Questions about linking libraries in C
I am learning C (still very much a beginner) on Linux using the GCC compiler. I have noticed that some libraries, such as the library used with the math.h header, need to be linked in manually when included. I have been linking in the libraries using various flags of the form -l[library-name], such as -lm for the above-mentioned math library.
Why is the code section called a text section?
The section of an executable that contains code is sometimes called the .text section. In segmented memory architectures, a segment mapped as code is sometimes called a text segment. The unix error message “text file busy” (ETXTBSY) means “this file is a program that is being executed”.
Why are there two different kinds of linking, i.e. static and dynamic?
I’ve been bitten for the n-th time now by a library mismatch between a build and deployment environment. The build environment had libruby.so.2.0 and the deployment environment had libruby.a. One ruby was built with RVM, the other was built with ruby-build. The reason I ran into a problem was because zookeeper was compiled in a build environment that had the shared library but the deployment environment only had the static library.
Why are there two different kinds of linking, i.e. static and dynamic?
I’ve been bitten for the n-th time now by a library mismatch between a build and deployment environment. The build environment had libruby.so.2.0 and the deployment environment had libruby.a. One ruby was built with RVM, the other was built with ruby-build. The reason I ran into a problem was because zookeeper was compiled in a build environment that had the shared library but the deployment environment only had the static library.
Why are there two different kinds of linking, i.e. static and dynamic?
I’ve been bitten for the n-th time now by a library mismatch between a build and deployment environment. The build environment had libruby.so.2.0 and the deployment environment had libruby.a. One ruby was built with RVM, the other was built with ruby-build. The reason I ran into a problem was because zookeeper was compiled in a build environment that had the shared library but the deployment environment only had the static library.
Why are there two different kinds of linking, i.e. static and dynamic?
I’ve been bitten for the n-th time now by a library mismatch between a build and deployment environment. The build environment had libruby.so.2.0 and the deployment environment had libruby.a. One ruby was built with RVM, the other was built with ruby-build. The reason I ran into a problem was because zookeeper was compiled in a build environment that had the shared library but the deployment environment only had the static library.
Why do we need to include the .h while everything works when including only the .cpp file?
Why do we need to include both the .h and .cpp files while we can make it work solely by including the .cpp file?
Why do we need to include the .h while everything works when including only the .cpp file?
Why do we need to include both the .h and .cpp files while we can make it work solely by including the .cpp file?
Why do we need to include the .h while everything works when including only the .cpp file?
Why do we need to include both the .h and .cpp files while we can make it work solely by including the .cpp file?
The need for header file when including libraries?
When compiling an application that depends on a library we have to specify the include the library and also the header file.