I am working on the development of a Java application that loads native library files to perform some calculations. The application uses JNI to load the libraries. This application should work on Windows and Linux environments (on both 32-bit and 64-bit).
During the compilation process, we compile C code to library files (32-bit and 64-bit dlls for Windows, and 32-bit and 64-bit .so files for Linux environments). These .dlls and .so files are included in the distribution file, and are referenced when Java is called by using the -Djava.library.path parameter.
I am now testing the application on a few different machines. I am initially focused on 64-bit Windows environments. The strange thing that I have encountered is that on some 64-bit machines the application loads the correct .dll files successfully, but on some other machines it does not load the .dlls.
I thought that the problem might because of a difference in the processor type between the machines (ie. that the dlls were compiled for one processor type and other processors types cannot use them).
However, it works on one machine, and does not work on another machine that has the SAME processor:
It works on a HP laptop running Windows 7 64-bit, with this processor:
PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE=AMD64
PROCESSOR_IDENTIFIER=Intel64 Family 6 Model 37 Stepping 5, GenuineIntel
It does not work on a Lenovo laptop running Window 7 64-bit, with this processor:
PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE=AMD64
PROCESSOR_IDENTIFIER=Intel64 Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9, GenuineIntel
My question is: apart from the bitness are .dlls machine/processor type specific in some other way? (I know that the .dll files have to match the bitness of the machine, and that the JVM must also match the bitness of the .dll files)
Or in theory, if a .dll is 64-bit should it run on EVERY 64-bit machine that is using a 64-bit JVM?
apart from the bitness are .dlls machine/processor type specific in some other way?
Very much so. Any compiled binary meant to run under an operating system is both processor and operating system specific, sometimes even down to specific versions of each.
Different processors - even in the same family, such as "x86" - can offer different instruction sets and capabilities. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_instruction_listings for the listing of different variations of just x86 instruction sets and capabilities. If a compiled binary uses a specific instruction, it won't run on a processor that doesn't implement that instruction. For example, if a binary is compiled to use SSE3 instructions, it won't run on processors that don't implement SSE3.
And it's not just limited to hardware, either. Operating system specifics matter, too, literally for starters because the operating system is what starts the running process. So the binary needs to work under the conditions and in the environment of the operating system that started it. A binary designed to work under an operating system will also need to make calls to that operating system to interact with data, devices, or other processes. Different operating systems provide these capabilities in vastly different ways, even to the point of different versions of the same basic operating system doing so in incompatible ways.
And binaries that aren't designed to run under an operating system have to provide very hardware-specific capabilities - ever notice how many device drivers any operating system has? And this excludes any shared object or DLL because by definition they are already designed to run under an operating system.
Or in theory, if a .dll is 64-bit should it run on EVERY 64-bit
machine that is using a 64-bit JVM?
It should be clear by now that the answer is "Not even close".
Related
Depending on the CPU architecture, some computers can run software with some specific instruction set. Using these instructions can greatly improve the speed of the program, but can also lead to crashes when not supported.
But sometimes, when shipping a software that depends on external libraries (binaries), we may want to check what instruction set they rely on (like AVX2, SSE2, etc) and assess if we can use safely this library or executable (e.g.: on Windows, a .lib, .dll or an .exe). Mostly when the final executable has to be shipped to hardware that is out of our control, but should follow some specifications.
Most of the related questions seems to tackle the problem the other way around: from the software, to check if a set of instruction is supported on the current hardware:
how verify that operating system support avx2 instructions
Detecting SIMD instruction sets to be used with C++ Macros in Visual Studio 2015
How one can check, from the binary, what kind of instruction sets are required or used? Is there some OS tools for that?
The OSs of interest would be Windows, Linux and MacOS.
Is there a boot loader written for booting Java virtual machine without an operating system? As far as I know Java virtual machine can run on a machine by itself, without help of an operating system.
Java defines the guest language, not the host / JVM.
You'd need a JVM written to run on bare-metal of whatever machine you want to run it on. (i.e. to be an OS kernel as well as a JVM, handling interrupts and so on). So there isn't something generic called "Java" that a bootloader could load.
The mainstream JVMs like OpenJDK / HotSpot are not written to work as kernels, only to run under some existing mainstream OSes. But as you found, there are some: Can you run JVM on a computer with no operating system?
