case:
class X_just_a_passing_test_Test : public ::testing::Test {
public:
X_just_a_passing_test_Test() {}
private:
virtual void TestBody();
static ::testing::TestInfo* const test_info_ __attribute__ ((unused));
X_just_a_passing_test_Test(X_just_a_passing_test_Test const &);
void operator=(X_just_a_passing_test_Test const &);
};
(plus a static initializer for test_info_ and a definition for TestBody()).
Likewise for the TEST_F, TEST_P variants. Consequently, you can deploy these
macros in your code with just the same constraints and expectations that would
apply to class definitions.
In this light, if you have a library libcool defined in cool.h, implemented in cool.cpp
and want gtest unit tests for it, to be executed by a test program tests
that is implemented in tests.cpp, the reasonable thing is:-
Write a header file, cool_test.h
#include "cool.h" in it
#include <gtest/gtest.h> in it.
Then define your libcool test cases in it
#include "cool_test.h" in tests.cpp,
Compile and link tests.cpp with libcool and libgtest
And it's obvious why you wouldn't do what the OP has done. You would not define
classes that are needed by tests.cpp, and not needed by cool.cpp, within cool.cpp
and not in tests.cpp.
The OP was averse to the advice against defining the test cases in the library
because:
how else would you test libraries, without having an executable for every one,
making quickly running them a pain.
As a rule of thumb I would recommend the practice of maintaining a gtest executable
per library to be unit-tested: running them quickly is painless with commonplace automation tools
such a make, and it's far better to get a pass/fail verdict per library than
just a verdict for a bunch of libraries. But if you don't want to do that there's still nothing to the
objection:
// tests.cpp
#include "cool_test.h"
#include "cooler_test.h"
#include "coolest_test.h"
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
::testing::InitGoogleTest(&argc, argv);
return RUN_ALL_TESTS();
}
Compile and link with libcool, libcooler, libcoolest and libgtest
I have a class (NDTrie on github) which uses c struct for its internal structure, it would make it easier for users to use it in their projects with automatic reference counting by adding the fno-objc-arc to the source file instead of requiring users to set it in the build phase for that source file, is there a way to do that.
Per-file compiler flags are tacked onto files on a per-project basis (files meant to be compiled down to some form of machine code generally try to avoid metadata). If you'd like to specify the flag and have it update the required field in any Xcode project, you can use CocoaPods to write a pod file for your dependancy. Let the underlying tool handle the rest.
No, it's not possible to separate portions of translations based on features and alter their flags for that translation in this case.
You should approach it from another angle. The ARC feature treats all preprocessed input as having ARC enabled or not, based on the compiler flags of the current translation.
The most obvious workarounds:
0) Impact reduction: Hide the implementation, where possible
1) Translation specific conditions: Use __has_feature(objc_arc) to determine whether you are or are not dealing with an ARC-enabled translation -- if you are using clang, the expression __has_feature(objc_arc) expands to 1 when ARC is enabled. Then you can conditionally make portions of your program visible or annotate it differently, depending on whether or not ARC is enabled.
2) Detect and fail: In some remaining cases, you may opt for:
// >> detect clang or GCC if needed
#if __has_feature(objc_arc)
#error This file cannot be compiled with ARC enabled (+HYPERLINK so you don't get a flooded inbox)
#endif
// << detect clang or GCC if needed
I have a CarClass.h file that declares CarClass.
I then #import this CarClass.h file into my CarClass.m file where I of course then go on to implement all my CarClass methods.
Finally, my CarAPP.m file (which contains the main) ALSO #imports CarClass.h - and everything works just fine.
Ss there are actually no problems there :-)
However, I'm not sure I understand WHY it works - cause the linkage seems a little off: if CarAPP.m imports ONLY the CarClass.h file - without also importing the CarClass.m file, then where does it GET or SEE the implementations from?
Is it the case that once the ".m" file - which imports the ".h" file - is compiled, then the two files (.h and .m) are sorta forever linked or something?
I just don't get it...
