Hi Kay, (you forgot to reply to everybody ;))
I am using a Windows version of gfortran and strings. I use a file viewer that comes with the Total Commander file manager. So, it may be something specific to that version of strings. Regards, Arjen Op vr 3 jun. 2022 om 09:25 schreef Kay Diederichs < kay.diederi...@uni-konstanz.de>: > On 6/3/22 08:47, Arjen Markus via Fortran wrote: > > Do you know why the strings command does not show the identification > > string, > > which clearly present in the executable file, even though it should > examine > > the > > entire file (the --all option does not alter the output)? > > > > Regards, > > > > Arjen > > > > Op vr 3 jun. 2022 om 07:22 schreef Janne Blomqvist < > > blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com>: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:33 PM Kay Diederichs > >> <kay.diederi...@uni-konstanz.de> wrote: > >>> Am 02.06.22 um 21:06 schrieb Janne Blomqvist: > >>>> As an alternative approach, make a command-line option (say, "-v") > >>>> that prints the version number of the program, name of the author and > >>>> other pertinent information, as well as the output of > >>>> compiler_version() and compiler_options(), and then exits. That would > >>>> ensure that those calls won't be optimized away. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I was thinking of such a -v option as well, and it is a solution for > >>> some situations, but not e.g. for a dynamically loadable library (see > >>> https://cims.nyu.edu/~donev/Fortran/DLL/DLL.Forum.txt ) which is my > >>> situation ( > >>> https://strucbio.biologie.uni-konstanz.de/xdswiki/index.php/LIB ). I'd > >>> like to be able to see later which compiler version and options were > >>> used when compiling that library, because over the years of > distributing > >>> this code, compilers and options have been changing. > >> > >> For the library case, can't you make a function > >> libraryname_print_version_info() or whatever you want to call it that > >> does the same? Of course, if the user never calls that function, uses > >> a static library, and everything is compiled with -ffunction-sections > >> and linked with --gc-sections that will not work, but otherwise the > >> string should still be there in the binary so you should be able to > >> find it with the strings tool? > >> > >>> -g includes the source code, which is not always desired, and is not > >>> possible here due to license issues - there was no concept of "open > >>> source" as we have it today in the 80ies when this code was started. > >> > >> Hmm, maybe that's the case, I don't have a legal opinion to offer on > >> this, sorry. > >> > >>> Also I think it makes the code slower. > >> > >> No, at least with GCC -g doesn't affect the code generation. It makes > >> the binary bigger so it takes longer to copy around, and depending on > >> how the debug info is spread out in the binary some of that might be > >> unnecessarily mapped into memory when running, but I think you'd be > >> very hard pressed to measure any difference in performance. > >> > >> -- > >> Janne Blomqvist > >> > > > > Arjen, > > "egrep"-ing for 'GNU|GCC' in the "strings" output shows more than > "grep"-ing for GNU, which is what I tried first. > But I don't think you see even more with a "fileviewer" (which do you > refer to? > I tried the "bless" hex editor and "okteta"; they don't show more than > "strings"). > > @Janne thanks for pointing out that -g does not make the code slower. > Is there an option that prevents the sourcecode to be included when -g is > used? > > thanks, > Kay >
