How can I link a shared library function statically in gcc?
Refer to:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/forcing-static-linking-of-shared-libraries-696714/
You need the static version of the library to link it.
A shared library is actually an executable in a special format
with entry points specified (and some sticky addressing issues
included). It does not have all the information needed to
link statically.
You can't statically link a shared library (or dynamically link a static one).
The flag -static will force the linker to use static libraries (.a) instead of shared (.so) ones. But static libraries aren't always installed by default, so you may have to install the static library yourself.
Another possible approach is to use statifier or Ermine. Both tools take as input a dynamically linked executable and as output create a self-contained executable with all shared libraries embedded.
If you want to link, say, libapplejuice statically, but not, say, liborangejuice, you can link like this:
gcc object1.o object2.o -Wl,-Bstatic -lapplejuice -Wl,-Bdynamic -lorangejuice -o binary
There's a caveat -- if liborangejuice uses libapplejuice, then libapplejuice will be dynamically linked too.
You'll have to link liborangejuice statically alongside with libapplejuice to get libapplejuice static.
And don't forget to keep -Wl,-Bdynamic else you'll end up linking everything static, including libc (which isn't a good thing to do).
Yeah, I know this is an 8 year-old question, but I was told that it was possible to statically link against a shared-object library and this was literally the top hit when I searched for more information about it.
To actually demonstrate that statically linking a shared-object library is not possible with ld (gcc's linker) -- as opposed to just a bunch of people insisting that it's not possible -- use the following gcc command:
gcc -o executablename objectname.o -Wl,-Bstatic -l:libnamespec.so
(Of course you'll have to compile objectname.o from sourcename.c, and you should probably make up your own shared-object library as well. If you do, use -Wl,--library-path,. so that ld can find your library in the local directory.)
The actual error you receive is:
/usr/bin/ld: attempted static link of dynamic object `libnamespec.so'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Hope that helps.
If you have the .a file of your shared library (.so) you can simply include it with its full path as if it was an object file, like this:
This generates main.o by just compiling:
gcc -c main.c
This links that object file with the corresponding static library and creates the executable (named "main"):
gcc main.o mylibrary.a -o main
Or in a single command:
gcc main.c mylibrary.a -o main
It could also be an absolute or relative path:
gcc main.c /usr/local/mylibs/mylibrary.a -o main
A bit late but ... I found a link that I saved a couple of years ago and I thought it might be useful for you guys:
CDE: Automatically create portable Linux applications
http://www.pgbovine.net/cde.html
Just download the program
Execute the binary passing as a argument the name of the binary you want make portable, for example: nmap
./cde_2011-08-15_64bit nmap
The program will read all of libs linked to nmap and its dependencias and it will save all of them in a folder called cde-package/ (in the same directory that you are).
Finally, you can compress the folder and deploy the portable binary in whatever system.
Remember, to launch the portable program you have to exec the binary located in cde-package/nmap.cde
Best regards
In gcc, this isn't supported. In fact, this isn't supported in any existing compiler/linker i'm aware of.
Related
A cleaned up version of my compile command looks like gcc -o semantic_seg -Wl,-rpath,... -l:libnvrtc-5e8a26c9.so.10.1 ... and I have a dynamic library file named exactly libnvrtc-5e8a26c9.so.10.1 in the directory specified by the -rpath flag. The command succeeds.
When I go to run my program, it says semantic_seg: error while loading shared libraries: libnvrtc.so.10.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory and when I do ldd it shows libnvrtc.so.10.1 => not found.
So the problem looks like the name of the shared library in the executable is not the same as the filename. Could that be true? Did the 5e8a26c9 part of the name somehow get stripped off?
Update: Creating a symbolic link libnvrtc-5e8a26c9.so.10.1 -> libnvrtc.so.10.1 allows the executable to run. But I'm still not sure the mechanism that causes this name modification to happen. It seems a bit magic.
Could that be true?
This is often true.
On ELF systems, the linker uses SONAME of the library (if it has one) and not its filename to record a runtime dependency.
Running readelf -d libnvrtc-5e8a26c9.so.10.1 | grep SONAME will likely show that in fact that library does have SONAME, and the value of SONAME is libnvrtc.so.10.1.
This used to be very convenient for external library versioning.
Update:
it allows you to link against a library which will be different than the one which will used at run time, but why would I ever want that?
Like I said, it's useful for external library versioning and ABI evolution.
Suppose you ship version 1.0 of libfoo.so. You provide libfoo.so as a symlink to libfoo.so.1, and you use libfoo.so.1 as SONAME.
