I am trying to figure out a bug (a serious performance downgrade). Unfortunately, I wasn't able to figure out why by going back many different versions of my code.
I am suspecting it could be some modifications to libraries that I've updated, not to mention in the meanwhile I've updated to GHC 7.6 from 7.4 (and if anybody knows if some laziness behavior has changed I would greatly appreciate it!).
I have an older executable of this code that does not have this bug and thus I wonder if there are any tools to tell me the library versions I was linking to from before? Like if it can figure out the symbols, etc.
GHC creates executables, which are notoriously hard to understand... On my Linux box I can view the assembly code by typing in
objdump -d <executable filename>
but I get back over 100K lines of code from just a simple "Hello, World!" program written in Haskell.
If you happen to have the GHC .hi files, you can get some information about the executable by typing in
ghc --show-iface <hi filename>
This won't give you the assembly code, but you can get some extra information that may prove useful.
As I mentioned in the comment above, on Linux you can use "ldd" to see what C-system libraries you used in the compile, but that is also probably less than useful.
You can try to use a disassembler, but those are generally written to disassemble to C, not anything higher level and certainly not Haskell. That being said, GHC compiles to C as an intermediary (at least it used to; has that changed?), so you might be able to learn something.
Personally I often find view system calls in action much more interesting than viewing pure assembly. On my Linux box, I can view all system calls by running using strace (use Wireshark for the network traffic equivalent):
strace <program executable>
This also will generate a lot of data, so it might only be useful if you know of some specific place where direct real world communication (i.e., changes to a file on the hard disk drive) goes wrong.
In all honesty, you are probably better off just debugging the problem from source, although, depending on the actual problem, some of these techniques may help you pinpoint something.
Most of these tools have Mac and Windows equivalents.
Since much has changed in the last 9 years, and apparently this is still the first result a search engine gives on this question (like for me, again), an updated answer is in order:
First of all, yes, while Haskell does not specify a bytecode format, bytecode is also just a kind of machine code, for a virtual machine. So for the rest of the answer I will treat them as the same thing. The “Core“ as well as the LLVM intermediate language, or even WASM could be considered equivalent too.
Secondly, if your old binary is statically linked, then of course, no matter the format your program is in, no symbols will be available to check out. Because that is what linking does. Even with bytecode, and even with just classic static #include in simple languages. So your old binary will be no good, no matter what. And given the optimisations compilers do, a classic decompiler will very likely never be able to figure out what optimised bits used to be partially what libraries. Especially with stream fusion and such “magic”.
Third, you can do the things you asked with a modern Haskell program. But you need to have your binaries compiled with -dynamic and -rdynamic, So not only the C-calling-convention libraries (e.g. .so), and the Haskell libraries, but also the runtime itself is dynamically loaded. That way you end up with a very small binary, consisting of only your actual code, dynamic linking instructions, and the exact data about what libraries and runtime were used to build it. And since the runtime is compiler-dependent, you will know the compiler too. So it would give you everything you need, but only if you compiled it right. (I recommend using such dynamic linking by default in any case as it saves memory.)
The last factor that one might forget, is that even the exact same compiler version might behave vastly differently, depending on what IT was compiled with. (E.g. if somebody put a backdoor in the very first version of GHC, and all GHCs after that were compiled with that first GHC, and nobody ever checked, then that backdoor could still be in the code today, with no traces in any source or libraries whatsoever. … Or for a less extreme case, that version of GHC your old binary was built with might have been compiled with different architecture options, leading to it putting more optimised instructions into the binaries it compiles for unless told to cross-compile.)
Finally, of course, you can profile even compiled binaries, by profiling their system calls. This will give you clues about which part of the code acted differently and how. (E.g. if you notice that your new binary floods the system with some slow system calls where the old one just used a single fast one. A classic OpenGL example would be using fast display lists versus slow direct calls to draw triangles. Or using a different sorting algorithm, or having switched to a different kind of data structure that fits your work load badly and thrashes a lot of memory.)
