What are the differences between the byte code binary executables such as Java class files, Parrot bytecode files or CLR files and machine code executables such as ELF, Mach-O and PE.
what are the distinctive differences between the two?
such as the .text area in the ELF structure is equal to what part of the class file?
or they all have headers but the ELF and PE headers contain Architecture but the Class file does not
Java Class File
Elf file
PE File
Byte code is, as imulsion noted, an intermediate step, right before compilation into machine code. Because the last step is left to load time (and often runtime, as is the case with Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation, byte code is architecture independent: The runtime (CLR for .net or JVM for Java) is responsible for mapping the byte code opcodes to their underlying machine code representation.
By comparison, native code (Windows: PE, PE32+, OS X/iOS: Mach-O, Linux/Android/etc: ELF) is compiled code, suited for a particular architecture (Android/iOS: ARM, most else: Intel 32-bit (i386) or 64-bit). These are all very similar, but still require sections (or, in Mach-O parlance "Load Commands") to set up the memory structure of the executable as it becomes a process (Old DOS supported the ".com" format which was a raw memory image). In all the above, you can say , roughly, the following:
Sections with a "." are created by the compiler, and are "default" or expected to have default behavior
The executable has the main code section, usually called "text" or ".text". This is native code, which can run on the specific architecture
Strings are stored in a separate section. These are used for hard-coded output (what you print out) as well as symbol names.
Symbols - which are what the linker uses to put together the executable with its libraries (Windows: DLLs, Linux/Android: Shared Objects, OS X/iOS: .dylibs or frameworks) are stored in a separate section. Usually there is also a "PLT" (Procedure Linkage Table) which enables the compiler to simply put in stubs to the functions you call (printf, open, etc), that the linker can connect when the executable loads.
Import table (in Windows parlance.. In ELF this is a DYNAMIC section, in OS X this is a LC_LOAD_LIBRARY command) is used to declare additional libraries. If those aren't found when the executable is loaded, the load fails, and you can't run it.
Export table (for libraries/dylibs/etc) are the symbols which the library (or in Windows, even an .exe) can export so as to have others link with.
Constants are usually in what you see as the ".rodata".
Hope this helps. Really, your question was vague..
TG
Byte code is a 'halfway' step. So the Java compiler (javac) will turn the source code into byte code. Machine code is the next step, where the computer takes the byte code, turns it into machine code (which can be read by the computer) and then executes your program by reading the machine code. Computers cannot read source code directly, likewise compilers cannot translate immediately into machine code. You need a halfway step to make programs work.
Note that ELF binaries don't necessarily need to be machine/arch specific per se.
The interesting piece is the "interpreter" header field: it holds a path name to a loader program that's executed instead of the actual binary. This one then is responsible for loading the actual program, loading and linking libraries, etc. This is the way how eg. ld.so comes in.
Theoretically one could create an ELF binary that holds java bytecode (or a complete jar). This just needs some appropriate "interpreter" program which starts up a JVM and loads the code from the binary into it.
Not sure whether this actually has been done before, but certainly possible.
The same can be done w/ quite any non-native code.
It also could serve for direct multiarch support via some VM like qemu:
Let the target platform (libc+linker scripts) put the arch name into the interpreter program name (eg. /lib/ld.so.x86_64, /lib/ld.so.armhf, ...).
Then, on a particular arch (eg. x86_64), the one with native arch name will point to the original ld.so, while the others point to some special one that calls up something like qemu-system-XXX.
Related
I'm having trouble understanding if/how to share code among several Fortran projects without building libraries or duplicating source code.
I am using Eclipse/Photran with the Intel compiler (ifort) on a linux system, but I believe I'm having a bigger conceptual problem with modules than with the specific tools.
Here's a simple example: In ~/workspace/cow I have a source directory (src) containing cow.f90 (the PROGRAM) and two modules m_graze and m_moo in m_graze.f90 and m_moo.f90, respectively. This project builds and links properly to create the executable 'cow'. The executable and modules (m_graze.mod and m_moo.mod) are stored in ~/workspace/cow/Debug and object files are stored under ~/workspace/cow/Debug/src
Later, I create ~/workplace/sheep and have src/sheep.f90 as the program and src/m_baa.f90 as the module m_baa. I want to 'use m_graze, only: ruminate' in sheep.f90 to get access to the ruminate() subroutine. I could just copy m_graze.f90 but that could lead to code getting out of sync and doesn't take into account any dependencies m_graze might have. For these reasons, I'd rather leave m_graze in the cow project and compile and link sheep.f90 against it.
