I downloaded a binary file that was compiled (a C program) using GCC 4.4.4 for x86-64 Red Hat Linux.
Is it normal that when I try to run it on a Mac OS X (running Lion so also x86-64) running GCC 4.2.1 that it would say: cannot execute binary file? It can't detect it as a binary file.
Why would it do that? I believe the gcc version has nothing to do with that since the file has already been compiled. It has been compiled for x86-64 of which both machines run. Can someone please explain?
There are different binary formats. Linux systems use ELF for executables and libraries, but Mac OS X uses the Mach-O format. Windows uses another still: PE format.
It's highly unlikely that a binary compiled for a particular OS will run on another. Either get a binary for Mac, or get the source and compile it yourself.
There are many things that will cause issues - version of libc and libstdc++, there can be difference in versions of .so libraries - different API interface to the OS itself. Or even a different binary format (ie VMS binaries do not run on AIX).
Although Rad Hat Linux and Mac OS X are both 'Unix based', they cannot run each other's binaries. Just like you can't run Windows binaries on Macs and vice versa.
binaries in this sense are compiled to make operating system calls, when your program has a printf() that boils down to operating system calls. If the operating system it was compiled for is say a 64 bit redhat linux then that likely means the binary is going to look for redhat linux names for shared libraries in redhat linux paths. Which has absolutely nothing in any way shape or form to do with a completely different operating system, Mac OS X, and its system calls and shared or static libraries, etc. Its like taking a wheel off of a mini cooper and trying to bolt it onto a bicycle. Yes at one point in time it was raw metal and rubber, and could have been formed into a bike tire. But once you make that binary, the car tire or the bike tire, that is what it is. sometimes you find an emulator like wine that emulates windows on top of a posix system. or a virtual machine like vmware that lets you run a whole different operating system on top of another by virtualizing a whole computer.
it is also true that you cannot generally expect to take any old C program and have it compile and run on any operating system that say has a gcc compiler. yes you can learn to write c programs that are portable, but you have to carefully stick to libraries that are supported on all the target platforms. so even taking the source code for your program to the mac and compiling it is not necessarily going to just work.
Related
Is it possible to write a program (make executable) that runs on windows and linux without any interpreters?
Will it be able to take input and print output to console?
A program that runs directly on hardware, pure machine code as this should be possible in theory
edit:
Ok, file formats are different, system calls are different
But how hard or is it possible for kernel developers to introduce another executable format called raw for fun and science? Maybe raw program wont be able to report back but it should be able to inflict heavy load on cpu and raise its temperature as evidence of running for example
Is it possible to write a program (make executable) that runs on windows and linux without any interpreters?
in practice, no !
Levine's book Linkers and loaders explain why it is not possible in practice.
On recent Linux, an executable has the elf(5) format.
On Windows, it has some PE format.
The very first bytes of executables are different. And these two OSes have different system calls. The Linux ones are listed in syscalls(2).
And even on Linux, in practice, an executable is usually dynamically linked and depends on shared objects (and they are different from one distribution to the next one, so it is likely that an executable built for Debian/Testing won't run on Redhat). You could use the objdump(1), readelf(1), ldd(1) commands to inspect it, and strace(1) with gdb(1) to observe its runtime behavior.
Portability of software is often achieved by publishing it (in source form) with some open source license. The burden of recompilation is then on the shoulders of users.
In practice, real software (in particular those with a graphical user interface) depends on lots of OS specific and computer specific resources (e.g. fonts, screen size, colors) and user preferences.
A possible approach could be to have a small OS specific software base which generate machine code at runtime, like e.g. SBCL or LuaJit does. You could also consider using asmjit. Another approach is to generate opaque or obfuscated C or C++ code at runtime, compile it (with the system compiler), and load it -at runtime- as a plugin. On Linux, use dlopen(3) with dlsym(3).
Pitrat's book: Artificial Beings, the conscience of a conscious machine describes a software system (some artificial mathematician) which generates all of its C source code (half a million lines). Contact me by email to basile#starynkevitch.net for more.
The Wine emulator allows you to run some (but not all) simple Windows executables on Linux. The WSL layer is rumored to enable you to run some Linux executable on Windows.
PS. Even open source projects like RefPerSys or GCC or Qt may be (and often are) difficult to build.
No, mainly because executable formats are different, but...
