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.
Related
I have a large fortran code-base of which I would like to move some parts to dll's. After doing some research I know how to build a normal fortran dll with my IDE of choice (code::blocks) and how to use it in another fortran program. However, I have run into a wall. As long as I only need to put procedures in the dll everything is peachy. However, what I want to do is to include a Fortran 2003 class in such a way that I can also use the class in my fortran program. The first problem is that a class needs to be imbedded in a module (which is slightly but importantly different from a normal fortran file for a dll). In itself, this is not a big issue for building the dll, but it is when trying to access the subroutines or class.
I currently have a stopgap solution which entails including a use statement in my program:
use mydllmodule;
and also placing the module file mydllmodule.mod in the module directory of my program.
Is there a nicer way of creating a fortran dll which contains fortran classes, and allows them to be accessed in the main program (without the use of compiler specific pragma's, since this code is compiled and run on my local windows machine for development, and compiled and run on an HPC for production). I am looking for a setup in which the life of the user can be as simple as possible (i.e. just put dll somewhere, maybe use a use-statement)
thanks
I'm trying to clean up a fortran make process for distribution. Currently, two libraries are made, and then the executable is compiled linking to the libraries and including the module files. I see from previous answers (Distribute compiled fortran library with module files) that you can't get rid of the module files and that they can be different for every machine and compiler. This is very annoying.
However, the code in my libraries are made up entirely of modules. It seems like I don't need the library part at all; I can just include the modules. I've tried this and it does compile and run on small examples.
Will this always work (when all I have are modules in the libraries)? Is it best practice? Should I instead consider rewriting my libraries NOT to use modules so I can avoid all these compiler dependencies and only distribute the lib*.a files? Is that what this document is referring to by using submodules (which no one supports static lib with many modules)
It really depends on the features you have in your library. Does it have only a couple of declarations? Then the .mod files would suffice, but why not distribute the source in such a simple case?
Are all your public procedures simple enough, so that they do not require an explicit interface and they are outside of modules? Then you don't need any .mod files.
Do you have a simple public module or an include file with the public API and the rest is private? You can then distribute the source of the API module or the include file. I would recommend to place just the interface blocks and other declarations in this module.
Be aware of one important problem. You can get away (using interface locks or similar) with avoiding the non-portable .mod files, but if the procedures are using some more advanced argument passing, their ABI is often NOT portable between different compilers or even some compiler versions. You would the be able to compile it and get mysterious crashes when calling your library.
Submodules can change it all, but actually I do not expect they will solve portability between compilers. The user of your library will still need the same compiler you had. It is true that interfacing the closed source software will be easier, but not more portable between compilers.
You can link either from a library lib*.a, or from object files. Both will be at least platform dependent and so more difficult to distribute than source code. library file might have the advantage of fewer files. In either case, linking from lib*a or object files, you can present your code to the user as a library of procedures to call. If you don't want to distribute your source code, then you will have to compile for however many platforms you support. Modules are a major advantage of modern Fortran, automating the checking of procedure actual and dummy arguments. Compared to, for example, C header files, they have the advantage of being automatic, but the disadvantage of producing a compiler-dependent intermediate file. If you are providing procedures to other programmers, it would seem a bad idea not to provide them with this interface checking. If you want to hide your source code, then you could write interface blocks describing the procedures and distribute only this source for them to compile.
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.
Just leave alone the Apple policy, just talking about the Objective-C language only,
Assume that my programme calling a .a library. Is this possible to grep the .a from the
internet, and run a newer version of .a instead of old .a?
Thanks.
Not for statically linked libraries (.a), at least with any level of sanity. You can certainly do it with dynamically loaded libraries (.so); it's one of the normal use cases. Have a look at dlopen, dlclose and dlsym from the dynamic loader (https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Reference/MachOReference/Reference/reference.html).
This is not just iOS, but OS X apps (and probably other Unixes in general)
Static libraries (.a files) cannot be replaced while the program is running because they are part of the application binary. The application binary is mapped into the process's address space. If you try to change any part of it, you'll almost certainly end up crashing the app.
Dynamic libraries (.so files) are replaceable in theory. However, most applications load them up once at the beginning or when first needed and then they become part of the application's address space. I've heard that it is theoretically possible for an application to unload a dynamic library, but I've never seen it done in any real Cooca application.
What is the meaning of building a dll as export library ? I just googled it.I found its a dynamic link library.Can anyone please explain what actually dll is ? and why do we need to add these statement in the .dll file
extern "c" _declspec(dllexport)
I studied the static and shared libraries but Im not sure why do we go for dll files.I learnt .dll is used for the run time. But can you help me and give me more information.Thank you in advance
I may have been a bit harsh in my comments. I am not an authority on dlls, but I have a bit of working knowledge of them, so I will try to give a short explanation.
The difference between static and shared libraries should be easy to find in a web search, but basically the code in a static library gets included into the final executable, so after the linking stage, the actual library file is not needed anymore to run the program; on the other hand, code in a shared library doesn't get included in the main program - the two parts remain separate, so the shared library (called dll on windows) will be needed every time the program is run.
"Building a dll as export library" is a bit of a confusing term. I had not heard of it before, and during a short search could only find it on a cygwin page, which you might have read, considering your initial tags. A dll can export some or all of its functions and data. Exporting means that they are available for other programs and dlls to use. Which names get exported can be controlled in various ways. One of those is inserting _declspec(dllexport) in the declaration of the function. Another way is by using a definition file with an exports section.
When creating a dll, an import library can be created. This is a file that can then be used when building an executable that uses the dll, during the linking stage, to let it know which names are exported from the dll, so the program knows how to resolve references to those functions; in other words: how to import them. (This is not always necessary. Many linkers allow you to directly link against the dll itself, thereby removing the need for an import library.)
I realize it can be confusing, but try to find a tutorial and some small examples to see how it works, and play with it a bit.