If I try to compile the sheep project, I'll get an error like:
error #7002: Error in opening the compiled module file. Check INCLUDE paths. [M_GRAZE]
Under Properties:Project References for sheep, I can select the cow project. Under Properties:Fortran Build:Settings:Intel Compiler:Preprocessor I can add ~/workspace/cow/Debug (location of the module files) to the list of include directories so the compiler now finds the cow modules and compiles sheep.f90. However the linker dies with something like:
Building target: sheep
Invoking: Intel(R) Fortran Linker
ifort -L/home/me/workspace/cow/Debug -o "sheep" ./src/sheep.o
./src/sheep.o: In function `sheep':
/home/me/workspace/sheep/src/sheep.f90:11: undefined reference to `m_graze_mp_ruminate_'
This would normally be solved by adding libraries and library paths to the linker settings except there are no appropriate libraries to link to (this is Fortran, not C.)
The cow project was perfectly capable of compiling and linking together cow.f90, m_graze.f90 and m_moo.f90 into an executable. Yet while the sheep project can compile sheep.f90 and m_baa.f90 and can find the module m_graze.mod, it can't seem to find the symbols for m_graze even though all the requisite information is present on the system for it to do so.
It would seem to be an easy matter of configuration to get the linker portion of ifort to find the missing pieces and put them together but I have no idea what magic words need to be entered where in the Photran UI to make this happen.
I confess an utter lack of interest and competence in C and the C build process and I'd rather avoid the diversion of creating libraries (.a or .so) unless that's the only way to make this work.
Ultimately, I'm looking for a pure Fortran solution to this problem so I can keep a single copy of the source code and don't have to manually maintain a pile of custom Makefiles.
So can this be done?
Apologies if this has already been documented somewhere; Google is only showing me simple build examples, how to create modules, and how to link with existing libraries. There don't seem to be (m)any examples of code reuse with modules that don't involve duplicating source code.
Edit
As respondents have pointed out, the .mod files are necessary but not sufficient; either object code (in the form of m_graze.o) or static or shared libraries must be specified during the linking phase. The .mod files describe the interface to the object code/library but both are necessary to build the final executable.
For an oversimplified toy problem such as this, that's sufficient to answer the question as posed.
In a larger project with more complex dependencies (in my case, 80+KLOC of F90 linking to the MKL version of LAPACK95), the IDE or toolchain may lack sufficient automatic or user-interface facilities to make sharing a single canonical set of source files a viable strategy. The choice seems to be between risking duplicate source files getting out of sync, giving up many of the benefits of an IDE (i.e. avoiding manual creation of make/CMake/SCons files), or, in all likelihood, both. While a revision control system and good code organization can help, it's clear that sharing a single canonical set of source files among projects is far from easy given the current state of Eclipse.
Some background which I suspect you already know: Typically (including ifort) compiling the source code for a Fortran module results in two outputs - a "mod" file that contains a description of the Fortran entities that the module defines that the compiler needs to find whenever it sees a USE statement for the module, and object code for the linker that implements the procedures and variable storage, etc., that the module defines.
Your first error (the one you solved) is because the compiler couldn't find the mod file.
The second error is because the linker hasn't been told about the object code that implements the stuff that was in the source file with the module. I'm not an Eclipse user by any means, but a brute force way of specifying that is just to add the object file (xxxxx/Debug/m_graze.o) as an additional linker option (Fortran Build > Settings, under Intel Fortran Linker > Command Line). (Other tool chains have explicit "additional object file" properties for their link stage - there may well be a better way of doing this for the Intel chain.)
For more involved examples you would typically create a library out of the shared code. That's not really C specific, the only Fortran aspect is that the libraries archive of object code needs to be provided alongside the mod files that the Fortran compiler generates.
