1

Is it possible to write code in C, then statically build it and make a binary out of it like an ELF/PE then remove its header and all unnecessary meta-data so to create a raw binary and at last be able to put this raw binary in any other kind of OS specific like (ELF > PE) or (PE > ELF)?! have you done this before? is it possible? what are issues and concerns? how this would be possible?! and if not, just tell me why not?!!?!

what are my pitfalls in understanding the static build? doesn't it mean that it removes any need for 3rd party and standard as well as os libs and headers?! Why cant we remove the meta of for example ELF and put meta and other specs needed for PE?

Mention: I said, Cross OS not Cross Hardware

[Read after reading below!] As you see the best answer, till now (!) just keep going and learn cross platform development issues!!! How crazy is this?! thanks to philosophy!!!

1 Answers1

2

I would say that it's possible, but this process must be crippled by many, many details.

ABI compatibility

The first thing to think of is Application Binary Interface compatibility. Unless you're able to call your functions the same way, the code is broken. So I guess (though I can't check at the moment) that compiling code with gcc on Linux/OS X and MinGW gcc on Windows should give the same binary code as far as no external functions are called. The problem here is that executable metadata may rely on some ABI assumptions.

Standard libraries

That seems to be the largest hurdle. Partly because of C preprocessor that can inline some procedures on some platforms, leaving them to run-time on others. Also, cross-platform dynamic interoperation with standard libraries is close to impossible, though theoretically one can imagine a code that uses a limited subset of the C standard library that is exposed through the same ABI on different platforms.

Static build mostly eliminates problems of interaction with other user-space code, but still there is a huge issue of interfacing with kernel: it's int $0x80 calls on x86 Linux and a platform-specifc set of syscall numbers that does not map to Windows in any direct way.

OS-specific register use

As far as I know, Windows uses register %fs for storing some OS-wide exception-handling stuff, so a binary compiled on Linux should avoid cluttering it. There might be other similar issues. Also, C++ exceptions on Windows are mostly done with OS exceptions.

Virtual addresses

Again, AFAIK Windows DLLs have some predefined address they're must be loaded into in virtual address space of a process, whereas Linux uses position-independent code for shared libraries. So there might be issues with overlapping areas of an executable and ported code, unless the ported position-dependent code is recompiled to be position-independent.

So, while theoretically possible, such transformation must be very fragile in real situations and it's impossible to re-plant the whole static build code - some parts may be transferred intact, but must be relinked to system-specific code interfacing with other kernel properly.

P.S. I think Wine is a good example of running binary code on a quite different system. It tricks a Windows program to think it's running in Windows environment and uses the same machine code - most of the time that works well (if a program does not use private system low-level routines or unavailable libraries).

Dmytro Sirenko
  • 5,003
  • 21
  • 26
  • when we are in theory, everything looks possible! but as you go under the hood of existing systems and platforms, you see that standards matter! –  Feb 11 '14 at 23:48
  • plus that i think some more general concerns e.g the compile time required, the size of result binary and many more must also be considered! it actually doesn't worth doing it! –  Feb 12 '14 at 00:02