Related
Perhaps it's just better to describe my problem.
I'm developing a Haskell library. But part of the library is written in C, and another part actually in raw LLVM. To actually get GHC to spit out the code I want I have to follow this process:
Run ghc -emit-llvm on both the code that uses the Haskell module and the "Main" module.
Run clang -emit-llvm on the C file
Now I've got three .ll files from above. I add the part of the library I've handwritten in raw LLVM and llvm-link these into one .ll file.
I then run LLVM's opt on the linked file.
Lastly, I feed the LLVM bitcode fileback into GHC (which pleasantly accepts it) and produces an executable.
This process (with appropriate optimisation settings of course) seems to be the only way I can inline code from C, removing the function call overhead. Since many of these C functions are very small this is significant.
Anyway, I want to be able to distribute the library and for users to be able to use it as painlessly as possible, whilst still gaining the optimisations from the process above. I understand it's going to be a bit more of a pain than an ordinary library (for example, you're forced to compile via LLVM) but as painlessly as possible is what I'm looking for advice for.
Any guidance will be appreciated, I don't expect a step by step answer because I think it will be complex, but just some ideas would be helpful.
If I have a package with several executables, which I initially build using cabal build. Now I change one file that impacts just one executable, cabal seems to take about a second or two to examine each executable to see if it's impacted or not. On the other hand, make, given an equivalent number of executables and source files, will determine in a fraction of a second what needs to be recompiled. Why the huge difference? Is there a reason, cabal can't just build its own version of a makefile and go from there?
Disclaimer: I'm not familiar enough with Haskell or make internals to give technical specifics, but some web searching does offer some insight that lines up with my proposal (trying to avoid eliciting opinions by providing references). Also, I'm assuming your makefile is calling ghc, as cabal apparently would.
Proposal: I believe there could be several key reasons, but the main one is that make is written in C, whereas cabal is written in Haskell. This would be coupled with superior dependency checking from make (although I'm not sure how to prove this without looking at the source code). Other supporting reasons, as found on the web:
cabal tries to do a lot more than simply compiling, e.g. appears to take steps with regard to packaging (https://www.haskell.org/cabal/)
cabal is written in haskell, although the run time is written in C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Haskell_Compiler)
Again, not being overly familiar with make internals, make may simply have a faster dependency checking mechanism, thereby better tracking these changes. I point this out because from the OP it sounds like there is a significant enough difference to where cabal may be doing a blanket check against all dependencies. I suspect this would be the primary reason for the speed difference, if true.
At any rate, these are open source and can be downloaded from their respective sites (haskell.org/cabal/ and savannah.gnu.org/projects/make/) allowing anyone to examine specifics of the implementations.
It is also likely one could see a lot of variance in speed based upon the switches passed to the compilers in use.
HTH at least point you in the right direction.
I'm re-writing a build that produces a number of things (shared/static libraries, jars, executables, etc). The question came up whether there's a way to verify that the results are functionally equivalent without doing a full top-to-bottom test of the resulting software.
However, that is proving to be more difficult to do than I anticipated.
As an example, I expected that the md5 of two objects produced from the same source (sun studio C++ compiler) and command-line parameters would have the same md5 hash, but that isn't the case. I can build the file, rename it, build again, and they have different hashes.
With that said ... is there a way do a quick check to verify that two files produced from separate build architectures of the same source tree (eg, two shared objects) are functionally equivalent?
edit I am sorry, I neglected to mention this is for a debug build ... when debugging flags aren't used the binaries are identical, but they've been using debugging flags by default for so many years their stuff breaks when you remove the debugging flags (part of the reason I'm re-writing the build is to take that particular 'feature' out of the build so we can get some proper testing going)
Windows DLLs have a link timestamp (TimeDateStamp) as part of PE image.
Looking at linker options, I don't see an option to suppress that. So re-linking a DLL (or an EXE) will always produce a different binary.