The compiling process is split in different phases, and #import directives are interpreted long before any linkage occurs.
When you give code files (.c, .m) to your compiler, it will try to generate a code object file (.o) from it; that is, a binary representation of your code. This file is not yet executable because it needs more information. Especially, it's not linked to any other file. Header files, supposed to contain only declarations and no definition, typically don't get their own matching .o file.
After all your code files have been made into code objects, the compiler will put them all together and invoke the linker. The linker will resolve all external references, and then will produce an executable file.
The point is that header files tell the compiler that a function or method exists somewhere. This is enough at the current phase of compilation to produce object files: the compiler just needs to be told what exists, not where's the definition. Only when you actually link you need to know this.
Since all your code object files get packaged together, your whole program gets access to everything that was publicly declared within itself. This is why you don't need to explicitly "link" CarAPP.m against CarClass.m.
It's also possible to mislead the compiler and declare functions in header files that not defined anywhere. If you use them in your program, the first phases of compilation will go just fine (no syntax error, no "undeclared function") but it will break at link-time, since the linker won't be able to locate the nonexistent function.
When you have #import whatEver.h, the pre-processer tries to finds the corresponding file in the default location. If found, it just pastes the content of the whatEver.h to the corresponding source file where ever you use #import whatEver.h. So, to get a final executable, your source files should pass Pre-Process, Compile and Linker stages.
When you have CarClass.h in CarAPP.m, the linker goes to find the implementations of CarClass.h in CarClass.m. Strictly, speaking it goes to find the definitions in CarClass.o. Compiler is happy as long as there are declarations of what you use and the linker is happy as long as there are definitions for the declarations when you intend to use.
When you import CarClass.h to your CarAPP.m, you are saying to linker to find the CarClass.h method implementations in CarClass.o. So, your final executable is a combination of CarAPP.o and CarClass.o. To understand more about how compiling and linking is done, Program Compilation. Though link is C/C++ specific, it should give you an idea.
I am splitting off some of the code in my project into a separate library to be reused in another application. This new library has various functions defined but not implemented, and both my current project and the other application will implement their own versions of these functions.
I implemented these functions in my original project, but they are not called anywhere inside it. They are only called by this new library. As a result, the compiler optimizes them away, and I get linking failures. When I add a dummy call to these functions, the linking failures disappear.
Is there any way to tell GCC to compile these functions even if they're not being called?
I am compiling with gcc 4.2.2 using -O2 on SuSE linux (x86-64_linux_2.6.5_ImageSLES9SP3-3).
You could try __attribute__ ((used)) - see Declaring Attributes of Functions in the gcc manual.
Being a pragmatist, I would just put:
// Hopefully not a name collision :-)
void *xyzzy_plugh_zorkmid_3141592653589_2718281828459[] = {
&functionToForceIn,
&anotherFunction
};
at the file level of one of your source files (or even a brand new source file, something along the lines of forcedCompiledFunctions.c, so that it's obvious what it's for).
Because this is non-static, the compiler won't be able to take a chance that you won't need it elsewhere, so should compile it in.
Your question lacks a few details but I'll give it a shot...
GCC generally removes functions in very few cases:
If they are declared static
In some cases (like when using -fno-implement-inlines) if they are declared inline
Any others I missed
I suggest using 'nm' to see what symbols are actually exported in the resulting .o files to verify this is actually the issue, and then see about any stray 'static' keywords. Not necessarily in this order...
EDIT:
BTW, with the -Wall or -Wunused-function options GCC will warn about unused functions, which will then be prime targets for removal when optimising. Watch out for
warning: ‘xxx’ defined but not used
in your compile logs.
Be careful as the -Wunused-functions doesn't warn of unused functions as stated above. It warns of ununsed STATIC functions.
Here's what the man page for gcc says:
-Wunused-function
Warn whenever a static function is declared but not defined or a non-inline static function is unused. This warning is
enabled by -Wall.
This would have been more appropriate as a comment but I can't comment on answers yet.