The OLD Perl 6 faq said: "Rakudo, a Perl 6 compiler based on Parrot, allows compilation to bytecode, and a small wrapper exists that can pack up a bytecode file and parrot into a single executable."
So, it was possible to create a stand-alone executable, but I can not find any docs explaining how to go about this, or if it's still possible. So, I turn to you. What is the appropriate set of incantations required to convert Perl 6 code into a stand-alone executable that will work on a system that does not have Perl 6 installed.
This is not possible with current Rakudo on MoarVM. There's still some dust that needs to settle regarding module loading and automatic compilation, but once that has happened, I see no reason why this ability couldn't be reintroduced if there is sufficient demand.
Related
I've tried to convert a tcl file to a exe file by using FREEWRAP.EXE .
It works on most of the files, but there is one file which includes a line of code "load TLTcl.dll " which will always fail.
When I run the tcl file with activetcl, it was fine.
Since I convert the tcl file to a exe file and put TLTcl.dll on the same folder with it, the exe always crash while executing.
I wonder how to load a dll file in the tcl file when I turn a tcl to a exe.
Thanks a lot !
puts "Starting FLASH script"
puts "FLASH write will be performed now, make sure you have an extra flash... "
#load 10 lira tcl DLL
load TLTcl.dll
It sounds like TLTcl.dll was not built with stubs support, which means that it links against a real tcl.dll (possibly with a version number in the name) and freewrap doesn't use that; it uses a statically-linked build so that the whole system can be a simply-redistributable file.
You'll need to rebuild TLTcl.dll with stubs support enabled (assuming it is a DLL that implements a Tcl extension). That's not usually too difficult, as it is a matter of defining the USE_TCL_STUBS preprocessor symbol when compiling all the files, and linking against the tclstub static library; it probably has the version number embedded in the filename (and the version of the Tcl headers you compile with and the stub library you link with must match). Note that it is a property of Tcl's API that if you build against the Tcl 8.5 stubbed API, you can be loaded into a Tcl 8.6 interpreter. (Indeed, that level of forward compatibility is there from about 8.0.6† through to 8.7, which is still in active development so you won't be using it yet.)
†This was a version that was only released to a few commercial partners. Everyone else used newer supported versions.
I have compiled Lua 5.3 as a 32 bit c++ DLL and exe. The DLL contains all the lua code except for lua.cpp and luac.cpp. The exe compiles lua.cpp and uses the DLL to run the lua interpreter. This works fine when running on its own from the command line. I wish to be able to run from the IDE using this DLL and exe.
If I replace /ZeroBraneStudio/bin/lua53.dll and lua53.exe with my own versions, I can run scripts (clicking the two green arrows). However, debugging does not work, giving the following error:
The procedure entry point luaL_addlstring could not be located in the dynamic link library lua53.dll.
I can see that this is happening because the debugger is making use of luasocket. \ZeroBraneStudio\bin\clibs53\socket\core.dll is dependent on lua53.dll, and is expecting it to contain lua compiled as c.
So, what is the correct solution to this - is it to compile luasocket as c++ as well?
(And, if so, does anybody have instructions/guidance for doing so? I have been unable to find anything on this.)
Thanks.
I'm not sure how exactly the DLL was compiled, but the error message likely indicates that the luaL_addlstring and other functions are not exported by it. If the symbols are exported correctly, you should be able to load luasocket and get the debugging working. See this thread for the related discussion.
Also, you don't need to replace lua53 library and executable, as you can configure the IDE to use your own copy of it using path.lua53 configuration setting as described in the documentation.
Okay, I was able to get it working. The solution was to compile luasocket as c++. I won't give full instructions on how to do this here, but some points to hopefully help anybody else with the same issue:
Got luasocket from here: https://github.com/diegonehab/luasocket
Renamed all *.c files to *.cpp
Renamed Lua52.props to Lua.props (I am using lua 5.3 but seems like it is compatible?)
Placed lua headers and lib in appropriate folders
Opened solution in Visual Studio 2012
Fixed up minor issues with project files, like the renaming of the files.
Added 'extern "C"' to declaration of luaopen_socket_core and luaopen_mime_core functions (necessary for lua to be able to load libraries).
Built solution
Copied new dlls into clibs53/socket and clibs53/mime folders.
I used Dependency Walker to help with this. If anybody wants further details in the future please leave a comment.
I'd like to access a dynamic library using FFI features in the Ren-C Rebol branch. I understand this is possible by building with LibFFI support enabled. What steps do I need to take to enable this?
I mainly use OS X for development, though would also like to be able to build it for use with Linux.
(Note: This is probably the kind of information that should be added to the Wiki, as it is not so much a language question but the kind of thing that is subject to change over time. But, answerable, so...)
