Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Community » Coffee corner » should ultimate++ support dynamically linked libraries?
should ultimate++ support dynamically linked libraries? [message #41384] Mon, 09 December 2013 20:38 Go to next message
piotr5 is currently offline  piotr5
Messages: 101
Registered: November 2005
Experienced Member

should we switch to the no-static paradigm?[ 8 votes ]
1. yes 2 / 25%
2. no 4 / 50%
3. don't care 2 / 25%

I stumbled upon this:
http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html
and it made me think, maybe ultimate++ isn't all that good when it comes to dynamically linked stuff? several external packages are getting built statically into upp apps, upgrading them in the system will not upgrade them in u++. this is an important thing to consider. also I didn't think of how nice it must be for attackers when everything has a static address. but this and the other arguments on that site IMHO are not really important for c++ development. even without namespace, templated class-members are unlikely to name-clash. randomized data and code address could probably be implemented with some specialized lib. (create several functions with a template and overwrite them randomly at run-time.) also that site nicely says that within the same project you'd better use static linking.

however, theide basically assumes all the libs you will use are available as u++ packages, therefore no support for external help-systems and no priority to scanning headers outside of the nest. also building and installing of shared libs isn't that easy to accomplish. should this approach be changed?
Re: should ultimate++ support dynamically linked libraries? [message #41386 is a reply to message #41384] Tue, 10 December 2013 15:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12098
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
piotr5 wrote on Mon, 09 December 2013 14:38

I stumbled upon this:
http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html
and it made me think, maybe ultimate++ isn't all that good when it comes to dynamically linked stuff? several external packages are getting built statically into upp apps, upgrading them in the system will not upgrade them in u++.



Contra-argument is that upgrading them would not break existing apps... Smile

However, in POSIX, U++ is using external dynamically linked apps where possible (e.g. SSL, zlib, ...). What is not quite supported is e.g. transforming U++ itself into dynamic library. It is mostly because C++ API is relatively hard to maintain and we prefer modularity there.

Mirek
Re: should ultimate++ support dynamically linked libraries? [message #41387 is a reply to message #41384] Tue, 10 December 2013 22:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 890
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
At some point Ubuntu got a new version of libc (I believe that was version 12.04), and my shared hosting provider kept the old one, so I had to create a VM with older version of Ubuntu to be able to compile and run my app with my hosting provider. I personally would prefer to be able to link it 100% statically on Linux.

And dynamic libraries is a back door for hakers. They allow to install hooks on Windows and use LD_PRELOAD on Linux.

Upp apps are small. Static linking makes them also fast. Smile


Regards,
Novo
Re: should ultimate++ support dynamically linked libraries? [message #41818 is a reply to message #41387] Sun, 26 January 2014 13:37 Go to previous message
akspring is currently offline  akspring
Messages: 8
Registered: September 2013
Location: WA
Promising Member
Novo wrote on Tue, 10 December 2013 22:50


And dynamic libraries is a back door for hakers. They allow to install hooks on Windows and use LD_PRELOAD on Linux.

Upp apps are small. Static linking makes them also fast. Smile


From what I understand, dlls, vlc controls, and anything like chromium and ie controls are equivalent to handing your computer over to military trained cyborg ninja assassins from the future. You may as well forget about security if you include these common place controls. And they are everywhere.

I like to think U++ apps by themselves would be safe to use, but its really just a guess. I use Windows, so security for me and everyone else is really a joke. Same with Linux.

I don't think anyone cares about that much, so whats left is what will make U++ great? - I think its size, speed, and portability. With 7z/LZMA2, I can get a 15mb U++ application with debug info down to 1.8mb.

And 7z is really garbage when compared to costly closed source compression apps, so I bet I could have a self unpacking executable with debug info in under a megabyte. And without debug info my executables are about 3mb, 2mb with Windows compression, and under a megabyte with LZMA2. Just imagine if I paid for a high quality compression app. 500kb? Cool

Its really nice to see something effective and fast, have many nice features like SQL and File Systems and be able to use it on any platform without needing something like I don't know, .NET? What are they doing now 250mb for the framework? I thought 30mb was a lot and that was just with 2.0 Laughing

With U++ no matter how much I modulate my dlls, the only thing people will have to do is replace their single executable and my next big thing is ready to go. No other advertised big name open source cross platform software can compete like U++. My apps are fast, portable, lightweight, ready to use, and the Core framework gives me plenty of functionality. And my compile times are amazing. I feel it delivers in many ways where standard C++ IDEs fail as well as compensates for many C#/.NET features I want, without the pain of the managed and restrictive CLI. I dropped CodeBlocks and haven't looked back Smile
Previous Topic: Is there a lawyer in the house?
Next Topic: Free useful tools for the U++ Developer
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Nov 15 08:34:17 CET 2019

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00848 seconds