为什么g++?链接器警告此不一致的函数声明?
这是在 Debian scrape 上使用 g++ 4.4 和 g++ 4.7 进行测试的。考虑两个 C++ 源文件。
################
foo.cc
#################
#include <string>
using std::string;
int foo(void)
{
return 0;
}
#################
bar.cc
#################
#include <string>
using std::string;
//int foo(void);
string foo(void);
int main(void)
{
foo();
return 0;
}
##################
如果我编译并运行它,可以预见会出现问题。我正在使用 scons。
################################
SConstruct
################################
#!/usr/bin/python
env = Environment(
CXX="g++-4.7",
CXXFLAGS="-Wall -Werror",
#CXX="g++",
#CXXFLAGS="-Wall -Werror",
)
env.Program(target='debug', source=["foo.cc", "bar.cc"])
#################################
编译并运行...
$ scons
g++-4.7 -o bar.o -c -Wall -Werror bar.cc
g++-4.7 -o foo.o -c -Wall -Werror foo.cc
g++-4.7 -o debug foo.o bar.o
$ ./debug
*** glibc detected *** ./debug: free(): invalid pointer: 0xbff53b8c ***
======= Backtrace: =========
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(+0x6b381)[0xb7684381]
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(+0x6cbd8)[0xb7685bd8]
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(cfree+0x6d)[0xb7688cbd]
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6(_ZdlPv+0x1f)[0xb7856c5f]
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe6)[0xb762fca6]
./debug[0x8048461]
======= Memory map: ========
08048000-08049000 r-xp 00000000 fd:10 7602195 /home/faheem/corrmodel/linker/debug
08049000-0804a000 rw-p 00000000 fd:10 7602195 /home/faheem/corrmodel/linker/debug
09ae0000-09b01000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
b7617000-b7619000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b7619000-b7759000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 1180005 /lib/i686/cmov/libc-2.11.3.so
b7759000-b775a000 ---p 00140000 fd:00 1180005 /lib/i686/cmov/libc-2.11.3.so
b775a000-b775c000 r--p 00140000 fd:00 1180005 /lib/i686/cmov/libc-2.11.3.so
b775c000-b775d000 rw-p 00142000 fd:00 1180005 /lib/i686/cmov/libc-2.11.3.so
b775d000-b7760000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b7760000-b777c000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 4653173 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
b777c000-b777d000 rw-p 0001c000 fd:00 4653173 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
b777d000-b777e000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b777e000-b77a2000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 1179967 /lib/i686/cmov/libm-2.11.3.so
b77a2000-b77a3000 r--p 00023000 fd:00 1179967 /lib/i686/cmov/libm-2.11.3.so
b77a3000-b77a4000 rw-p 00024000 fd:00 1179967 /lib/i686/cmov/libm-2.11.3.so
b77a4000-b7889000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 2484736 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.17
b7889000-b788d000 r--p 000e4000 fd:00 2484736 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.17
b788d000-b788e000 rw-p 000e8000 fd:00 2484736 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.17
b788e000-b7895000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b78ba000-b78bc000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b78bc000-b78bd000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso]
b78bd000-b78d8000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 639026 /lib/ld-2.11.3.so
b78d8000-b78d9000 r--p 0001b000 fd:00 639026 /lib/ld-2.11.3.so
b78d9000-b78da000 rw-p 0001c000 fd:00 639026 /lib/ld-2.11.3.so
bff41000-bff56000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [stack]
Aborted
Eww。如果链接器警告 foo
正在以两种不同的方式声明,则可以避免这种情况。即使使用 -Wall
也没有。那么,是否有理由不这样做,是否有一些标志我可以打开以使其发出警告?提前致谢。
编辑:感谢您的所有答案。当存在冲突的函数定义时,链接器确实会发出警告,而不是像上面的示例中那样存在冲突的函数定义和声明。我不明白这种不同行为的原因。
This was tested on Debian squeeze with g++ 4.4 and g++ 4.7. Consider two C++ source files.
################
foo.cc
#################
#include <string>
using std::string;
int foo(void)
{
return 0;
}
#################
bar.cc
#################
#include <string>
using std::string;
//int foo(void);
string foo(void);
int main(void)
{
foo();
return 0;
}
##################
If I compile and run this, predictably there are problems. I'm using scons.
################################
SConstruct
################################
#!/usr/bin/python
env = Environment(
CXX="g++-4.7",
CXXFLAGS="-Wall -Werror",
#CXX="g++",
#CXXFLAGS="-Wall -Werror",
)
env.Program(target='debug', source=["foo.cc", "bar.cc"])
#################################
Compiling and running...
