Build and bind against older libc version - rust

I have dependencies in my code that requires libc. When building (cargo build --release) on Ubuntu 20.04 (glibc 2.31) the resulting executable doesn't run on CentOS 7 (glibc 2.17). It throws an error saying it requires GLIBC 2.18.
When build the same code on CentOS 7 the resulting executable runs on CentOS 7 and Ubuntu 20.04.
Is there a way to control which GLIBC version is required to build this version on Ubuntu 20.04 too?

If your project does not depend on any native libraries, then probably the easiest way would be to use the x86_64-unknown-linux-musl target.
This target statically links against MUSL Libc rather than dynamically linking against the system's libc. As a result it produces completely static binaries which should run on a wide range of systems.
To install this target:
rustup target add x86_64-unknown-linux-musl
To build your project using this target:
cargo build --target x86_64-unknown-linux-musl
See the edition guide for more details.
If you are using any non-rust libraries it becomes more difficult, because they may be dynamically linked and may in turn depend on the system libc. In that case you would either need to statically link the external libraries (assuming that is even possible, and that the libraries you are using will work with MUSL libc), or make different builds for each platform you want to target.
If you end up having to make different builds for each platform, a docker container would be the easiest way to achieve that.

Try cross.
Install it globally:
cargo install cross
Then build your project with it:
cross build --target x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu --release
cross take the same arguments as cargo but you have to specify a target explicitly. Also, the build directory is always target/{TARGET}/(debug|release), not target/(debug|release)
cross uses docker images prebuilt for different target architectures but nothing stops you from "cross-compiling" against the host architecture. The glibc version in these docker images should be conservative enough. If it isn't, you can always configure cross to use a custom image.

In general, you need to build binaries for a given OS on that OS, or at the very least build on the oldest OS you intend to support.
glibc uses symbol versioning to preserve the behavior of older programs while adding support for new functionality. For example, a newer version of pthread_mutex_lock may support lock elision, while the old one would not. You're seeing this error because when you link against libc, you link against the default version of the symbol if a version isn't explicitly specified, and in at least one case, the version you linked against is from glibc 2.18. Changing this would require recompiling libstd (and the libc crate, if you're using it) with custom changes to pick the old versioned symbols, which is a lot of work for little gain.
If your only dependency is glibc, then it might be sufficient to just compile on CentOS 7. However, if you depend on other libraries, like OpenSSL, then those just aren't compatible across OS versions because their SONAMEs differ, and there's no way around that. So that's why generally you want to build different binaries per OS.

Related

Can't find gmp or mpfr library after installation of gcc

I installed gcc-9.3.0 in linux following the simple steps in https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/InstallingGCC
The installation was successful. I thought this process would install gmp and mpfr along the way. But I cannot find the gmp or mpfr libraries.
Should I install them when I do ./configure?
There are two different ways you can provide GCC with prerequisite
external host libraries like GMP and
MPFR:
Before configuring, run ./contrib/download_prerequisites from the
toplevel GCC source directory. It will download the sources from the
respective project repositories. That's all you have to do; GCC will
configure and build these libraries before running configure for itself
or its target libraries.
configure with --with-gmp etc. to point to the place where the
respective host library had been installed.
Either approach has its ups and down:
The first approach needs internet connection and build times go up.
However the increase of build time is negligible to the build time
needed for the rest of the compiler and its target libraries.
On the other hand, you will get the right version and build options of
either host lib as preferred by GCC, irrespective of which lib version
might already have been installed on the host. And this configuration
is much more convenient and self-contained when you are cross-compiling
GCC (because it's about host libraries, and you thus have to install
the prerequisite libraries on the host; installing it on build is
pointless). And it's more robust / self-contained if you are
distributing the built compiler: If the intended host does not have GMP
etc installed, then you'll have additional work to do on that host.
The second approach is more complicated because you have to build /
install the prerequisites on the host; correct version, correct
configure flags etc.
On the other hand, you only have to build the prerequisites once for
each host.
When you are configuring / rebuilding the compiler more than once, for
example when you are doing GCC development, then it's a bit faster cycle.
In the first case, the lib versions are independent of the host versions
of the libraries; GCC will actually not care whether the libs are
present on the host because it is using it's own "copy". The libraries
will be linked statically into the executable, hence you won't find them
anywhere (Maybe GCC has the option to do shared in-tree builds for the
libs, I don't know).
I am very much preferring the 1st approach because it is self-contained
and easier, in particular because I am frequently building GCC as
canadian cross, i.e. build ≠ host ≠ target ≠ build.