Any program that links with gcc main.c -lfoo (note: no funny -l:libfoo.so.1 syntax required) will record libfoo.so.1 as its external dependency, and will use that name at runtime.
Time passes, and you are ready to ship version 2, which is not ABI-compatible.
You don't want to cause all your end-users to change their link line, and you don't want to break any existing binaries.
With the SONAME, this is trivial: new package will include libfoo.so.2 with SONAME of libfoo.so.2, and a symlink libfoo.so now pointing to libfoo.so.2.
Voila: both requirements are achieved: existing binaries continue to use libfoo.so.1, newly-linked binaries use libfoo.so.2, no Makefile changes required.
Context: I'm using a linux toolchain (includes g++, other build tools, libs, headers, etc) to build my code with statically linked libraries. I want to ensure that I'm using ONLY libraries/headers from my toolchain, not the default ones on the build machine. I can use strace to see what g++ is doing (which libraries it is using) while it is compiling which would be helpful in a normal scenario - but my build system has many wrappers around g++ that hide all of the output.
Question: is there a way to obtain from a statically-linked binary any useful information regarding the library and header files which were used to create the binary? I've taken a look at the objdump tool but I'm not sure if it will help much.
Just pass -v to g++ or gcc at link time. It will show all the linked libraries. Perhaps try make CC='gcc -v' CXX='g++ -v'
More generally, -v passed g++ or gcc shows you the underlying command with its arguments because gcc or g++ is just a driver program (starting cc1, ld or collect2, as, ...)
By passing the -H flag to GCC (i.e. g++ or gcc) you can see every included header. So you can check that only the heanders you expect are included.
You cannot see what static library has been linked, because linking a static library just means linking the relevant object file members in it, so a static library can (and usually is) linked in only partly.
You could use the nm command to find names from such libraries.
If you can simply recompile, then there are ways (using some of the techniques that Basile explained) to get the headers and libraries (static or dynamic) but, unfortunately, there is no way to know which libraries were used after the compilation is complete.
Some linux apps like supertuxkart or regnum online have static binaries, which after downloading just work without needing to install any shared library. On every distro. How can I make such an app?
Ensure that all your resources are contained in the executable and link the executable statically:
gcc -o foo main.o -static -lbaz -lbar
However, this also has drawbacks. Look up dynamic linking.
When I link executable elf file dynamically it needs libc.so.6 shared library.
When I link executable elf file statically it doesn't need libc.so.6 shared library (it's not surprise).
Does it mean, that to assemble executable file with --static, linker includes libc.so.6 in it?
If not - what file does linker include? where can I search it?
As far as I know, linker includes static libraries in statically assembled file.
If you link as static, the linker will link all the needed object (.o) files from the static libraries (.a). For example, the following command lists the object files which are included in the libc6 library:
ar t /usr/lib/libc.a
(the exact path to libc.a of course differs from system to system)
So answer to your question is no, it will not link the whole libc6 library, but only the needed object files. And also, it doesn't do anything with libc.so.6, since this is only for dynamic linking. It works with the libc.a - static version of the library.
According to #janneb comment, the smallest unit to be linked is "section", so it might not even need to link the whole object files.
The linker is the ld command. If you use that command, it does what you ask. Notice that GNU ld can accept scripts
However, most people are using the gcc command. This is a compiler from the Gnu Compiler Collection suite. Actually, the gcc command is just a driver program, which will run cc1 (the proper C compiler), as, ld and collect2 (which deals with initializations, etc. then invoke the linker).
To understand what exact command[s] gcc is running, pass it the -v program flag.
When you pass -static to gcc it will probably link with e.g. /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.a or some other static form of the GNU Libc library.
I'm building a library that needs to be dynamically linked to my project. The output is a .so file, so I think I'm on the right track. I'm concerned by the way it's being linked at compile time - by specifying the location of its makefile and depending on a bunch of macros, which I've never encountered before.
Can I assume that since I'm building a .so library (rather than a .a) that I'm in fact dynamically linking? Or is it possible for .so libs to be statically linked, in which case I need to rip apart the make/config files to better understand what's going on?
Thanks,
Andrew
I'm not familiar with internal structure of executables and shared objects, so I could only give some practical hints.
Assuming you use gcc, it should have -shared option when linking object files into library - this way ld (called by gcc) makes shared object instead of executable binary.
gcc -shared -o libabc.so *.o ...
When you link some application with this libabc.so it should link without errors and after that with ldd command you should be able to see libabc.so among its dependencies.
$ ldd app
...
libabc.so => ...............