Yes the object code must be provided. E.g., when you install libnetcdf-dev in Debian (apt-get install libnetcdf-dev), there is a /usr/include/netcdf.mod file that is included.
You can now use all netcdf routines in your Fortran code. E.g.,
program main
use netcdf
...
end
but you'll have link to the netcdf shared (or static) library, i.e.,
gfortran -I/usr/include/ main.f90 -lnetcdff
However, as user MSB mentioned the mod file can only be used by gfortran that comes with the distribution (apt-get install gfortran). If you want to use any other compiler (even a different version that you may have installed yourself) then you'll have to build netcdf yourself using that particular compiler.
So creating a library is not a bad solution.
Does small embedded system without RTOS/OS uses dynamic/shared libraries. my understanding is that its very tough to use it and will be not productive.
If we are calling an API multiple times which is present in a static library. Does API code will be placed at every call location like macro expansion or code/text will be common for all calls. I think code/text will be common.
If I have made a static library for a .c files which has multiple API's and I am statically linking it with main file and in main file only one API has been called so my question is does whole library is included in final .bin or only particular API code.
from above questions you can assume that I am missing fundamentals itself so can anyone please provide the related links to brush up these.
Regards
[edit]
I have tried following things
addition.c module
`int addition(int a,int b)`
`{`
`int result;`
`result = a + b;`
`return result;`
`}`
`size addition.o`
23 0 0 23 17 addition.o
multiplication.c module
`int multiplication(int a, int b)`
`{`
`int result;`
`result = a * b;`
`return result;`
`}`
`size multiplication.o`
21 0 0 21 15 multiplication.o
created object file of both and put in archieve
ar cr libarith.a addition.o multiplication.o
then statically linked to my main application
example.c module
`#include "header.h"`
`#include <stdio.h>`
`1:int main()`
`2:{`
`3:int result;`
`4:result = addition(1,2);`
`5:printf("addition result is : %d\n",result);`
`6:result = multiplication(3,2);`
`7:printf("multiplication result is : %d\n",result);`
`8:return 0;`
`9:}`
gcc -static example.c -L. -larith -o example
size of example
511141 1928 7052 520121 7efb9 example
commented line number 6 of example.c
and again linked
gcc -static example.c -L. -larith -o example
size of example
511109 1928 7052 520089 7ef99 example
32 bytes of difference between above two
thats mean addition.o is not included in example
merged both modules addition.c and multiplication.c as addmult.c as below
int addition(int a,int b)
{
int result;
result = a + b;
return result;
}
int multiplication(int a, int b)
{
int result;
result = a * b;
return result;
}
created object file and put in archieve
before doing that i have deleted previous archieve
ar cr libarith.a addmult.o
now commented line number 6 of example.c
gcc -static example.c -L. -larith -o example
size example
511093 1928 7052 520073 7ef89 example
uncommented line nmber 6 of example.c
size example
511141 1928 7052 520121 7efb9 example
My question is in both cases if both functions are called final text size is same but if only one function is called then there is difference of 16
but multiplication.o size is 23 so definitly it has been not included but how we will justify 16.
If i am missing some fundamental itself ?
To dynamically load and link a library at runtime requires code to perform the load/link operation. That capability is normally part of an operating system. Moreover in a system without mass-storage of some kind, dynamic linking would not have any benefits since the dynamically linked code would have to exist in memory in any case so may as well have been statically linked.
To answer the second part of your question, a static library is simply a collection of object files in an archive. The linker will only extract and link the object code necessary to resolve symbols referenced in the executable as a whole. Some smart linkers can discard unused functions from within an object file, but you should not rely on that.
So by linking a static library you are not including all the unused code in the library. You can probably tell that by comparing the size of all your library files with the size of the executable binary - you will probably see that your executable is far smaller than the sum of the sizes of the libraries linked. Also your linker will have an option to create a map file which will tell you exactly what code has been included, and if it has a cross-reference output facility, what code references or is referenced by what.
If you are building your own static libraries, or even your own non-library code, it will pay to ensure good granularity at the object file level. For example if an object file contains two functions, one used and one unused, most linkers will have no choice but to include both, whereas if the functions are defined in separate compilation units (source files), then they will be in separate object files (even when collated into a library) and can be separately linked.