glibc version for aarch64

I'm cross-compiling an application for aarch64 on my x86 Ubuntu Bionic system, and I have problems with glibc version mismatch. My cross-compile toolchain was using v2.27, while the system that is to run the application has v2.24. I thought that it might be due to my toolchain having a too high version, so I decided to downgrade.
After removing all previous cross-compilation installs, I installed gcc-4.8-aarch64-linux-gnu (as I had successfully cross-compiled the application with this version on a different host system), thinking that it would install an older aarch64 version of glibc to /usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/lib/. However, again, v2.27 was installed (I verified that this directory didn't exist before installing the new cross-compilation toolchain).
So my question is twofold:
What determines which aarch64 version of glibc is installed on my system when installing gcc-4.8-aarch64-linux-gnu? Is it directly tied to my own system's x86 version of glibc?
Is there a correct way to install the aarch64 version of glibc v2.24 (or lower) on my system?
I concur with your hypothesis. After battling similar symptoms for 40 hours straight, I've discovered this confirmation:
https://packages.ubuntu.com/impish/gcc-10-aarch64-linux-gnu
https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/gcc-aarch64-linux-gnu
Note that Ubuntu 21.10 (Impish) and Debian 11 (Bullseye) have packages for a gcc 10 cross compiler. Be wary of the very confusing fact the Ubuntu's default package is actually gcc 11, but Debian 11's default is gcc 10. The similar version numbers of Debian and gcc are a coincidence. Also ignore for now the fact that Ubuntu's package is gcc 10.3.0 and Debian's is gcc 10.2.1.
Focus instead on the recommendations and dependencies of each package. Ultimately the Ubuntu package calls up libc >= 2.34, while the Debian package calls up libc >= 2.28.
Sure enough, when I cross-compile from Impish on x86 for Bullseye on aarch64 (despite having a complete SYSROOT for the target), I get this at runtime:
/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version 'GLIBC_2.34' not found
But your question remains, is there any tie between the host libc and that used by the cross-compiler? The answer is a definite maybe.
See this excellent answer and links for an overview of a cross-compiler. The take-away:
You don't just cross-compile glibc, you need to cross-compile an entire toolchain. Toolchain components are ALWAYS: ld + gcc + libc + gdb.
So the C library is an integral part of the cross-compiler.
What shenanigans then, are going on when you install gcc-aarch64-linux-gnu? It's just a compiler - only one of the four parts of a toolchain.
Well apparently there's some flexibility. Technically, a cross-compiler can be naked. That's typically only useful when you're compiling an operating system, rather than an executable that runs on an operating system. So you can construct special toolchains for special purposes.
But for the standard purpose (cross compiling for Linux on another architecture) you want a typical toolchain. Which is where the package's dependencies and recommendations come in. A gcc is always in want of an ld which is always in want of a libc, and the ménage à trois is intimate. In fact, gcc is built with libc using ld in a complex do-si-do. See this example from a great guide by Preshing on Programming:
It's possible to force separation and link to other libraries, but it's not easy.
For example, the linker you use has a set of default search directories that are baked in. From the fine manual:
The default set of paths searched (without being specified with -L) depends on which emulation mode ld is using, and in some cases also on how it was configured.
And it gets more intwined. By default, gcc will call on a dynamic linker whose location is hard-coded. For a cross-compiler, it might be something like /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1. Not only that, the executable may also end up with the hardcoded path, as its program interpreter.
Again, if you're careful you can tear apart the toolchain and override things. But not only is it tricky to enforce, particularly if you have a complex build, the multitude of combinations of options and paths means there are also often bugs. So your host environment can easily leak into your cross-compiling toolchain.
So in summary, cross-compiling requires a toolchain. While pulling a cross-compiler from a package manager seems like an easy and legitimate thing to do, it comes with a lot of implicit baggage. You can either carefully follow the package dependencies to check what version you're getting, or use one of the many dedicated toolchain environments, such as crosstool-NG.

How to view glibc compilation options

Glibc 2.10(or any >2.10) with compile flag PER_THREAD and ATOMIC_FASTBINS behaves totally different then glibc 2.10 without those flags.
If my Linux is using glibc 2.10 I still don't know the exact version because it doesn't say anything about compilation flags. Ubuntu may use those flags in theirs glibc and Debian not?
How to list used compilation parameters, having glibc shared library file?
You won't find this information in /lib/libc.so.6. Though, if you're running Debian or Ubuntu you can still grab the source package (apt-get source libc6) and have a look at debian/rules file.
You can also write a quick test that checks glibc behavior and conclude if it has been compiled with these flags or not.

Can GHC link binaries against a libc implementation such as uclibc (used in OpenWrt by default)?

