Binary interfaces in component development

A template class with static data - how can that possibly go wrong?


Clearly, the linker has no chance to resolve multiple definitions of a single symbol if the symbol name is not present to connect all the different instances together. As a first step to resolving this problem, we’ll use linkage specifiers to bring our data into the export, to see if that helps solve the problem.

However, in Microsoft Visual Studio there exists a mechanism to tag a definition that will be exported from a dll. This tag causes the linker to put the symbol name of the definition into the dll export table so that other binaries using the dll can find the definition. A second tag allows you to import definitions from a dll, signalling to the linker not to search for the definition at link time but instead to use an indirection which will be replaced at runtime by the real definition, in a process known as 'fixup' (see also here). In code, you typically see a system of macros to manage this tagging. Declarations that form the interface of the dynamic library are marked with this macro and when building on windows the preprocessor substitute the macro for ‘__declspec(dllexport)’ indicating to the linker that the symbol should be placed in the export table for use by other binaries linking to the library. When building a binary that uses a dll, the same macros expand to ‘__declspec(dllimport)’ indicating to the linker that the needed definition will be available at runtime if it’s not found. There’s one problem with this system, however. It works reasonably well when the binary definition is located in the library corresponding to the C++ class definition; but in a world of templates, the template definition could be located in some library far, far away, although its instantiation is in the library that you’re building.

If you have control over the template definition, you may be able to get past this with an increasingly messy system of macros as illustrated in the code below, but if the template definition is from a third party library then the only option is to hide any template instantiations far away from the interfaces of the dynamic library.

So, by adding a rather elaborate system of macros (check the code for this figure if you’re interested), we’re able to get our static data into the exports table. Just to clarify, I’m not recommending the usage of such a system of macros; it’s simply a way to get the static variable resulting from the instantiation of a template from another library exported. Have these efforts solved the problem though? Unfortunately not, as the following screenshot (Figure 5) reveals; depending on which dll the calling code is in. The static variable GenericSingleton<MySingletonObject>::m_instance is located at a different memory address.

Figure 5: Shows one static variable with 2 locations.

In our case, an important difference means this system will not work. Our class template is not defined in our dll so its definition is not tagged with the macro that expands to dllexport. Using a modified mechanism, we were able to export the symbol, but as both dlls needed to instantiate the variable and type, this still didn’t resolve the issue.


Other stories you might like

  • India reveals home-grown server that won't worry the leading edge

    And a National Blockchain Strategy that calls for gov to host BaaS

    India's government has revealed a home-grown server design that is unlikely to threaten the pacesetters of high tech, but (it hopes) will attract domestic buyers and manufacturers and help to kickstart the nation's hardware industry.

    The "Rudra" design is a two-socket server that can run Intel's Cascade Lake Xeons. The machines are offered in 1U or 2U form factors, each at half-width. A pair of GPUs can be equipped, as can DDR4 RAM.

    Cascade Lake emerged in 2019 and has since been superseded by the Ice Lake architecture launched in April 2021. Indian authorities know Rudra is off the pace, and said a new design capable of supporting four GPUs is already in the works with a reveal planned for June 2022.

    Continue reading
  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021