If you really have a embedded system without any operating system, then your hardware has essentially a fixed software, which you can change only by physical means (e.g. a soldering iron, or plugging something, etc...). In that case, that software runs on the "bare iron" and is doing somehow what an OS is providing (it is managing the physical resources and interacts directly with the I/O ports by appropriate machine instruction).
In particular, an embedded system without any OS cannot have any kind of dynamic libraries, because by definition these libraries need to be inside some files (on the embedded processor), and to have files you need an operating system.
The exact definition of what exactly is an operating system is debatable and fuzzy; I believe that providing a file system is one of the roles of most current OSes
Since shared libraries (or static libraries) are libraries sitting inside some files, you cannot have them without an OS. Something which provide files is by definition an operating system.
Perhaps you are using a cross-development chain to develop your embedded software. If you want to get something which runs on the bare metal, your chain has to ultimately give a single binary image which you can flash into a ROM, then solder or plug that ROM -or transfer somehow physically- in your embedded hardware (some tools enable you to flash an entire self contained processor).
I believe you might be confused, and you should read more about operating systems, kernels, the linux kernel, file systems, syscalls, RTOS, linkers & loaders, cross-compilers, microcontrollers, shared libraries, dynamic linkers ....
As Clifford suggested in comments, you could have an embedded system with some file system and some dynamic linker; in my view that would make an embryonic operating system, but it is a debatable matter of definition.
Notice that making a dynamic linker might not be an easy task (you'll need to do relocation); you could either make a generic ELF dynamic loader, or you could restrict the form of the dynamically loaded modules, and perhaps use your specific ld script to generate them.
You already have all the fundamentals you need. Without an operating system, mass storage (disc, filesystem, etc) and mulitple/many different programs that can take advantage of the shared library it doesnt make any sense. You dont save anything and it probably costs you a little more if you were to fake it enough to use a shared library in a fixed bare metal environment.
You mentioned having codesourcery, how do you learn these things? You disassemble your binaries and see what the compiler did. Does it link the entire gcc library because you used one divide? Does it link the entire C library because you used one function (does it even work to try to link a C library function, many have system calls to an operating system which you have to resolve). Start by using a simple divide in a very simple function (needs to be generic)
unsigned int fun ( unsigned int a, unsigned int b )
{
return(a/b);
}
DO NOT call that function with fixed constants and do not call it from the same .c file, the best thing would be to simply add that function as is, and do nothing else with it just have it sit there. You may hit problems even trying to compile it, once you do, disassemble and see what the compiler did with it, see if the entire gcc library was added or just the code for that one function.
You cant trust any old web page or resource as it may not be the same tools you are using and may be out dated, the compiler you are using right now is the one that matters, right now, no other. And the answers are all right there in front of you.
No, they dont use dynamic libraries, the functions needed are linked in as needed. The optimizer may choose to inline some code, but in general the code for each function is in one place and each call to it is a call, it is not like a macro, in general. Again the optimizer may choose otherwise for performance reasons (small enough functions that dont consume too much memory and are small enough that the code required to make a function call is excessive compared to the function itself. Also that function needs to be in the same optimization space, for gcc this is the same .c file, for llvm this could be any code in the project.
I have some examples, cortex-m and others, bare metal. http://github.com/dwelch67 you may find some that may help answer your questions, examine for example that the compiler will implement a public function like the one above AND inline it when used. If you declare the function as static, then the optimizer, if it inlines, doesnt need to implement the function in the binary. if you make a call to a function like that in the same .c file, for example
c = fun(10,5);
there is a good chance that the optimizer if used, will replace that code with
c = 2;
and not perform the divide at all.
I thought it would be Common Intermediate Language, but in notepad it does not look like that at all. Does it just look uglier in reality than in tutorials? Or is it some bytecode form that is further compiled from CIL?
It's CIL is the name of the binary format, not of the "assembler" you're thinking of.
Can you possibly imagine that .NET assemblies would be text files?
A .NET executable is a binary file that has a PE header (same as a native executable, but with slightly different values). The PE header tells the OS to load the CLR, which in turn loads the assembly.