You could write a tool to zero out these timestamps (always at a fixed offset from file start), and compare MD5s afterwards. But you'll likely discover lots of other differences as well. In particular, any program that uses __DATE__ or __TIME__ builtins will give you trouble.
We've had to work quite hard to achieve bit-identical rebuilds (using GNU toolchain). It's possible (at least for open-source tools, on Linux), but not easy (as you've discovered).
I forgot about this question; I'm revisiting so I can give the answer I came up with.
objcopy can be used to produce a new binary file in different formats. It's been a few years since I worked on this, so the specifics escape me, but here's what I recall:
objcopy can strip various things out (debug info, symbol information, etc), but even after stripping stuff out I was still seeing different hashes between objects.
In the end I found I could convert it from ELF to other formats. I ended up dumping it to another format (I think I chose SREC) that consistently provided the same MD5 for objects built at different times with identical source/flags.
I'm betting I could have done this a better way with objcopy (or perhaps another binutils tool), but it was good enough to satisfy our concerns.
Is a program shipped in assembler format portable between Linux distributions (modulo CPU architecture differences)?
Here's the background to my question: I'm working on a new programming language (named Aklo), whose modus operandi will be the classic compiling to .s and feeding the result to the GNU assembler.
Obviously it would be nice ultimately to have the implementation written in itself, but I had resigned myself to maintaining it in C++ to solve the chicken and egg problem: suppose you download the compiler for the first time and it is itself written in Aklo, how do you compile it? As I understand it, different Linux distributions and other UNIX like systems have different conventions for binary formats.
But it's just occurred to me, a solution might be to ship the .s file (well, one per CPU architecture): it's fair to assume you have or can install the GNU assembler. Of course I'd still need a bootstrap compiler, but that doesn't need to be fast; I can write it in Python.
Is assembler portable in the way that binaries are not? Are there any other stumbling blocks I haven't thought of?
Added in response to one answer:
I had looked wistfully at LLVM, there is certainly a lot of good stuff there and it would make my life easier -- except that it would incur a dependency on the correct version of LLVM being installed. It wouldn't be so bad having that dependency on development machines, but in a world where it's common to ship programs as source, the same dependency would be incurred for every user of every program ever written in Aklo, and I decided that was too high a price to pay.
But if the solution of shipping compiled programs as assembler works... then that solves that problem, and I can use LLVM after all, which would be a big win.
So the question about portability of assembler is even considerably more important than I had first realized.
Conclusion: from answers here and on the LLVM mailing list http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-January/028991.html it seems the bad news is the problem is unsolvable, but the good news is that means using LLVM makes it no worse, so I'm free to do so and obtain all the advantages thereof.
You might want to check out LLVM before going down this particular path. It might make your life a lot easier, as it provides a low level virtual machine that makes a lot of hard stuff just work and has been very popular.
At a very high level, the ABI consists of { instruction set, system calls, binary format, libraries }.
Distribution as .s may free you from the binary format. This is still rather pointless, because you are fixed to a particular ISA and still need to use libraries and/or make system calls. Libraries vary from distribution to distribution (although this isn't really that bad, especially if you just use libc) and syscalls vary from OS to OS.
It's basically 20 years since I last bootstrapped a C compiler. At the level of compilers, the differences between Linux distributions are minimal.
The much more important reason for going LLVM is cross-platform; if you're not writing some intermediate language, your compiler will be extremely difficult to retarget for different processors. And seeing as, on my laptop, I have compilers for x86, x86_64, two kinds of MIPS, PowerPC, ARM and AVR... you see where I'm going? I can compile multiple languages for most of those targets too (only C for AVR).
How to create a shared object that is statically linked with pthreads and libstdc++ on Linux/gcc?
Before I go to answering your question as it was described, I will note that it is not exactly clear what you are trying to achieve in the end, and there is probably a better solution to your problem.
