Is the *.dcu files in delphi xe2 for firemonkey application are independent from platforms.
here. for both 32bit and 64 bit and other operating systems.
If so how is the dcu files are designed. is it something similar to the previous(delphi 1-delphi xe) or something like an intermediate language(like java or .net)
is this new dcu going to make the decompilation of dcu files easier.
The main intention of this question is to know some details about the pros and cons about the new dcu files for firemonkey.
Is the *.dcu files in delphi xe2 for firemonkey application are
independent from platforms. here. for both 32bit and 64 bit and other
operating systems.
No they are not; Delphi XE2 generates different .dcu files for different platforms, and .dcu files for each platform are created in separated folders.
To make it somewhat more insightful, some background info:
DCU's are more or less a combination of the following parts
The object code, which is normal statically compiled relocatable object code, just like what C or C++ would generate.
debug code inclusive (a Topview variant if I'm not mistaken)
A precompiled header(interface) in some form.
unspecialized generics in some representation (*)
cross-unit inlinable code (tree representation?)
I don't know if all these 4 are separate sections or that they are interleaved. My guess is that 1+2 are combined (since that allows more generic routines in the linker) and there is a "rest" with 3+4+5 and maybe some other metadata.
Since headers might depend on OS specific types and symbols in system unit and OS specific units, even in theory only the most self contained units could be crossplatform. Probably not worth the effort to bother.
As far as decompilation goes, it is pretty much the same as the general decompilation problem, with a few twists:
not yet finally linked (object) code is slightly easier decompilable
code with attached debug code is slightly easier decompilable.
however the DCU format is version dependent and proprietary.
the entire decompilation process is very compiler and -version dependent.
In short, it is probably not a bit easier than earlier Delphi compilers or even a static lib + header files of a random C++ compiler.
Related
I have this craving to do some experiments with modifying the underbelly of the Delphi run time library (RTL), system.pas and the likes... It is possible or not?
I'm very fond of challenges like "yes, but you'll have to provide custom .obj files for some assembler wizardry because they were never distributed with the official Delphi source". Fine with me, I just want to know.
I want to do this experiment with Delphi 7, but inside information on any other version is fine. It is one of the perks of being with a company that worked with Delphi since the Stone Age.
(I always figured this to be one of those RTFM questions, with the answer being a resounding "NO!", but for some reason google won't confirm it.)
You can recompile the RTL like any other unit.
For System.pas you must use the command line compiler.
For instance, here is a working batch file content (there is some not well documented command line switches):
del *.dcu /s
"c:\program files\borland\delphi7\bin\dcc32.exe" -O+ -Q -M -Y -Z -$D+ System.pas
This will recompile System.pas and SysInit.pas (both lowest level RTL files).
But in order to use your recreated dcu files, you'll have to put the folder containing the updated dcu files into the first position of your IDE: for instance, in Delphi 7 it's Option / Environment Options / Library, then put your folder FIRST in both "Libary path" and "Browsing path" field.
And it's perhaps worth deleting the original .dcu files in your Delphi installation directory.
But be sure you won't change the "interface" part of the unit, or you'll have troubles with compiling with other not modified units of the RTL (or third-party components). You can change the "implementation" part, apply fixes or rewrite some part for speed or such, but don't change the "interface" part to avoid any linking error.
Always make a backup of the original .pas and .dcu files which you are changing. And it's a good idea to make some automated compilation test, so that you could be sure that your modifications of the RTL won't add any regression.
We made such a RTL recompilation for our Enhanced Run Time Library for better speed of low-level RTL functions (mostly System.pas and SysUtils.pas). Designed for Delphi 7 and 2007. For more recent Delphi version, you still can use the same principle.
You can only recompile the RTL from the command-line. There should be a makefile in the RTL source directory of your installation. It is designed to be used with the make.exe command-line utility which should be in the "bin" folder of your installation. I would recommend you copy the relevant sources to a separate location for experimentation. I must caution you that the System unit is tightly coupled with the compiler which expects many functions to have a specific name and have particular parameter lists, if any are even declared. Many RTL "helper" functions don't have any formally declared parameters, yet expect parameters to be passed in a certain fashion.
