Let's consider Debian or Ubuntu distro where one can install some library package, say libfoobar, and a corresponding libfoobar-dev. The first one contains shared library object. The later usually contains headers, static library variant and cmake exported targets (say, FoobarTargets.cmake) which allow CMake stuff like find_package to work flawlessly. To do so FoobarTargets.cmake have to contain both targets: for static and for shared variant.
From the other side, I've read many articles stating that I (as a libfoobar's author) should refrain from declaring add_library(foobar SHARED ....) and add_library(foobar_static STATIC ...) in CMakeLists.txt in favour of building and installing library using BUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON and BUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF. But this approach will export only one variant of the library into FoobarTargets.cmake because the later build will overwrite the first one.
So, the question is: how to do it the right way? So that package maintainer would not need to patch library's CMakeLists.txt to properly export both variants from the one side. And to adhere CMake's sense of a true way, removing duplicating targets which differ only by static/shared from the other side?
I wrote an entire blog post about this. A working example is available on GitHub.
The basic idea is that you need to write your FoobarConfig.cmake file in such a way that it loads one of FoobarSharedTargets.cmake or FoobarStaticTargets.cmake in a principled, user-controllable way, that's also tolerant to only one or the other being present. I advocate for the following strategy:
If the find_package call lists exactly one of static or shared among the required components, then load the corresponding set of targets.
If the variable Foobar_SHARED_LIBS is defined, then load the corresponding set of targets.
Otherwise, honor the setting of BUILD_SHARED_LIBS for consistency with FetchContent users.
In all cases, your users will link to Foobar::Foobar.
Ultimately, you cannot have both static and shared imported in the same subdirectory while also providing a consistent build-tree (FetchContent) and install-tree (find-package) interface. But this is not a big deal since usually consumers want only one or the other, and it's totally illegal to link both to a single target.
Related
I think a major design flaw in Linux is the shared object hell when it comes to distributing programs in binary instead of source code form.
Here is my specific problem: I want to publish a Linux program in ELF binary form that should run on as many distributions as possible so my mandatory dependencies are as low as it gets: The only libraries required under any circumstances are libpthread, libX11, librt and libm (and glibc of course). I'm linking dynamically against these libraries when I build my program using gcc.
Optionally, however, my program should also support ALSA (sound interface), the Xcursor, Xfixes, and Xxf86vm extensions as well as GTK. But these should only be used if they are available on the user's system, otherwise my program should still run but with limited functionality. For example, if GTK isn't there, my program will fall back to terminal mode. Because my program should still be able to run without ALSA, Xcursor, Xfixes, etc. I cannot link dynamically against these libraries because then the program won't start at all if one of the libraries isn't there.
So I need to manually check if the libraries are present and then open them one by one using dlopen() and import the necessary function symbols using dlsym(). This, however, leads to all kinds of problems:
1) Library naming conventions:
Shared objects often aren't simply called "libXcursor.so" but have some kind of version extension like "libXcursor.so.1" or even really funny things like "libXcursor.so.0.2000". These extensions seem to differ from system to system. So which one should I choose when calling dlopen()? Using a hardcoded name here seems like a very bad idea because the names differ from system to system. So the only workaround that comes to my mind is to scan the whole library path and look for filenames starting with a "libXcursor.so" prefix and then do some custom version matching. But how do I know that they are really compatible?
2) Library search paths: Where should I look for the *.so files after all? This is also different from system to system. There are some default paths like /usr/lib and /lib but *.so files could also be in lots of other paths. So I'd have to open /etc/ld.so.conf and parse this to find out all library search paths. That's not a trivial thing to do because /etc/ld.so.conf files can also use some kind of include directive which means that I have to parse even more .conf files, do some checks against possible infinite loops caused by circular include directives etc. Is there really no easier way to find out the search paths for *.so?