With some care, you can use mostly the same code to create different executables, one for Linux and another one for windows. Depending on what you consider an interpreter Java also runs on both Windows and Linux (in a Java Virtual Machine though).
Also, it is possible to create scripts that can be interpreted both by PowerShell and by the Bash shell, such that running one of these scripts could launch a proper application compiled for the OS of the user.
You might require the windows user to run on WSL, which is maybe an ugly workaround but allows you to have the same executable for both Windows and Linux users.
Is it possible to create a Linux compatibility layer inside OS X?
Someone have created xbinary, which is essentially an OS X port of binfmt_misc as a kext, here: http://www.osxbook.com/software/xbinary/. Extending from the idea here, I am guessing if it is possible to create a Linux compatibility layer inside OS X:
xbinary is obviously what makes the kernel accepts ELF. When an ELF is encountered ...
A port of ld-linux.so which itself is a Mach-O binary is started, loading ELF libraries (Mach-O libraries can also be used, to some extent).
Another kext that catches Linux syscalls (int 80h on x86 and amd64 systems) and translates them into corresponding OS X syscalls in kernel, or let the ld-linux.so replace all syscalls with a small function call in another library that translates them in userland.
I think you would also need to make OS X support Linux personality so that the syscalls behave identically to those of Linux (if present)
Other than that a binary might depend on a VDSO shim present in higher randges of address space, which is usually taken care of by libc implementation on Linux
Many other subtleties are possible...
I think it's not posssible because mac has a different structure than linux.
Going thru the ARMv8 manual, I have the following questions to help understand the big picture.
Can legacy 32 bit app. (ARMv7 or earlier) run as is on the ARMv8 OS?
If the legacy applications need to be rebuilt for ARMv8 and assuming that I rebuild the application as 32 bit (Aarch32), does this need 32 bit OS underlying support? (It is interesting to know how the addressing mechanism works here.)
Please provide references wherever possible.
PS: I am targeting Linux OS with Aarch64 support (3.7 and later)
Aarch64 platform may run 32bit ARM but this compatibility is optional.
To run AArch32 binaries you need all libraries application would use in 32bit versions. Same as with i686 binaries on x86-64 systems.
There is also a Linux arm64 CONFIG_COMPAT at: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v4.17/arch/arm64/Kconfig#L1274 which says:
This option enables support for a 32-bit EL0 running under a 64-bit
kernel at EL1. AArch32-specific components such as system calls,
the user helper functions, VFP support and the ptrace interface are
handled appropriately by the kernel.
which will likely be required, and an ARM employee mentioned on this thread: https://community.arm.com/processors/f/discussions/5535/running-armv7-binaries-on-armv8 that userland instructions are basically the same with some exceptions:
For something like a Linux application, then yes. ARMv8-A includes AArch32, which provides backwards compatibility with ARMv7-A. There are some limitations, such as the SWP instruction no longer being supported. But these are types of things that applications are unlikely to be using (and were deprecated in ARMv7).
For baremetal, you have all the usual problems of using a binary from one platform on another. So you are going to need to do some degree of porting in most cases.
I then tried it for myself with this QEMU full system setup but my attempt failed: I compiled a C hello world with the armv7 compiler as:
arm-linux-gcc -static hello_world.c
and put the built file into the aarch64 target, but when I tried to run it it failed with:
a.out: line 1: syntax error: unexpected word (expecting ")")
even though /proc/config.gz says that CONFIG_COMPAT is set.
It seems that the Linux kernel is not identifying it as an ELF file but rather falling back to /bin/sh, I get the same error if I do:
sh /mnt/9p/a.out
is trying to use the shell binfmt instead of ELF.
In particular, I know that the Linux kernel can choose between archs from the binfmt signature because qemu-user does so: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/41889/how-can-i-chroot-into-a-filesystem-with-a-different-architechture
As all Linux distributions use the same kernel, is there any difference between their executable binary files?
If yes, what are the main differences? Or does that mean we can build a universal linux executable file?
All Linux distributions use the same binary format ELF, but there is still some differences:
different cpu arch use different instruction set.
the same cpu arch may use different ABI, ABI defines how to use the register file, how to call/return a routine. Different ABI can not work together.
Even on same arch, same ABI, this still does not mean we can copy one binary file in a distribution to another. Since most binary files are not statically linked, so they depends on the libraries under the distribution, which means different distribution may use different versions or different compilation configuration of libraries.