$ scons
g++-4.7 -o bar.o -c -Wall -Werror bar.cc
g++-4.7 -o foo.o -c -Wall -Werror foo.cc
g++-4.7 -o debug foo.o bar.o
$ ./debug
*** glibc detected *** ./debug: free(): invalid pointer: 0xbff53b8c ***
======= Backtrace: =========
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(+0x6b381)[0xb7684381]
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(+0x6cbd8)[0xb7685bd8]
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(cfree+0x6d)[0xb7688cbd]
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6(_ZdlPv+0x1f)[0xb7856c5f]
/lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe6)[0xb762fca6]
./debug[0x8048461]
======= Memory map: ========
08048000-08049000 r-xp 00000000 fd:10 7602195 /home/faheem/corrmodel/linker/debug
08049000-0804a000 rw-p 00000000 fd:10 7602195 /home/faheem/corrmodel/linker/debug
09ae0000-09b01000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [heap]
b7617000-b7619000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b7619000-b7759000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 1180005 /lib/i686/cmov/libc-2.11.3.so
b7759000-b775a000 ---p 00140000 fd:00 1180005 /lib/i686/cmov/libc-2.11.3.so
b775a000-b775c000 r--p 00140000 fd:00 1180005 /lib/i686/cmov/libc-2.11.3.so
b775c000-b775d000 rw-p 00142000 fd:00 1180005 /lib/i686/cmov/libc-2.11.3.so
b775d000-b7760000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b7760000-b777c000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 4653173 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
b777c000-b777d000 rw-p 0001c000 fd:00 4653173 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
b777d000-b777e000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b777e000-b77a2000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 1179967 /lib/i686/cmov/libm-2.11.3.so
b77a2000-b77a3000 r--p 00023000 fd:00 1179967 /lib/i686/cmov/libm-2.11.3.so
b77a3000-b77a4000 rw-p 00024000 fd:00 1179967 /lib/i686/cmov/libm-2.11.3.so
b77a4000-b7889000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 2484736 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.17
b7889000-b788d000 r--p 000e4000 fd:00 2484736 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.17
b788d000-b788e000 rw-p 000e8000 fd:00 2484736 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.17
b788e000-b7895000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b78ba000-b78bc000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
b78bc000-b78bd000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso]
b78bd000-b78d8000 r-xp 00000000 fd:00 639026 /lib/ld-2.11.3.so
b78d8000-b78d9000 r--p 0001b000 fd:00 639026 /lib/ld-2.11.3.so
b78d9000-b78da000 rw-p 0001c000 fd:00 639026 /lib/ld-2.11.3.so
bff41000-bff56000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [stack]
Aborted
Eww. This could have been avoided if the linker had warned that foo
was being declared in two different ways. Even with -Wall
it doesn't. So, is there a reason why it doesn't, and is there some flag that I can turn on to make it warn? Thanks in advance.
EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. The linker does issue a warning when there are conflicting function definitions, as opposed to a conflicting function definition and declaration as in my example above. I don't understand the reason for this different behavior.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5906/d59060df4059a6cc364216c4d63ceec29ef7fe66" alt="扫码二维码加入Web技术交流群"
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(4)
C++ 链接器仅根据唯一标识所需来标识函数。
这是来自以下关于 C++ 链接器的深入文章。
因此,关键在于,应用于函数的名称修饰会忽略返回类型,因为重载函数不能因返回类型而异。因此链接器无法发现问题。
The C++ linker only identifies functions as far as it needs to for unique identification.
This is from the following in-depth article on the C++ linker.
So the point is that the name mangling applied to functions disregards return type as overloaded functions cannot differ by return type. As such the linker is unable to spot the problem.
链接器仅作用于编译器所说的模块中定义的名称或模块引用(需要)的名称。 GCC 显然使用“Itanium C++ ABI”来修改函数名称(从 GCC 3 开始)。对于大多数函数,返回类型不会合并到重整名称中,因此链接器不考虑它:
通常,在C++ 中,当编译器执行名称查找(例如重载解析)时,不会考虑函数的返回类型。这可能是返回类型通常不包含在名称修改中的部分原因。我不知道是否有更强有力的理由不将返回类型合并到损坏的名称中。
The linker just acts on the names that the compiler says are defined in modules are or are referenced (needed) by modules. GCC apparently uses the "Itanium C++ ABI" for mangling function names (starting with GCC 3). For most functions, the return type isn't incorporated into the mangled name, so that's why the linker doesn't take it into account:
In general in C++ the return type of a function isn't considered when the compiler performs name lookup (for example for overload resolution). This might be part of the reason why the return type isn't usually included in the name mangling. I don't know if there's a stronger reason for not incorporating the return type into the mangled name.
这是拥有包含所有此类函数的本地项目头文件(可能是 foobar.h )的最佳示例。这样编译器可以发现此类问题。
链接器从来没有打算识别这样的问题。必须给 Real Engineers™ 留下一些事情去做。 :-)
This is the best example of the reason to have a local project header file (perhaps
foobar.h
) which includes all such functions. That way the compiler can see such problems.Linkers were never intended to identify such an issue. Gotta leave something for Real Engineers™ to do. :-)
无法重现。
Could not reproduce.