Another bit of caution is changing the interface declarations of certain classes, functions or types. Doing so may cause serious incompatibilities with existing DCU files and components. For this reason you must be very careful when intermixing DCU files from the included RTL or third-party components with your custom modified versions. I would suggest you start by only making implementation section changes only before venturing into the mine-field of interface breaking changes.
is there any tool like Borland "coff2omf.exe"for converting Borland OMF LIB format to
MS VC++ COFF LIB format ?
actually i want to create .obj file in delphi and use that in MSVC++ .
Yes, there is such a tool.
See this tool.
This utility can be used for converting object files between COFF/PE, OMF, ELF and Mach-O formats for all 32-bit and 64-bit x86 platforms. Can modify symbol names in object files. Can build, modify and convert function libraries across platforms. Can dump object files and executable files. Also includes a very good disassembler supporting the SSE4, AVX, AVX2, FMA and XOP instruction sets. Source code included (GPL). Manual.
Note that this http://www.agner.org web site is the best resource I know about low-level optimization. All the linked information is worth reading, if you want to deal with performance.
But for using the Delphi-generated .obj with VC++, it won't be easily feasible, but for very small part of code. You will need the Delphi RTL used in your code. An external .dll is much better. Note also that some types (like strings or dynamic arrays) won't be easily modifiable in VC++.
To the best of my knowledge there is no such tool. Using Agner Fog's object file converter, the tool that Arnaud refers to, I've never succeeded in converting a Delphi unit into a COFF .obj that can be linked to an MSVC program.
I do believe that it's not realistic to take Delphi source code, compile it, and then use the generated object in MSVC. The other direction is quite possible. You can compile C code to an object, and link that object to your Delphi executable. When you do this you need to resolve any dependencies that the compiled object has.
But to link a Delphi object into a C/C++ program is going to require whatever part of the Delphi RTL that you use. And that's going to be tricky unless you happen not to use any part of the Delphi RTL, which seems unlikely.
In your situation I think your options are:
Port the code to C or C++.
Compile the Delphi code into a dynamic library and link to that from your C++ program.
already delphi win32 exe size is ~850 kb , do they have any roadmap of making exe size bit smaller,(i know that the size is because of vcl unicode RTTI and many more ),delphi compiles the whole unit even only a small function in the unit is needed. so is there any facilities to do so,or third party products are there , (i know kol and mck do the same)
I doubt that exe size is much of a concern for the Delphi team, or even for most of the users as well. As you noticed, unicode and new RTTI increase the size, and while you can turn of new RTTI there really is not much else you can do about it.
In general each new Delphi version produced larger exes, I don't see this trend changing.
As for compiling whole units that isn't correct, unless you compile packages the compiler will not include non used methods and declarations.
If exe size is important you don't have much choice. If you don't need unicode and other new features then using D2007 or D7 or even D2 is an option.
You can use exe packers such as UPX.
If you build a set of applications you can reduce total size by using shared packages.
Also check out these:
What Can I Do To Reduce My Executable's Size (Delphi)?
Delphi EXE compressor?
delphi xe disable RTTI
I'm not sure what kol and mck have to do with your question about .EXE size.
The presumption in your question that a unit is always completely included in your .EXE, even if only a small portion of the unit is actually used, is plain wrong.
Delphi has both a code optimizer and a linker optimizer.
The latter will not include code from a unit in your .EXE if that code is not actually somehow used.
Your more general question 'do they have any roadmap of making exe size bit smaller' can be answered by a simple 'No'.
The current roadmap does not include that.
--jeroen
You certainly shouldn't expect exe size for future 64-bit Delphi versions to be smaller than current 32-bit Delphi exe files.
On the contrary: pointers and pointer-sized types will double in size and other data structures may grow in size due to padding (to meet alignment requirements). All of this gets compiled into the executable, the size of which will therefore grow.