I am using Debian/MIPS+QEMU to build MIPS ports of PortFusion (a TCP tunneling solution). The resulting binaries are linked against GNU libc. Thus, they cannot be just copied over and used on vanilla OpenWrt which ships with uclibc instead of eglibc (which seems binary-compatible with GNU libc).
Is there a way to link Haskell/GHC binaries on Debian/MIPS against uclibc instead of eglibc?
Can OpenWrt's using uclibc be really the reason why PortFusion binaries copied over from Debian fail to run with -ash: binary not found or can this message be due to something entirely else?
See https://github.com/corsis/PortFusion/wiki/MIPS-Builds for details on which haskell-platform, Linux kernel and CPU emulation are used.
The current head of OpenWrt's GIT repository is failing at make when I attempt building custom OpenWrt images that use eglibc instead.
Is there a way to link Haskell/GHC binaries on Debian/MIPS against
uclibc instead of eglibc?
No. You need to to rebuild Haskell/GHC from sources using uclibc-based GCC cross-compiler.
Can OpenWrt's using uclibc be really the reason
Yes. Also, you can try to use ldd on your MIPS pplatform to check what library is missing. I'm sure it will be some of libc-related libraries.

How do I configure Qt for cross-compilation from Linux to Windows target?

I want to cross compile the Qt libraries (and eventually my application) for a Windows x86_64 target using a Linux x86_64 host machine. I feel like I am close, but I may have a fundamental misunderstanding of some parts of this process.
I began by installing all the mingw packages on my Fedora machine and then modifying the win32-g++ qmake.conf file to fit my environment. However, I seem to be getting stuck with some seemingly obvious configure options for Qt: -platform and -xplatform. Qt documentation says that -platform should be the host machine architecture (where you are compiling) and -xplatform should be the target platform for which you wish to deploy. In my case, I set -platform linux-g++-64 and -xplatform linux-win32-g++ where linux-win32-g++ is my modified win32-g++ configuration.
My problem is that, after executing configure with these options, I see that it invokes my system's compiler instead of the cross compiler (x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc). If I omit the -xplatform option and set -platform to my target spec (linux-win32-g++), it invokes the cross compiler but then errors when it finds some Unix related functions aren't defined.
Here is some output from my latest attempt: http://pastebin.com/QCpKSNev.
Questions:
When cross-compiling something like Qt for Windows from a Linux host, should the native compiler ever be invoked? That is, during a cross compilation process, shouldn't we use only the cross compiler? I don't see why Qt's configure script tries to invoke my system's native compiler when I specify the -xplatform option.
If I'm using a mingw cross-compiler, when will I have to deal with a specs file? Spec files for GCC are still sort of a mystery to me, so I am wondering if some background here will help me.
In general, beyond specifying a cross compiler in my qmake.conf, what else might I need to consider?
Just use M cross environment (MXE). It takes the pain out of the whole process:
Get it:
$ git clone https://github.com/mxe/mxe.git
Install build dependencies
Build Qt for Windows, its dependencies, and the cross-build tools;
this will take about an hour on a fast machine with decent internet access;
the download is about 500MB:
$ cd mxe && make qt
Go to the directory of your app and add the cross-build tools to the PATH environment variable:
$ export PATH=<mxe root>/usr/bin:$PATH
Run the Qt Makefile generator tool then build:
$ <mxe root>/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/qt/bin/qmake && make
You should find the binary in the ./release directory:
$ wine release/foo.exe
Some notes:
Use the master branch of the MXE repository; it appears to get a lot more love from the development team.
The output is a 32-bit static binary, which will work well on 64-bit Windows.
(This is an update of #Tshepang's answer, as MXE has evolved since his answer)
Building Qt
Rather than using make qt to build Qt, you can use MXE_TARGETS to control your target machine and toolchain (32- or 64-bit). MXE started using .static and .shared as a part of the target name to show which type of lib you want to build.
# The following is the same as `make qt`, see explanation on default settings after the code block.
make qt MXE_TARGETS=i686-w64-mingw32.static # MinGW-w64, 32-bit, static libs
# Other targets you can use:
make qt MXE_TARGETS=x86_64-w64-mingw32.static # MinGW-w64, 64-bit, static libs
make qt MXE_TARGETS=i686-w64-mingw32.shared # MinGW-w64, 32-bit, shared libs
# You can even specify two targets, and they are built in one run:
# (And that's why it is MXE_TARGET**S**, not MXE_TARGET ;)
# MinGW-w64, both 32- and 64-bit, static libs
make qt MXE_TARGETS='i686-w64-mingw32.static x86_64-w64-mingw32.static'
In #Tshepang's original answer, he did not specify an MXE_TARGETS, and the default is used. At the time he wrote his answer, the default was i686-pc-mingw32, now it's i686-w64-mingw32.static. If you explicitly set MXE_TARGETS to i686-w64-mingw32, omitting .static, a warning is printed because this syntax is now deprecated. If you try to set the target to i686-pc-mingw32, it will show an error as MXE has removed support for MinGW.org (i.e. i686-pc-mingw32).