So, my actual question is this: Isn't there a more convenient, less hackish way of achieving what I want to do? Is it really so complicated to create a Linux program that has some optional dependencies like ALSA, GTK, libXcursor... but should also work without it! Is there some kind of standard for doing what I want to do? Or am I doomed to do it the hackish way?
Thanks for your comments/solutions!
I think a major design flaw in Linux is the shared object hell when it comes to distributing programs in binary instead of source code form.
This isn't a design flaw as far as creators of the system are concerned; it's an advantage -- it encourages you to distribute programs in source form. Oh, you wanted to sell your software? Sorry, that's not the use case Linux is optimized for.
Library naming conventions: Shared objects often aren't simply called "libXcursor.so" but have some kind of version extension like "libXcursor.so.1" or even really funny things like "libXcursor.so.0.2000".
Yes, this is called external library versioning. Read about it here. As should be clear from that description, if you compiled your binaries using headers on a system that would normally give you libXcursor.so.1 as a runtime reference, then the only shared library you are compatible with is libXcursor.so.1, and trying to dlopen libXcursor.so.0.2000 will lead to unpredictable crashes.
Any system that provides libXcursor.so but not libXcursor.so.1 is either a broken installation, or is also incompatible with your binaries.
Library search paths: Where should I look for the *.so files after all?
You shouldn't be trying to dlopen any of these libraries using their full path. Just call dlopen("libXcursor.so.1", RTLD_GLOBAL);, and the runtime loader will search for the library in system-appropriate locations.
In my open-source project Artha I use libnotify for showing passive desktop notifications to the user.
Instead of statically linking libnotify, a lookup at runtime is made for the shared object (.so) file via dlload, if available on the target machine, Artha exposes the notification feature in it's GUI. On app. start, a call to dlload with filename param as libnotify.so.1 is made and if it returns a non-null pointer, then the feature is exposed.
A recurring problem with this model is that every time the version number of the library is bumped, Artha's code needs to be updated, currently libnotify.so.4 is the latest to entail such an occurance.
Is there a linux system call (irrespective of the distro the app. is running on), which can tell me if a particular library's shared object is available at runtime? I know that there exists the bruteforce option of enumerating the library by going from 1 to say 10, I find the solution ugly and inelegant.
Also, if this can be addressed via autoconf, then that solution is welcome too I.e. at build time, based on the target machine, the configure.h generated should've the right .so name that can be passed to dlload.
P.S.: I think good distros follow the style of creating links to libnotify.so.x so that a programmer can just do dlload("libnotify.so", RTLD_LAZY) and the right version numbered .so is loaded; unfortunately not all distros follow this, including Ubuntu.
The answer is: you don't.
dlopen() is not designed to deal with things like that, and trying to load whichever soversion you find on the system just because it happens to have the symbols you need is not a good way to do it.
Different sonames have different ABIs, and different ABIs means that you may be calling the same exact symbol name that is expecting a different set (or different size) of parameters, which will cause crashes or misbehaviour that are extremely difficult do debug.
You should have a read on how shared object versions work and what an ABI is.
The libfoo.so link is there for the link editor (ld) and is usually installed with the -devel packages for that reason; it might also very well not be a link but rather a text file with a linker script, often times on purpose to avoid exactly what you're trying to do.
I want to make a quick fix to one of the project's .so libraries. Is it safe to just recompile the .so and replace the original? Or I have to rebuild and reinstall the whole project? Or it depends?
It depends. Shared library needs to be binary-compatible with your executable.
For example,
if you changed the behaviour of one of library's internal functions, you probably don't need to recompile.
If you changed the size of a struct (e.g. by adding a member) that's known by the application, you will need to recompile, otherwise the library and the application will think the struct is smaller than it is, and will crash when the library tries to read an extra uninitialized member that the application didn't write to.
If you change the type or the position of arguments of any functions visible from the applications, you do need to recompile, because the library will try to read more arguments off the stack than the application has put on it (this is the case with C, in C++ argument types are the part of function signature, so the app will refuse run, rather than crashing).