The content beyond the header is a binary representation of the CIL code, plus some metadata and other stuff. The text you see in tutorials is the text representation of CIL, in much the same way that the assembly language code you see in a tutorial about assembly language programming is just the text representation of the binary machine code.
See http://www.yetanotherchris.me/home/2010/7/12/inside-net-assemblies-part-1.html (among many others) for more information.
A .Net executable is usually not written, it is compiled from another language such as C#, F# or VB.Net.
The contents of a .Net executable can be viewed with the ILDASM tool.
The contents are first a manifest which is used for reflection, signatures or other meta-code purposes.
Secondly there are the MSIL instructions themselves. These are in a kind of bytecode format, but ILDASM will show you what the instructions are.
And there are sometimes resources such as imagery, sounds or other content packed into the executable.
The executable is just-in-time compiled to native code either during installation (I think this is uncommon), or as a precursor to execution. The resulting native code can be stored for reuse. (This is what I was told during PDC 2001, might be "out of date".)
I know DLL contains one or more exported functions that are compiled, linked, and stored separately..
My question is about not about how to create it.. but it is all about in what form it is stored.. Is it going to be in the form of 0's & 1's.. or in assembly commands ADD, MUL, DIV, MOV, CALL, RETURN etc..
Also what makes it to be processor dependent.. (like x86, x87, IBM 700 instruction set)..
Can someone please explain it little briefly..!
First of all, everything in a computer is in the form of "0's & 1's" . The fact that the computer can display some of these as text, pictures, sounds, 3D models, etc. is just a matter of how you interpret them. But down there, at the metal, it's all just "0's & 1's" (also known as bits). Note though that they are always grouped together in groups of 8, and these are called "bytes". It's really for the sake of efficiency, because operating with every bit individually would be too tedious. Actually, todays computers don't even operate on single bytes anymore (or rather - they do it very rarely). Mostly you operate with 4 or 8 bytes at a time, depending on whether you have a 32-bit or 64-bit CPU (that's in layman's terms, it's actually a bit more complicated than that).
As for a .DLL file - like an .EXE file, it contains bytes that describe instructions that a CPU can execute. The CPU takes these bytes directly from the .DLL/.EXE and executes them without any further modifications. That's why these files are CPU-specific. In different CPU architectures the same combination of bytes means different things, so a .DLL/.EXE will run correctly only on the CPU for which it was designed. On other CPUs these bytes will mean some other instructions, and when run, the program will most likely do some utter nonsense and crash immediately.
The assembly commands you mentioned also deserve an explanation. "Assembler" is not a language that a CPU can understand. It's a language a human can understand. It was created because writing directly in machine code (the bytes that the CPU actually understands) is very difficult. What you get is utter gibberish on the screen (try opening some .EXE file in Notepad!) but every bit has to be precisely set for it to work.
So assembly language is basically the same thing, except these instructions are written in text that humans can read. For every machine code that a CPU can understand, there is am instruction with a human-friendly name. An assembly compiler simply reads these instructions and replaces them with the bytes that represent the actual instructions for the CPU to execute. It's a 1:1 operation. Every command in assembly language matches a single machine instruction (again, in layman's terms).
So you see, there isn't even a single assembly language. Every CPU architecture has its own assembly language, because they each have different instructions.
Note though that all this applies to native .DLL/.EXE files. .NET files are different - they don't contain machine code, but rather instructions for an abstract, nonexistent CPU. It's like Java bytecodes. When a .NET .DLL/.EXE is run, the .NET runtime translates it from the abstract instructions to the instructions that the specific CPU can understand. They use a lot of tricks to make this very fast, so these files run almost as fast as simple .DLL/.EXE files.
Does this clear things up? :)
Native DLLs (not .NET assemblies) usually contain machine code that can only be run on a certain platform. The machine code is a sequence of bytes that the processor treats as instructions (ADD, MOV, etc.).
In Windows, dll's are stored in the PE format which is basically a collection of sections that holds the information about how to map it into memory. some sections contains the program's code (which is of course processor dependent), others contains the program's data, other the exported and imported functions and so on.