The path looks to be exes will become larger, in the future. Application size became far less important since disk sizes, bandwith and memory footprint rarely are a problem in the Windows world. There's always been a tradeoff between exe size and exe optimization (some optimization techniques can make an exe larger), and a 64 bit executable will probably be somewhat larger. Also improvements to the language may require more data to be stored about the code itself (i.e. RTTI informations). There are techniques to keep an exe size small, but they usually require to bypass most of the Delphi OOP and RAD features and libraries. Unless you have very special needs, rarely the exe size is an issue (although I understand that is some parts of the world bandwidth still matters, and maybe disk space too).
Anyway AFAIK it is not true Delphi linker will import a whole unit. Unused calls will be removed, although not everything you would like to be. The dcu will be compiled as a whole, but only needed code will be moved to the compiled executable. Something may depend on your compilation options. Did you activate the optimization option?
I guess the Free Pascal faq on this goes for Delphi too:
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Size_Matters
I'm writing delphi app which should have capability of loading plugins. I'm using JvPluginManager as plugin system/manager ;) Now, in the new plugin wizard they say it's better to use .bpl type plugins instead of .dll plugins ... What are the pros of this solution versus dll type plugins?
So far I've found only cons of this solution:
I have to put all the common interface units in separate package so that while loading plugins it won't throw any error about the other package containing common unit
if, let's say, one of plugin developers decides to uses some well-known unit (like synapse), which doesn't have runtime package by default, and the second plugin developer does the same, than bump... it's crash here ...
So, what are actually the pros of using bpls instead of dlls compiled with runtime packages?
Thanks in advance
Another disadvantage to BPL's. When you switch Delphi versions you will have to re-distribute new plugins. After many attempts at attempting to find the perfect plugin system, I ended up with COM and I have never regretted that decision. In a commercial application which has had the plugin requirement for over 8 years, the application has continued to move forward and yet some of the plugins that were released with the first iteration still exist in their ORIGINAL form.
If you choose this method, do yourself a favor and start with a simple interface and then add new interfaces upon it. You don't want to ever change your base interface, so keep it simple and sweet.
As Alexander said, a BPL is basically a DLL. But there are some conditions (from a not-so-short summary I made: http://wiki.freepascal.org/packages ):
A unit can only exist once in BPL's +Exe. This avoids duplication of state (twice the heapmanager and other global vars of system etc, VMT tables etc)
.BPL's can only USE other .BPLs.
This means that dynamic types like ansistring and IS/AS work properly over BPL interfaces.
Initialization/finalization are separate procedure and their initialization order is strictly controlled. For static dynamic loading this is simpler, for dynamic loading (plugin-like) all dependancies on units are checked .
Everything is essentially one big program, which means that the BPL's must be compiled with the same compiler version and RTL and depends on the versions other dependancies. It might be harder to make .BPL's to plugin to an existing EXE, since the Delphi version must match.
This also means that you must deliver .dcp's for (non Delphi) .BPLs the plugin .BPLs depend on
In short: if the plugin architecture is open, make it a DLL. Otherwise people have to have the exact same Delphi version to write plugins.
Hybrid is also possible. An higher level .BPL interface for functionality you factor out into .BPL yourself and selected devels, and a rock bottom procedure DLL interface for the rest.
A third option is using DLLs, but ordain Sharemem. Strings will work, multiple Delphi versions will work. Objects can work but are unsafe (e.g. I guess e.g. D2009 with an earlier version wouldn't work). Even other language users might be able to allocate over COM, not entirely excluding non Delphi.
Your first con is also a pro. If you replicate shared code in each dll the dlls get bigger and bigger. Even when using dlls you can prevent this by moving shared code in a separate dll.
Pros:
Types are shared. No TFont is not a TFont problem
Memory manager is shared. Strings and classes can be used as parameter between plugins without problems.
Cons:
Plugins can be built using Delphi or BCB only.
Plugins should use the same Delphi or BCB version.