If you're using the GNU make method to build (where make -f makefile.boot generates a makefile for you) then you should find some lines in there like:
TO_OS_BASE?= TO_OSX
TO_OS_NAME?= TO_OSX_X64
OS_ID?= 0.2.40
BIN_SUFFIX=
RAPI_FLAGS= -D__LP64__ -DENDIAN_LITTLE -DHAS_LL_CONSTS -O1 ...
HOST_FLAGS= -DREB_EXE -D__LP64__ -DENDIAN_LITTLE ...
Modify the RAPI_FLAGS and HOST_FLAGS lines at the beginning to add -DHAVE_LIBFFI_AVAILABLE. That (-D)efines a preprocessor directive to tell the code it's okay to generate calls to FFI, because you have it available for linking later.
Now to tell it where to find include files. There's a line for includes that should look like:
INCL ?= .
I= -I$(INCL) -I$S/include/ -I$S/codecs/ ...
To the tail of that you need to add something that will look like -I/usr/local/opt/libffi/lib/libffi-3.0.13/include, or similar. The actual directory will depend on where you have libffi on your system. On the OSX system I'm looking at, that has two files in it, ffi.h and ffitarget.h.
(Note: I'm afraid I don't know how these files got on this computer. They didn't ship with the OS, so they came from...somewhere. I don't generally develop on OSX--nor for that matter do I use this FFI. You'll have to consult your local FFI-on-OSX website, or perhaps for support contact Atronix Engineering) who added the FFI features to Rebol.)
Then it's necessary to tell it where you have libffi on your system. You'll find a CLIB line that is likely just CLIB= -lm. You'd change this for example to:
CLIB= -L/usr/local/opt/libffi/lib -lm -lffi
-lffi Tells it to look for the ffi (-l)ibrary, and -lxxx means it assumes the name of the library will be libxxx[something]. -L/usr/local/opt/libffi/lib tells it where to look for it. You'll have to figure out where (if anywhere) you have libffi, and if not get it. If you had it, the directory would have contents something like:
libffi-3.0.13
libffi.6.dylib
libffi.a
libffi.dylib
pkgconfig
I mainly use OS X for development, though would also like to be able to build it for use with Linux.
On Linux it's similar but generally much easier to get the library, as easy as sudo apt-get install libffi-dev. Same step for the RFLAGS and CFLAGS, and it should take care of the location automatically... so you can add just -lffi to CLIB.
Old notes from me:
cat steps-for-lib-ffi-osx
Install libfffi via homebrew
brew install libffi
Add /use/include/libffi to the -I in the generated makefile
Add /usr/local/Cellar/libffi/3.0.13/lib/libffi.a to the OBJS in the
generated makefile
The version 3.0.13 may vary
I'm looking for a free open source tool-set that will compile various "classic" scripting languages, e.g. Korn Shell, ksh, csh, bash etc. as an executable -- and if the script calls other programs or executables, for them to be included in the single executable.
Reasons:
To obfuscate the code for delivery to a customer so as not to reveal our Intellectual Property - for delivery onto a customer's own machine/systems for which I have no control over what permissions I can set regarding access, so the program file has to be binary whereby the workings cannot be easily seen by viewing in a text editor or hexdump viewer.
To make a single, simply deployed program for the customer without/or a minimal amount of any external dependencies.
I would prefer something simple without the need for package manager since:
I can't rely on the customer's knowledge to carry out (un) packaging instructions and
I can't rely on the policies governing their machines regarding installing packages (and indeed from third parties).
The simplest preferred approach is to be able to compile to proper machine code a single executable that will run out of the box without any dependencies.
The solution that fully meets my needs would be SHC - a free tool, or CCsh a commercial tool. Both compile shell scripts to C, which then can be compiled using a C compiler.
Links about SHC:
https://github.com/neurobin/shc
http://www.datsi.fi.upm.es/~frosal/
http://www.downloadplex.com/Linux/System-Utilities/Shell-Tools/Download-shc_70414.html
Links about CCsh:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/faqs/ccshlit.html
You could use this: http://megastep.org/makeself/
This generates a shell script that auto-extracts a bundled tar.gz archive into the temporary directory, and then can run an arbitrary command upon extraction.
Using this tool, you can provide only one shell script to the client.
This script will then extract your ofbsh obfuscated scripts and binaries into /tmp, and run them transparently.
You can obfuscate shell scripts with something like ofbsh. You won't easily bundle other programs into a single executable for unix, though. Normally the approach for installation would be to buld a package for your platform's package manager (e.g. rpm, deb, pkg) or to provide a tarball to unravel in the appropriate directory.