That said - there are two main problems with trying to do what you described:
One is, that you will need to decompose libpthread and libstdc++ to the object files they are made with. This is because ELF binaries (used on Linux) have two levels of "run time" library loading - even when an executable is statically linked, the loader has to load the statically linked libraries within the binary on execution, and map the right memory addresses. This is done before the shared linkage of libraries that are dynamically loaded (shared objects) and mapped to shared memory. Thus, a shared object cannot be statically linked with such libraries, as at the time the object is loaded, all static linked libraries were loaded already. This is one difference between linking with a static library and a plain object file - a static library is not merely glued like any object file into the executable, but still contains separate tables which are referred to on loading. (I believe that this is in contrast to the much simpler static libraries in MS-DOS and classic Windows, .LIB files, but there may be more to those than I remember).
Of course you do not actually have to decompose libpthread and libstdc++, you can just use the object files generated when building them. Collecting them may be a bit difficult though (look for the objects referred to by the final Makefile rule of those libraries). And you would have to use ld directly and not gcc/g++ to link, to avoid linking with the dynamic versions as well.
The second problem is consequential. If you do the above, you will sure have such a shared object / dynamic library as you asked to build. However, it will not be very useful, as once you try to link a regular executable that uses those libpthread/libstdc++ (the latter being any C++ program) with this shared object, it will fail with symbol conflicts - the symbols of the static libpthread/libstdc++ objects you linked your shared object against will clash with the symbols from the standard libpthread/libstdc++ used by that executable, no matter if it is dynamically or statically linked with the standard libraries.
You could of course then try to either hide all symbols in the static objects from libstdc++/libpthread used by your shared library, make them private in some way, or rename them automatically on linkage so that there will be no conflict. However, even if you get that to work, you will find some undesireable results in runtime, since both libstdc++/libpthread keep quite a bit of state in global variables and structures, which you would now have duplicate and each unaware of the other. This will lead to inconsistencies between these global data and the underlying operating system state such as file descriptors and memory bounds (and perhaps some values from the standard C library such as errno for libstdc++, and signal handlers and timers for libpthread.
To avoid over-broad interpretation, I will add a remark: at times there can be sensible grounds for wanting to statically link against even such basic libraries as libstdc++ and even libc, and even though it is becoming a bit more difficult with recent systems and versions of those libraries (due to a bit of coupling with the loader and special linker tricks used), it is definitely possible - I did it a few times, and know of other cases in which it is still done. However, in that case you need to link a whole executable statically. Static linkage with standard libraries combined with dynamic linkage with other objects is not normally feasible.
Edit: One issue which I forgot to mention but is important to take into account is C++ specific. C++ was unfortunately not designed to work well with the classic model of object linkage and loading (used on Unix and other systems). This makes shared libraries in C++ not really portable as they should be, because a lot of things such as type information and templates are not cleanly separated between objects (often being taken, together with a lot of actual library code at compile time from the headers). libstdc++ for that reason is tightly coupled with GCC, and code compiled with one version of g++ will in general only work with the libstdc++ from with this (or a very similar) version of g++. As you will surely notice if you ever try to build a program with GCC 4 with any non-trivial library on your system that was built with GCC 3, this is not just libstdc++. If your reason for wanting to do that is trying to ensure that your shared object is always linked with the specific versions of libstdc++ and libpthread that it was built against, this would not help because a program that uses a different/incompatible libstdc++ would also be built with an incompatible C++ compiler or version of g++, and would thus fail to link with your shared object anyway, aside from the actual libstdc++ conflicts.