So if you want your program to run on all distribution, you may have to statically link a version that depends on the kernel's syscall only, even this you can only run a specified arch.
If you really want to run a program on any arch, then you have to compile binaries for all arches, and use a shell script to start up the right one.
All Linux ports (that is, the Linux kernel on different processors) use ELF as the file format for executables and libraries. A specific ELF binary is labeled with a single architecture/OS on which it can run (although some OSes have compatibility to run ELF binaries from other OSes).
Most ports have support for the older a.out format. (Some processors are new enough that there have never existed any a.out executables for them.)
Some ports support other executable file formats as well; for example, the PA-RISC port has support for HP-UX's old SOM executables, and the μcLinux (nonmmu) ports support their own FLAT format.
Linux also has binfmt_misc, which allows userspace to register handlers for arbitrary binary formats. Some distributions take advantage of this to be able to execute Windows, .NET, or Java applications -- it's really still launching an interpreter, but it's completely transparent to the user.
Linux on Alpha has support for loading Intel binaries, which are run via the em86 emulator.
It's possible to register binfmt_misc for executables of other architectures, to be run with qemu-user.
In theory, one could create a new format -- perhaps register a new "architecture" in ELF -- for fat binaries. Then the kernel binfmt loader would have to be taught about this new format, and you wouldn't want to miss the ld-linux.so dynamic linker and the whole build toolchain. There's been little interest in such a feature, and as far as I know, nobody is working on anything like it.
Almost all linux program files use the ELF standard.
Old Unixes also used COFF format. You may still find executables from times of yore in this format. Linux still has support for it (I don't know if it's compiled in current distros, though).
If you want to create a program that runs an all Linux distributions, you can consider using scripting languages (like Python and Perl) or a platform independent programming language like Java.
Programs written in scripting languages are complied at execution time, which means they are always compiled to match the platform they are executed on, and, hence, should always work (given that the libraries are set up properly).
Programs written in Java, on the other hand, are compiled before distributing them, but can be executed on any Linux distribution as long as it has a Java VM installed.
Furthermore, programs written in Java can be run on other operating systems like MS Windows and Mac OS.
The same is true for many programs written in Python and Perl; however, whether a Python or Perl program will work on another operating system depends on what libraries are used by that program and whether these libraries are available on the other operating systems.
I'm currently in the process of learning assembly language.
I'm using Gas on Linux Mint (32-bit). Using this book:
Programming from the Ground Up.
The machine I'm using has an AMD Turion 64 bit processor, but I'm limited to 2 GB of RAM.
I'm thinking of upgrading my Linux installation to the 64-bit version of Linux Mint, but I'm worried that because the book is targeted at 32-bit x86 architecture that the code examples won't work.
So two questions:
Is there likely to be any problems with the code samples?
Has anyone here noticed any benefits in general in using 64-bit Linux over 32-bit (I've seen some threads on Stack Overflow about this but they are mostly related to Windows Vista vs. Windows XP.)
Your code examples should all still work. 64-bit processors and operating systems can still run 32-bit code in a sort of "compatability mode". Your assembly examples are no different. You may have to provide an extra line of assembly or two (such as .BITS 32) but that's all.
In general, using a 64-bit OS will be faster than using a 32-bit OS. x86_64 has more registers than i386. Since you're working on assembly, you already know what registers are used for... Having more of them means less stuff has to be moved on and off the stack (and other temporary memory) thus your program spends less time managing data and more time working on that data.
Edit: To compile 32-bit code on 64-bit linux using gas, you just use the commandline argument "--32", as noted in the GAS manual
Even if you run Linux 64bit, it is possible to compile and run 32bit binaries on it. I don't know how good Mint's support for that is, I assume you should check.
64bit assembler however is not fully compatible to 32bit, for example you have different (more) registers. There are some specific instructions not available on either platform.
I would say the move to 64bit is not a big deal. You can still write 32bit assembly and then perhaps try to get it also running as 64bit (shouldn't be too hard), as a source of even more programming/learning fun.
Usually 32-bits is plenty so only use 64-bits or more if you really NEED IT.
Best to decide prior to programming if you want to do it as a 32-bit app or
a 64-bit app and then stick to it as mixed mode debugging ca get tricky fast.