If you need an executable file that unpacks the contents you might be able to use a shell archive. Take a look at the docs for shar(1) and see if that will get what you want
If you really need a scripting capability to glue multiple C programs together, take a look at the Tcl language. It has an API that is designed to trivially wrap C programs that expect to see argv[] style parameters. You can even embed the chunks of C code into a custom Tcl interpreter and glue it together with various Tcl scripts.
If you really need to make it opaque, you could encrypt the tcl scripts and wrap the whole thing in something that unencrypts the tcl scripts to a buffer and then runs the Tcl interpreter on them. Tcl can accept scripts from a file or a char* buffer, so the unencrypted scripts never have to hit the file system.
shc
I have modified the original source and upgraded to a new version with some feature addition and bug fixes.
It's here.
Example Usage:
shc -f script.sh -o binary_name
script.sh will be compiled to a binary named binary_name
Note that, you still need the required shell to be installed in your system to run this executable.
arx is a great bundler, and you may be able to integrate a obfuscator in its workflow.
Options that are available to you:
Write a logic in your code that, when the code is run for the first time on a box, it'll check to see if all the required packages exist. And if they do not, the code will automatically go get the packages itself and will install them...without asking to the user to do anything. The only question the user needs to be asked is "Is it ok to proceed with the install of the aforementioned packages? (Y/N)". Anything outside of that is too much.
Once the above code is complete (yes, i'm aware it may not be all that simple for you to code this, or may be it is, i don't know your coding capabilities), copy and paste your completed code to a site like kinglazy.com and an actual executable file will be generated for you.
There are quite a few benefits of this particular option:
Yes, you will be able to run the encrypted version of your script without exposing any proprietary information.
No one can try to "view" your script, because if they do, they'll see nothing but indecipherable, encrypted jargon which wont make sense to them.
No one can attempt to modify your script because if they do, the script will immediately become inoperable.
No one can run a debugger on your script to see how it works. If they do, the script will abort.
Also, no one can create copies of your script on the same server. If they do, it will abort and won't work. It'll only allow users to create symlinks to the original location of wherever you want the script to be.
I may be missing some things in what you asked for, but i believe the above satisfies a good portion of what you wanted.
Not sure if this works on other scripts but it certainly does for shell scripts.
You can also use the free online version of CCsh to compile a shell script into a binary:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryccsh/
I want to make a stand-alone exe with cygwin. I have two options:
Staticly link cygwin1.dll
If I can statically link cygwin1.dll, then I can get a stand-alone exe.
Merge cygwin1.dll with myprog.exe
If I can merge cygwin1.dll with my program, the I can get a stand-alone exe.
Do not suggest that I use IlMerge. This will not work because I didn't compile my program with .NET.
Are any of these options possible? If not, is there anything that is possible with this dilemma? Thanx!
Try passing -mno-cygwin as a compiler and linker flag. If your program's requirements are simple enough this will avoid depending on Cygwin libraries and create a standalone EXE.
I can see two possibilities that you might consider reasonable. One would be to build a stub executable with a different compiler (e.g., MinGW -- whatever, just so it doesn't need cygwin) to unpack the main executable and cygwin.dll into a temporary directory, and then spawn that executable. To distribute only a single executable, you'd want to add the main executable and cygwin.dll to the "stub" as binary resources. It's a bit ugly, but pretty straightforward.
The alternative would be to grab the source to cygwin, and build it as a static library. At least in theory, this should be cleaner -- but it's also undoubtedly more work. Getting it to build as purely static code instead of a DLL will almost certainly take some work, though it's hard to even guess how much. Just browsing a bit, it's seems pretty unlikely that it's going to be a quick job of a couple hours, or anything like that (unless there's something there that I missed that already supports building it statically, of course).
More precise answer of Jerry.
Procedure described below should be confronted with your rights and license law! I know it can work but rights to distribute the result (or even perform the procedure) may be (and I'm really feel that are) bounded by Cygwin license. That is because your application will still refer to Cygwin (even though it is useless - but is still in your app)
Assume hello.exe is the name of your great application compiled under Cygwin in great project directory C:\xxx\yyy\zzz\
In the cygwin console go to C:\xxx\yyy\zzz and type
objdump -p hello.exe | grep "DLL Name"
You obtain all DLLs your application uses. Then copy C:\xxx\yyy\zzz to all DLLs listed and specific for cygwin.
Note that your application may invoke other applications (using exec function for example) --- find libraries aplications use and copy this libraries as well as this applications themselves -- to C:\xxx\yyy\zzz.
Maybe you will have to recompile your project with option of kind -L C:\xxx\yyy\zzz or so. Watch all other paths in your sources.
Thus your application becomes independent of Cygwin installation and you can present its functionality to/ share it with ---- other Windows users without Cygwin. But - once more I point and ask you - be aware of proper license and law of Cygwin creators and observe them!