I am compiling my Rust code to be used as a CLI.
I want it installable on the widest possible range of x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu based systems, particularly Ubuntu's.
I am using a docker base image FROM rust:latest for builds, but this compile-host has glibc v2.29.
When I try to run the binary on another Debian system with (Debian GLIBC 2.28-10) 2.28 it exits with an error:
clix: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.29' not found (required by clix)
So does this mean I need to compile on an old Ubuntu (ubuntu:16.04) to support Ubuntu 16 and newer?
Is there a an alternative where I can compile on rust:latest and have my binary work on old Ubuntu OS's?
Related:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Glibc%20Timeline
https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/libc6
So does this mean I need to compile on an old Ubuntu (ubuntu:16.04) to support Ubuntu 16 and newer?
This is the simplest solution.
Is there a an alternative where I can compile on rust:latest and have my binary work on old Ubuntu OS's?
Yes: you can build yourself a Linux-to-older-Linux cross-compiler, and use it to build your binary on rust:latest. This isn't entirely trivial thing to do, and usually "build on older" is the more straightforward solution.
I'm getting the following when running my closed-source app on target machine which uses older OS than mine:
./myapp: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.20' not found (required by ./myapp)
./myapp: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `CXXABI_1.3.8' not found (required by ./myapp)
./myapp: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.21' not found (required by ./myapp)
Is there any way to lower required libstdc and libstdc++ versions or bypass this check at all without moving my build server to older OS (which I find very frustrating), as well as without statical linking against libstdc (which seems to be prohibited by license)?
I have already checked Linking against an old version of libc to provide greater application coverage, but this only explains how to do that for some specifical symbol, while I need to do that for every symbol imported by my app from glibc.
To avoid these undefined symbols, you really have to compile with a different GCC version.
If you do not want to downgrade to a historic GCC version, several distributions now offer newer GCC versions for older distributions, such as SUSE with the Toolchain Module and Red Hat with Developer Toolset. These compilers provider a compatible ABI, so integration with the operating system is relatively painless.
I have problem using gcc/g++ after I changed the machine I use,
I installed gcc-4.9.2 in my previous machine, when I moved to the new machine, I copied gcc folder to the new machine.
When I try to use I get this error :
/data/obenchek/gcc-4.9.2/bin/g++: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by /data/obenchek/gcc-4.9.2/bin/g++)
I have already checked this question :
`GLIBC_2.11' not found
If it says right, the version of libc and g++ are not compatible , libc version :
/lib/libc.so.6
GNU C Library stable release version 2.4 (20090904), by Roland McGrath et al.
...
So I should reinstall gcc completely or there is a easier way to resolve this ??
I copied gcc folder to the new machine.
That's your problem: don't copy, install appropriate GCC package instead.
Most UNIX systems, including Linux, guarantee backward compatibility: a binary compiled on an older system continues to run on a newer one.
The reverse is not true: a binary compiled on a newer system often will not run on an older one. This is working "as designed".
In this particular instance, you copied GCC compiled with GLIBC-2.11 or newer to a machine that has GLIBC-2.10 or older. And that doesn't work.
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.
I have a c++11 library ( https://github.com/matiu2/cdnalizer ). I want to distribute it on centos6 and ubuntu12.04 LTS.
It compiles happily on Ubuntu 13.10 and Gentoo.
I tried compiling with as much staticness as I could, but it still depends on a glibc that centos doesn't have:
matiu#matiu-laptop:~/projects/cdnalizer/build/src/apache$ readelf -d mod_cdnalizer.so | grep NEED
0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libapr-1.so.0]
0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libstdc++.so.6]
0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libgcc_s.so.1]
0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.6]
0x000000006ffffffe (VERNEED) 0xd520
0x000000006fffffff (VERNEEDNUM) 3
build line:
/usr/bin/g++ -fPIC -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/c++/4.8 -Wall -Wextra -g -shared -Wl,-soname,mod_cdnalizer.so -o mod_cdnalizer.so CMakeFiles/mod_cdnalizer.dir/mod_cdnalizer.cpp.o CMakeFiles/mod_cdnalizer.dir/config.cpp.o CMakeFiles/mod_cdnalizer.dir/filter.cpp.o ../libbase.a -lapr-1
I have tried compiling gcc-4.8.2 on centos, but the binaries it produces have similar glibc dependencies:
[root#matt src]# ./test_config
./test_config: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.14' not found (required by ./test_config)
./test_config: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.15' not found (required by ./test_config)
I heard that you can't escape glibc dependencies for shared libraries because c++ throws excoptions and so needs the shared libstdc++ (but my lib doesn't throw exceptions across the library boundary).