Even for a specific platform, the things a kernel needs a bootloader to do may depend on the kernel. There are a few standards, like multiboot for x86, that define a kernel file format that bootloaders like GRUB know how to recognize and load, but otherwise you'd probably expect a bare-metal JVM to come with its own custom bootloader, especially if it's for a platform other than an x86 PC. Or perhaps be bootable as an "EFI application".
OpenJDK currently does not have support for a JRE on MIPS processors (there's a port in progress, but who knows how long that will take).
I'm trying to understand how the JRE works, and what is standing in the way of using OpenJDK on our embedded system running Linux on a MIPS processor. If I have a custom JVM that is capable of running on MIPS designed to work with OpenJDK (in this case, I'm referring to JamVM 2.0), is there anything else preventing the JRE from running on the MIPS board? Are any other parts of the JRE platform-dependent?
My understanding is that the JRE is (mostly) composed of two units: the virtual machine, which abstracts the hardware and which is platform-dependent, and the collection of Java libraries which run on the virtual machine and which are not platform-dependent.
To be clear, my questions is: aside from the JVM, is any part of the Java Runtime Environment platform-dependent?
"aside from the JVM, is any part of the Java Runtime Environment platform-dependent?"
That depends on where you place the boundary where the VM ends and the JRE begins. I would consider memory management and code execution as 'the VM', everything more specific part of the JRE.
Thats means every binding to the operating system, be it I/O, Graphics etc. is part of the JRE. Thus the JRE has many platform dependent parts; you usually just don't notice them because your code uses their abstractions (e.g. File, Socket, Window).
So when you say "a port to MIPS" it doesn't mean anything without specifying an OS (ok, your link says Linux); a VM ported to a processor architecture by itself does not make a working java environment. It also requires a port of the native parts of the JRE that allow the java program to actually communicate with things outside the VM; thats where the OS platform comes in.
Since Linux is already supported for x64, the MIPS port should be able to reuse most of the JRE to platform bindings from that.
When I create a new OS X application project, I noticed many target options those confuse me quite a lot:
(1) The top-left setting of Xcode window:
(2) The "Base SDK":
(3) "Deployment Target":
(4) Architectures:
Here comes my questions:
For (2) and (3), I think it was clearer to understand. These are what I comprehend:
(2) This identifies what I develop with.
(3) This identifies what OS version my application will be used on.
Please tell me whether I am right...
But I could not understand (1). I just know that if I select 32-bit here, I could not use ARC.
Neither with (4), what are they? Are they represent the bit-width of the CPU? What was the difference between (1) and (4)?
I'll explain your items out of order.
The Base SDK
This defines the largest set of APIs you can use. You can use anything that existed as of the version number identified here. For example, if you use the 10.8 SDK, you can use -[NSColor CGColor] (introduced in 10.8), but not -[NSData base64EncodedDataWithOptions:] (first public in 10.9).
(Of course, you can also use anything older than that version.)
Accordingly, the SDK version is also known as the “max[imum] allowed” version in the Availability macros.
The SDK version also sometimes becomes important when Apple changes the behavior of an API. When they do that, they sometimes keep the old behavior around for applications linked with older SDKs. This is called an “on-or-after check”, as in “checks whether you're on 10.8 [SDK] or later”. (The concept and term pre-date Xcode having SDKs for each OS version. It used to just go by whatever OS you were running Xcode and building on.)
The Deployment Target
This is the minimum OS version you require. If something was removed in a prior version (rare, but it happens), you can't use it.
This tends to affect link-time and run-time things more than compile-time things. For example, ARC won't work if your deployment target is 10.5 or earlier.
Accordingly, the Deployment Target is also known as the “min[imum] required” version in the Availability macros.
The Info.plist can also specify a minimum OS version. Nowadays, this is set by default and it's set by macro expansion to the Deployment Target.
The Architectures build setting
Different CPUs have different architectures. Essentially, they fit into broad categories, such as:
PowerPC 32-bit (ppc)
PowerPC 64-bit (ppc64)
Intel 32-bit (i386)
Intel 64-bit (x86_64)
ARM 32-bit
ARM 64-bit
(PowerPC architectures aren't supported anymore. You can add them to the Architectures list, as ppc and ppc64, but Xcode will just ignore them.)