Running qmake
As we changed the MXE_TARGETS, the <mxe root>/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/qt/bin/qmake command will no longer work. Now, what you need to do is:
<mxe root>/usr/<TARGET>/qt/bin/qmake
If you didn't specify MXE_TARGETS, do this:
<mxe root>/usr/i686-w64-mingw32.static/qt/bin/qmake
Update: The new default is now i686-w64-mingw32.static
Another way to cross-compile software for Windows on Linux is the MinGW-w64 toolchain on Archlinux. It is easy to use and maintain, and it provides recent versions of the compiler and many libraries. I personally find it easier than MXE and it seems to adopt newer versions of libraries faster.
First, you will need an arch-based machine (virtual machine or docker container will suffice). It does not have to be Arch Linux, derivatives will do as well. I used Manjaro Linux.
Most of the MinGW-w64 packages are not available at the official Arch repositories, but there is plenty in AUR. The default package manager for Arch (Pacman) does not support installation directly from AUR, so you will need to install and use an AUR wrapper like yay or yaourt. Then installing MinGW-w64 version of Qt5 and Boost libraries is as easy as:
yay -Sy mingw-w64-qt5-base mingw-w64-boost
#yaourt -Sy mingw-w64-qt5-base mingw-w64-qt5-boost #if you use yaourt
This will also install the MinGW-w64 toolchain (mingw-w64-gcc) and other dependencies.
Cross-compiling a Qt project for windows (x64) is then as simple as:
x86_64-w64-mingw32-qmake-qt5
make
To deploy your program you will need to copy corresponding dlls from /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bin/. For example, you will typically need to copy /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/qt/plugins/platforms/qwindows.dll to program.exe_dir/platforms/qwindows.dll.
To get a 32bit version you simply need to use i686-w64-mingw32-qmake-qt5 instead. Cmake-based projects work just as easily with x86_64-w64-mingw32-cmake.
This approach worked extremely well for me, was the easiest to set-up, maintain, and extend.
It also goes well with continuous integration services. There are docker images available too.
For example, let's say I want to build QNapi subtitle downloader GUI. I could do it in two steps:
Start the docker container:
sudo docker run -it burningdaylight/mingw-arch:qt /bin/bash
Clone and compile QNapi
git clone --recursive 'https://github.com/QNapi/qnapi.git'
cd qnapi/
x86_64-w64-mingw32-qmake-qt5
make
That's it! In many cases, it will be that easy. Adding your own libraries to the package repository (AUR) is also straightforward. You would need to write a PKBUILD file, which is as intuitive as it can get, see mingw-w64-rapidjson, for example.
Ok I think I've got it figured out.
Based in part on https://github.com/mxe/mxe/blob/master/src/qt.mk and https://www.videolan.org/developers/vlc/contrib/src/qt4/rules.mak
It appears that "initially" when you run configure (with -xtarget, etc.), it configures then runs your "hosts" gcc to build the local binary file ./bin/qmake
./configure -xplatform win32-g++ -device-option CROSS_COMPILE=$cross_prefix_here -nomake examples ...
then you run normal "make" and it builds it for mingw
make
make install
so
yes
only if you need to use something other than msvcrt.dll (its default). Though I have never used anything else so I don't know for certain.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/18792925/32453 lists some configure params.
In order to compile Qt, one must run it's configure script, specifying the host platform with -platform (e.g. -platform linux-g++-64 if you're building on a 64-bit linux with the g++ compiler) and the target platform with -xplatform (e.g. -xplatform win32-g++ if you're cross compiling to windows).
I've also added this flag:
-device-option CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-
which specifies the prefix of the toolchain I'm using, which will get prepended to 'gcc' or 'g++' in all the makefiles that are building binaries for windows.
Finally, you might get problems while building icd, which apparently is something that is used to add ActiveX support to Qt. You can avoid that by passing the flag -skip qtactiveqt to the configure script. I've got this one out of this bug report: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-38223
Here's the whole configure command I've used:
cd qt_source_directory
mkdir my_build
cd my_build
../configure \
-release \
-opensource \
-no-compile-examples \
-platform linux-g++-64 \
-xplatform win32-g++ \
-device-option CROSS_COMPILE=/usr/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32- \
-skip qtactiveqt \
-v
As for yout questions:
1 - Yes. The native compiler will be called in order to build some tools that are needed in the build process. Maybe things like qconfig or qmake, but I'm not entirely sure which tools, exactly.
2 - Sorry. I have no idea what specs files are in the context of compilers =/ . But as far as I know, you wouldn't have to deal with that.
3 - You can specify the cross compiler prefix in the configure command line instead of doing it in the qmake.conf file, as mentioned above. And there's also that problem with idc, whose workaround I've mentioned as well.

Resources