If you wonder "why wasn't this done simpler?", a general rumination worth pondering: For C++ to work nicely with dynamic/shared libraries (meaning compatibility across compilers, and the ability to replace a dynamic library with another version with a compatible interface without rebuilding everything that uses it), not just compiler standartization is needed, but at the level of the operating system's loader, the structure and interface of object and library files and the work of the linker would need to be significantly extended beyond the relatively simple Unix classics used on common operating systems (Microsoft Windows, Mach based systems and NeXTStep relatives such as Mac OS, VMS relatives and some mainframe systems also included) for natively built code today. The linker and dynamic loader would need to be aware of such things as templates and typing, having to some extent functionality of a small compiler to actually adapt the library's code to the type given to it - and (personal subjective observation here) it seems that higher-level intermediate intermediate code (together with higher-level languages and just-in-time compilation) is catching ground faster and likely to be standardized sooner than such extensions to the native object formats and linkers.
You mentioned in a separate comment that you are trying to port a C++ library to an embedded device. (I am adding a new answer here instead of editing my original answer here because I think other StackOverflow users interested in this original question may still be interested in that answer in its context)
Obviously, depending on how stripped down your embedded system is (I have not much embedded Linux experience, so I am not sure what is most likely), you may of course be able to just install the shared libstdc++ on it and dynamically link everything as you would do otherwise.
If dynamically linking with libstdc++ would not be good for you or not work on your system (there are so many different levels of embedded systems that one cannot know), and you need to link against a static libstdc++, then as I said, your only real option is static linking the executable using the library with it and libstdc++. You mentioned porting a library to the embedded device, but if this is for the purpose of using it in some code you write or build on the device and you do not mind a static libstdc++, then linking everything statically (aside from perhaps libc) is probably OK.
If the size of libstdc++ is a problem, and you find that your library is actually only using a small part of its interfaces, then I would nonetheless suggest first trying to determine the actual space you would save by linking against only the parts you need. It may be significant or not, I never looked that deep into libstdc++ and I suspect that it has a lot of internal dependencies, so while you surely do not need some of the interfaces, you may or may not still depend on a big part of its internals - I do not know and did not try, but it may surprise you. You can get an idea by just linking a binary using the library against a static build of it and libstdc++ (not forgetting to strip the binary, of course), and comparing the size of the resulting executable that with the total size of a (stripped) executable dynamically linked together with the full (stripped) shared objects of the library and libstdc++.
If you find that the size difference is significant, but do not want to statically link everything, you try to reduce the size of libstdc++ by rebuilding it without some parts you know that you do not need (there are configure-time options for some parts of it, and you can also try to remove some independent objects at the final creation of libstdc++.so. There are some tools to optimize the size of libraries - search the web (I recall one from a company named MontaVista but do not see it on their web site now, there are some others too).
Other than the straightforward above, some ideas and suggestions to think of:
You mentioned that you use uClibc, which I never fiddled with myself (my experience with embedded programming is a lot more primitive, mostly involving assembly programming for the embedded processor and cross-compiling with minimal embedded libraries). I assume you checked this, and I know that uClibc is intended to be a lightweight but rather full standard C library, but do not forget that C++ code is hardly independent on the C library, and g++ and libstdc++ depend on quite some delicate things (I remember problems with libc on some proprietary Unix versions), so I would not just assume that g++ or the GNU libstdc++ actually works with uClibc without trying - I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the uClibc pages.
Also, if this is an embedded system, think of its performance, compute power, overall complexity, and timing/simplicity/solidity requirements. Take into consideration the complexity involved, and think whether using C++ and threads is appropriate in your embedded system, and if nothing else in the system uses those, whether it is worth introducing for that library. It may be, not knowing the library or system I cannot tell (again, embedded systems being such a wide range nowadays).
And in this case also, just a quick link I stumbled upon looking for uClibc -- if you are working on an embedded system, using uClibc, and want to use C++ code on it -- take a look at uClibc++. I do not know how much of the standard C++ stuff you need and it already supports, and it seems to be an ongoing project, so not clear if it is in a state good enough for you already, but assuming that your work is also under development still, it might be a good alternative to GCC's libstdc++ for your embedded work.
I think this guy explains quite well why that wouldn't make sense. C++ code that uses your shared object but a different libstdc++ would link alright, but wouldn't work.