Managed code is compiled to some intermediate language that is JITed by the run-time as it is executed. therefore, your dll won't contain any processor dependent code and you'll be able to execute your program on any platform with the relevant run-time.
it depends on your DLL. generally, a DLL contains executable code as an EXE file. those code DLLs are processor dependent since the code can only be executed on a specific platform. the code is stored using the same "format" as an EXE file (binary machine code).
however, a DLL can sometimes contains only data: they are then called "resource DLL" and are not processor dependent at all. they act as a container for data files used by applications.
note that many DLLs are hybrids: they contain both code and resources. for example, most DLLs which comprises the user part of the Windows operating system are hybrid: you can open them using Visual Studio or a Resource Explorer to see the resources (the data segments) they contain, or open them with Dependency Walker or dumpbin to see the functions (the code segments) they contain.
(of course this answer is really Windows specific, i don't know for .so files which are the linux equivalent of a DLL)
Both a DLL and an EXE contain executable code.
In the case of a DLL it doesn't have the necessary parts to be directly executable. It must be called from an other piece of executable code. One DLL can call another, but all must ultimately be called from and EXE.
So the rules about what's compatible with what processor that apply to EXEs also apply to DLLs.
I know very little about DLL's and LIB's other than that they contain vital code required for a program to run properly - libraries. But why do compilers generate them at all? Wouldn't it be easier to just include all the code in a single executable? And what's the difference between DLL's and LIB's?
There are static libraries (LIB) and dynamic libraries (DLL) - but note that .LIB files can be either static libraries (containing object files) or import libraries (containing symbols to allow the linker to link to a DLL).
Libraries are used because you may have code that you want to use in many programs. For example if you write a function that counts the number of characters in a string, that function will be useful in lots of programs. Once you get that function working correctly you don't want to have to recompile the code every time you use it, so you put the executable code for that function in a library, and the linker can extract and insert the compiled code into your program. Static libraries are sometimes called 'archives' for this reason.
Dynamic libraries take this one step further. It seems wasteful to have multiple copies of the library functions taking up space in each of the programs. Why can't they all share one copy of the function? This is what dynamic libraries are for. Rather than building the library code into your program when it is compiled, it can be run by mapping it into your program as it is loaded into memory. Multiple programs running at the same time that use the same functions can all share one copy, saving memory. In fact, you can load dynamic libraries only as needed, depending on the path through your code. No point in having the printer routines taking up memory if you aren't doing any printing. On the other hand, this means you have to have a copy of the dynamic library installed on every machine your program runs on. This creates its own set of problems.
As an example, almost every program written in 'C' will need functions from a library called the 'C runtime library, though few programs will need all of the functions. The C runtime comes in both static and dynamic versions, so you can determine which version your program uses depending on particular needs.
Another aspect is security (obfuscation). Once a piece of code is extracted from the main application and put in a "separated" Dynamic-Link Library, it is easier to attack, analyse (reverse-engineer) the code, since it has been isolated. When the same piece of code is kept in a LIB Library, it is part of the compiled (linked) target application, and this thus harder to isolate (differentiate) that piece of code from the rest of the target binaries.
One important reason for creating a DLL/LIB rather than just compiling the code into an executable is reuse and relocation. The average Java or .NET application (for example) will most likely use several 3rd party (or framework) libraries. It is much easier and faster to just compile against a pre-built library, rather than having to compile all of the 3rd party code into your application. Compiling your code into libraries also encourages good design practices, e.g. designing your classes to be used in different types of applications.
A DLL is a library of functions that are shared among other executable programs. Just look in your windows/system32 directory and you will find dozens of them. When your program creates a DLL it also normally creates a lib file so that the application *.exe program can resolve symbols that are declared in the DLL.
A .lib is a library of functions that are statically linked to a program -- they are NOT shared by other programs. Each program that links with a *.lib file has all the code in that file. If you have two programs A.exe and B.exe that link with C.lib then each A and B will both contain the code in C.lib.
How you create DLLs and libs depend on the compiler you use. Each compiler does it differently.
One other difference lies in the performance.
As the DLL is loaded at runtime by the .exe(s), the .exe(s) and the DLL work with shared memory concept and hence the performance is low relatively to static linking.
On the other hand, a .lib is code that is linked statically at compile time into every process that requests. Hence the .exe(s) will have single memory, thus increasing the performance of the process.