Macs nowadays have Intel processors. Almost all Intel Macs have 64-bit processors. You only need to worry about 32-bit Intel if you want to support Macs all the way back to 2006. That's probably more hassle than it's worth.
iOS devices run ARM processors, and most are still 32-bit. The A7 (iPhone 5S, iPad Air, iPad Mini with Retina Display) is 64-bit. But, if you run on an iOS Simulator, it's running on your Mac (it's a Simulator, not an emulator), so it'll target an Intel architecture (formerly always i386, but probably can now be x86_64 if needed).
The “top-left setting of Xcode window”
This is the build scheme and run destination. (Yes, it's two separate things in one pop-up menu. Actually, it's two separate pop-up menus in one control. Try it.)
“My Mac 64-bit” is the run destination. You'll be running the 64-bit version of your app on your Mac, not in an iOS Simulator or on an iOS device. Your choice for a Mac app is merely which architecture you want to run, and they should behave the same (this is, obviously, something you sometimes need to test).
iOS apps have more choices here. Some apps are iPhone-only, some are iPad-only, some are universal, and some may be set to build for both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures. You'll have a Simulator offered for each combination of form factor and architecture (e.g., iPhone Simulator 64-bit) you can run on. You'll also have the option to run your app on any iOS device that's connected and enabled for development (you get this prompt when you plug in the device in Xcode's sight).
TL;DR
Deployment Target is the lowest OS version your app will run on.
Base SDK is the highest OS version you can use stuff from. If it didn't exist yet, it doesn't exist at all for you.
Architectures are the set of hardware your app will run on.
Run Destination is the hardware you're going to run it on from within Xcode.
Just like with most OSes these days you can develop either a 32bit or a 64bit application. The "bitness" refers mostly to how memory addresses are structured (either using 32bit allowing so at most 4GB to address or 64bit (computation left as an exercise to the reader)). However the choosen architecture usually has more implications (like the missing ARC support for 32bit apps) but also how wide CPU registers are, how much memory a structure uses in RAM etc.
OS X also supports socalled fat binaryies that is, a bundle containing both 32bit and 64bit variants of your application. This is however only needed if you normally prefer to run 64bit code, but want your app also to run on OS versions that only support 32bit.
In XCode you can define for what architecture to build your project, either 32bit only, 64bit only or a fat bundle. In the project settings you can set what is allowed and in the top bar in XCode you can quickly switch between the allowed architectures (your questions 1 and 4).
The base SDK determines what you want to use to compile your application. If you select for instance 10.7 you cannot use new APIs that were introduced in 10.8 or 10.9 (which might perfectly be ok if you want your application to run on earlier OS versions only). However if you want to dynamically use new features if they are availble you'd select the latest OS as base SDK and check in code what OS you are running on and only use new features if they are available. It is totally ok to compile an application with access to new features and run it on older systems if you don't use the new APIs there (they are late-bound and hence only crash when you access them the first time and they are not available).
The deployment target determines the minimum OS version your application needs to run properly. This is a runtime check done when the application is started. The OS will refuse to start an application that is made for a later version.
Is it possible to run an application on a 64 bit Weblogic 10.3.2 Server instance with a 32 bit JDK?
The reason for me to doing this is getting an exceptions while running my program using 64 bit JDK.
UCFWin32JNI.dll: Can't load IA 32-bit .dll on a AMD 64-bit platform
The error is gone when using 32 bit JDK.
If it is possible, then how?
Thanks!
A 32-bit version of a library cannot be loaded and used by a 64-bit JVM, and vice versa.
Moreover, UCFWin32JNI.dll does not appear to be a WebLogic library at all. In fact, it appears to be a library from Documentum. You ought to be looking for a 64-bit version of that library (if it is available) as it appears to be a 32-bit version going by the name and the error message produced. Finally, you'll need to place the 64-bit version in one of the directories constituting java.library.path.
No problems at all running a 32bit JVM on a 64bit platform. In fact, for some applications it can actually be more efficient, due to the fact that certain data types are innately larger on a 64bit JVM (ints I think are an example of this from memory)
A 64bit JVM provides all sorts of advantages for an application requiring access to a larger heap, but there's no harm at all in running a 32bit JVM.