I also heard that you can't link in glibc statically because the static lib was not compiled with -fPIC.
My main question is:
How can I distribute my c++11 shared library on centos6 ?
My sub questions are:
Can I compile a c++11 shared library on ubuntu 13.10, and have it load on centos6 (and older ubuntus) ? how ?
Can I compile a c++11 shared library on centos6 and have it work on standard centos installs ?
(Don't worry about Apache2.2 vs 2.4 dependency .. that's the easy bit)
Can I compile a c++11 shared library on centos6 and have it work on standard centos installs ?
If you can't build your code with the standard CentOS 6 g++/glibc/libstdc++, then no, it's not going to run on standard CentOS 6 installs.
The CentOS distro is for long term support (LTS). Critical bugs get fixed with updates, but software otherwise doesn't change, usually. This is a feature. Even with 3rd party repositories (e.g. EPEL), the available software for CentOS isn't really recent.
Can I compile a c++11 shared library on ubuntu 13.10, and have it load on centos6 (and older ubuntus) ? how ?
If you can compile it using the g++ 4.4 toolchain, sure. In this case, you cannot use a more advanced compiler. A quick search on Ubuntu's 12.04 LTS package list shows libstdc++6-4.5-dbg using a version of libstdc++.so.6 which would be backward incompatible, based on error messages above.
How can I distribute my c++11 shared library on centos6 ?
As you've shown above, you'll have at least one updated dependency (libstdc++.so.6) that you'll need to ship with your library, and install in some odd location, with it's attendant headaches (LD_LIBRARY_PATH, what happens to any other C++ plugins, etc.). And update at some point.
Some enterprise users would object to something like this, mainly because it doesn't mesh well with the existing OS.
Statically linking in dependencies (like in Ali's answer with the Developer Toolset below) could work also. It's also not without problems (updates to dependencies again), but might be the best chance for your code to work on CentOS 6.
I see from comments to Ali's answer, that devtools 1 (gcc 4.7.0) didn't work, making it unlikely that devtools 1.1 would work. So it seems you do need C++11 support up to the level of gcc 4.8 in this case.
Your problem has nothing to do with GLIBC.
Your problem is that libstdc++.so.6 on the CentOS6 is too old.
According to distrowatch, CentOS 6.5 shipped with GCC 4.4.7. C++11 support was mostly complete in GCC 4.8, and in 4.4 had only incomplete support.
If you can build your library with GCC 4.4.7, then it should work (provided you build it on an old enough system). If you can't, then you'll have to update GCC on your target CentOS system.
Alternatively, you can distribute a newer version of libstdc++.so.6 (one from GCC 4.8), install it in non-default location, and ask your customers to link against that newer version (either via LD_LIBRARY_PATH, or better by supplying appropriate -Wl,-rpath=... option at link time).
In short:
Things are only backward compatible. You need to pick the oldest
release of the distro you want to support and build on
that. The later releases of that distro will most likely be backward
compatible so your shared library will do just fine on later releases.
You either need to build the compiler with C++11 support from source or install it from some repo of the distro. Prefer the latter if possible due to compatibility issues.
Any non-system library should be statically linked into your shared
library: -Wl,--static -lmylib1 -lmylib2 -Wl,--dynamic. The important here is that -Wl,--dynamic is at the end, after all statically linked stuff.
I haven't tried it myself but my colleague who does this routinely says:
Use CentOS 6.5 (the latest of the 6.x versions as of writing).
Install devtools / Developer Toolset. The compatibility issues are supposed to be resolved by special, patched version of the developer tools. Developer Toolset 2.1 Beta comes with gcc 4.8.
Link statically all third party libraries and libstdc++. However, do not
link glibc and other system libraries statically that are supposed to be on the target machine
anyway.
The programs that my colleague compiles this way work on my Ubuntu machine just fine. (He uses CentOS 5.10, which seems to be the oldest, still supported distro that has glibc 2.5.)
Hope this helps.