The rule of thumb (for production releases) is that, if you are not consciously aware that you are maintaining binary compatibility, or not sure what binary compatibility is, you should recompile.
That's certainly the intent of using dynamic libraries: if something in the library needs updating, then you just update the library, and programs that use it don't need to be changed. If the signature of the function you're changing doesn't change, and it accomplishes the same thing, then this will in general be fine.
There are of course always edge cases where a program depends on some undocumented side-effect of a function, and then changing that function's implementation might change the side-effect and break the program; but c'est la vie.
If you have not changed the ABI of the shared library, you can just rebuild and replace the library.
It depends yes.
However, I assume you have the exact same source and compiler that built the other stuff and now if you only change in a .cpp file something, it is fine.
Other things e.g. changing an interface (between the shared lib and the rest of the system) in a header file is not fine.
If you don't change your library binary interface, it's ok to recompile and redeploy only the shared library.
Good references:
How To Write Shared Libraries
The Little Manual of API Design
I seen several discussions here on the subject, but wanted to ask about my particular situation:
If I have some 3rd part libraries which my application is using, and I'd like to link them together in order to save myself the hassle in LD_LIBRARY, etc., is there any downside to it on Linux, other then larger file size?
Also, is it possible to statically link only some libraries, and other (standard Linux libraries) to link dynamically?
Thanks.
It is indeed possible to dynamically link against some libraries and statically link against others.
It sounds like what you really want to do is dynamically link against the system libraries, and statically link against the nonstandard ones that a user may not have installed (or that different users may have different installations of).
That's perfectly reasonable.
It's not generally a good idea to statically link against system libraries, especially libc.
It can often make sense to statically link against libraries that do not come with the OS and that will not be distributed with your application.
There are some bits of libc - those that use nsswitch - that need to load libraries dynamically. This can cause problems if you want to produce a completely static binary.
Statically linking your 3rd party libraries into your application should be completely fine.
The statically linked binary will be larger than if you had uses a shared library, but I find that disadvantage outweight the library path hassles, provided I control the distribution of all the libraries involved. If you are dependant on a particular distros shared libraries, then you have no choice but to use dynamic linking.
The main disadvantage I see is your application loses any automatic bugfixes that might be applied to a shared library. On the flip-side you don't get new bugs.
Static linking does not just affect the file size of the library, it also affects the memory footprint and start up time of the application. Dynamically linked libraries are loaded once no matter how many programs use them. Statically linked libraries must be loaded once per program that uses them (because they are now part of that program).
To answer your second question, yes, it is possible to have dynamic and static libraries linked to the same application. Just be careful to avoid interlibrary dependencies so you don't have a problem with library order. You should be able to list the libraries in any arbitrary order. Where I work, we prefer to list them alphabetically.
Edit: To link a static library, use the flag -lfoo. To add a directory to the library search path, use -L/path/to/libfoo.
Edit: You don't have to link a dynamic library. Your program can use a function provided by your compiler to open a dynamic library at run time, or you can link it at compile time and the compiler will resolve the symbols but not include them in the binary. See pjc50's comment below.
Statically linking will make your binary bulky, but you wont need to have a shared version of that library on the target runtime environment. This is especially the case while developing embedded apps.
I am working on creating and linking shared library (.so). While working with them, many questions popped up which i could not find satisying answers when i searched for them, hence putting them here. The questions about shared libraries i have are:
1.) How is shared library different than static library? What are the Key differences in way they are created, they execute?
2.) In case of a shared library at what point are the addresses where a particular function in shared library will be loaded and run from, given? Who gives those functions is load/run addresses?
3.) Will an application linked against shared library be slower in execution as compared to that which is linked with a static library?
4.) Will application executable size differ in these two cases?
5.) Can one do source level debugging of by stepping into functions defined inside a shared library? Is any thing extra needed to make these functions visible to the application?
6.) What are pros and cons in using either kind of library?
Thanks.
-AD
See this SO question When to use dynamic vs. static libraries and this HOWTO.