Have you considerd using COM? COM makes it possible to share types, strings and classes and the plugins can be written in many programming languages.
I'm not familiar of JvPluginManager, but it depends on how you're going to use BPLs.
Basically, BPL - is just a usual DLL, but its initialization/finalization work is stripped from DllMain to separate functions: 'Initialize'/'Finalize'.
So, if you're going to use BPL like usual DLL, there are no cons that I'm aware of, only pros: there will be no more troubles with DllMain. That's all. The only difference.
But BPL in Delphi also provide a convient way to share code. This means great advantages (common memory manager, no duplicated code, etc, etc). So usual BPL does a lot more than "being just a DLL".
But this also means, that now your plugin system is limited to Delphi only (well, may be C++ Builder too). I.e. both plugins and exe MUST be compiled in the very same compiler to run smoothly.
If this is acceptable for you (i.e. no MS Visual Studio, no, sir, never) - then go ahead, you can use all power of BPLs.
P.S. But upgrading such BPLs plugins can be also a nightmare, if you do not design interface side carefully. In certain worst cases, you may need to recompile everything.
P.P.S. Like I said: I have no idea, how it is applied to plugins, created by JvPluginManager.
Avoid blp approach as you will have to ship a big bag of bpl with you software and thus, distribution will become bulky.
why do we use Delphi to compile small stand alone programs that just RUN anywhere without any runtime dependency. Using bpls means defeating this very purpose.
I don't know as to how comfortable you are with DLLs, but I would suggest you to use DLLs.
This will give other developers (who
may get interested in your software)
a chance to use any development
language (as long as that language
can spit out dll) to write their own
plugins that can be used in your
developed software.
Another thing is that you will be
saved from Delphi's vcl version
dependency tyranny. A major weak
point of Delphi till date.
It is possible to work with a Delphi 5 project in the Delphi 2009 IDE by referencing the Delphi 5 version of dcc32?
If so are there any issues to watch out for concerning the way that project settings (search paths, conditional defines etc.) are implemented in 2009?
Edit: Just to clarify I am also upgrading the project to Unicode but will still need to debug and run releases in the old configuration
It depends on what you're trying to accomplish and what limitations you are willing to accept.
As far as I know, you can't use the Delphi 2009 IDE to maintain Delphi 5 projects directly. For example, even if you stick to functionality that's common between the two, some properties that are not supported in Delphi 5 are written to your DFMs, causing an error at run time.
I've maintained projects and library code that were written in Delphi 2005/2006/2007 that was also being used in Delphi 6/7. I usually edited and debugged these using the latest IDE. I had separate project files for each target version and made sure they all used the same memory manager. Finally, I had an automated build process and unit tests that would strip incompatible properties out of the DFMs (my own DFM Scrubber), make sure all of the targets always compile and run unit tests, which are also recompiled for each target.
All in all, it's more effort and I wouldn't recommend it unless you have a specific requirement to do so.
No. That said, it is still Delphi, and assuming you have source or D2009 versions of any custom components it can be modified to compile in Delphi 2009. The layout of the VCL has changed quite a bit since D5, so expect to have to modify your uses clauses and probably rewrite some small chunks here and there, but it is doable.
You either port your code to Delphi 2009/2010 level (Unicode), or you may as well not install the product.
I suggest you open the project and see where it fails, close the project (without saving anything), find the component versions you need and install them, and once the project opens up in design mode (all components are installed) you can start porting.
Read the Unicode Delphi migration (porting) information available at the website.
Ask your self each time you see PChar, and Char, if it needs to be PAnsiChar, or AnsiChar instead? If you are reading bytes from a disk, a com port, or a network connection, you will need to change from Char to AnsiChar, from PChar to PAnsiChar, otherwise, you might just leave the Char and PChar as they are and they will become Unicode. Always be aware that Char is not a Byte, anymore.
You also must replace explicit references to narrow Win32 API calls with versions without the A (ansi) suffix. Example: CreateFileA might need to become just CreateFile.
W