Suppose I compile libraries or other software packages with Intel compilers (e.g. icc, ifort) and related Intel libraries (MKL, TBB, etc.). If, after my Intel license expires, I want to compile things that depend on the previously compiled software, will I be able to compile and use them, even though my license expired? Will the second compilation process not be able to read or link to the previously compiled software? Or, if it compiles successfully, will it produce an error saying that my license needs to be renewed?
More concrete example:
Today: I use icc and TBB to compile METIS.
Next Year (after license expires): I try to compile and run SuiteSparse with gcc, which uses MKL and depends on METIS.
Is there any reason that this wouldn't work? Would the old libraries look up my current license status and find that it isn't working?
My reason for asking is that, while Intel provides the best compilers for my purposes, it is proprietary, and I want to develop code that will run in the future.
Short Answer: Yes, if you have a commercial license
Long Answer: The Intel Compilers are not a standalone product but belong to the suites: Intel Parallel Studio and Intel System Studio. If you buy a license for one of those suites you get:
A usage license which is not time limited.
One year of support which means you can use premium support and access all updates that get released within one year.
There are also free licenses for academic research available. They may have also a usage limitation.
Related
I'm currently working on an application that I would like to publish to many distributions. So far, I've done all my testing on one distribution at a time (compile and run on the same distro). But when I take the outputted AppImage from compilation on my main computer (Arch Linux), and try to run it in a vm (Ubuntu 20.04), it gives me the error below:
gabriel#gabriel-VirtualBox:~/Downloads$ ./Neptune.Installer-x86_64.AppImage ./Neptune.Installer-x86_64.AppImage: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.34' not found (required by ./Neptune.Installer-x86_64.AppImage)
What possible solutions are there to this? I've considered statically linking the library, but I'm unsure if that might cause licensing issues, as my program is not open source. Apart from that, I might consider simply compiling my program on a very old distribution such as Ubuntu 12 or something, but I won't know how well that carries over to other distros (for example, will my program still work on an old version of Fedora?)
This might be a complicated question but I just want to know what the best way to solve this issue is. Change libraries? Statically link? Compile on old distributions? Let me know what you think.
I've considered statically linking the library, but I'm unsure if that might cause licensing issues,
Yes.
very old distribution such as Ubuntu 12 or something, but I won't know how well that carries over to other distros
It doesn't (alpine linux). If you compile software, you have to run it with the set of libraries you compiled it against. Even if you compile on "very old distributions" there may be changes.
publish to many distributions
Choose the list of distributions and versions of these distributions you want to support. Tell users that you will support these distribution versions. (https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/application/platforms -> Steam only officially supports Ubuntu running Ubuntu 12.04 LTS or newer..).
Compile against every combination of distribution+version separately, and distribute your software separately for every such distribution version. For users convenience, create and share package repositories for specific distribution package manager with your software. On https://www.zabbix.com/download there are only so many combinations to choose from. Interest yourself in CI/CD in docker virtualized environments. I like gitlab.
Or alternatively distribute your application with all dependent shared libraries. Bundle it all together with the operating system and distribute in a form of a docker image or a qemu/virtualbox virtual image. Or distribute with just shared libraries files with a wrapper around LD_PRELOAD. Just like steam does. Install steam on your system, and see what happens in ~/.steam/steam/ubuntu12_64.
And hire a layer to solve the licensing issues.
I've written a Linux program in C, and I'm trying to get it to run on a server system. It looks like everything should work, but when I try it, I get this:
/lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by <program>)
/lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by ./libdbi.so.1)
(Where <program> is my program's name.)
So far as I can tell, my program only requires that version of GLIBC because libdbi does. I've tried compiling libdbi from source, and it still attempts to link to that version of GLIBC.
I don't own the server system (it's a shared system I run a website on, and have SSH access to), so I can't make any changes to it -- that's why the library file is in the same directory, and I've set LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.. Unfortunately I also don't have access to a compiler on it -- when I try to run GCC, I'm told "permission denied". It's run by a big corporation, and I'm only one customer; the chances of them making any changes at my request are essentially zero.
Is there any way to compile the program on my system so that it will work on the server?
Before I asked, I found these similar questions:
Compile C program in Linux with different glibc library: the link in the answer goes to a 404 page, and from what I've been able to determine, apgcc isn't available on Debian distributions.
Relink a shared library to a different version of libc: seems to say that this problem doesn't exist, because "glibc tend to be backwards compatible" (except they apparently aren't in this case).
How to compile Linux C program to run on another Linux machine?: suggests a chroot or virtual machine, which I've done before elsewhere, but how can I tell it to use a libc without that old GLIBC version?
is binary executable file portable: suggests static-linking, but libdbi dynamically-links to its driver files, so that apparently can't be done -- I get several errors referring to missing functions like ldopen.
There are others, but they seem to be variations on those.
I'd be willing to use a non-free solution (like one that I saw in another answer I can't find now) if I turn this into a commercial product, but for a single use it seems like massive overkill, not to mention the expense.
Is there any way to simply tell libdbi to link to a later GLIBC version, maybe? If not, is there any solution I've overlooked?
Big corporation or not, the least they owe you if you are paying for service in any way or being paid for development to meet a requirement is a careful description of the runtime environment so you can duplicate it on a development machine.
Then you must set out to systematically duplicate this environment. Since you're using libdbi you should be thorough. Database connections can exercise big chunks of the system API, so you want to have exactly the same version of Linux, gcc (even if you can't run it, you need to know the version other parts of the system were compiled with), and other tools and libraries. If you don't, you won't be able to have much confidence that your development machine tests translate to good behavior on the target.
A virtual machine is a good way to create a specialized development environment without messing up your existing one.
You must compile it on a machine that has the same version of glibc as the target machine, or an older version. shared library compatibility works in that direction only.
Find out what version of Linux the server uses, get a copy of it and install it in a VM
Virtualbox is good for this
You can use this environment for testing code as well as this particular compilation problem
You have the following options:
Compile your code on the server machine (which likely has gcc installed)
Compile your program with statically linked libraries (option -static for gcc)
I inherited an old project that uses an Innovasic ia188em processor (previously AM188 from AMD). I will likely need to modify the code, and so will need to recompile. Unfortunately, I'm not sure which compiler was used previously (it compiled into a .hex file), and searching through the source code (and in particular the header files) doesn't seem to indicate it either.
I did see one program that could work, but I was wondering if anyone knew of any free programs that might do this. I saw some forums where people said they thought either an old Borland compiler or Bruce's C Compiler may work with 80188 chips (which I assume my chip falls under?), but nothing concrete. I failed to compile with Borland C++ 5 when I tried, though I admit I probably didn't have it set up correctly.
This is for an embedded board (i.e. no OS). I don't program too often, so my compiler knowledge is limited. I mostly just write simple C programs and compile with gcc under linux. Any help is appreciated.
Updated 10/8: I apologize, I was looking at both this code, and the PC side code that talks to the embedded board, and got mixed up. The code for the ia188em (embedded board) is actually C (not C++). Updated title to reflect that. I'm not sure if it makes a huge difference or not.
You'll need a 16 bit "real mode" x86 compiler. If your compiler is a DOS targeted compiler, you will need some means of generating a raw binary rather than than MS-DOS load module (.exe), this may be possible through linker options or may require a non-DOS linker.
Any build scripts or makefiles included with the project code might help you identifier the toolchain used, but the likelihood is that it is no longer available, and you'll need to source "antique software".
When I used to do this sort of thing (1985 -> 1990) I used the intel toolchain, now long obsolete and no longer available from intel. The tools required were
iC-86 - The compiler
link-86 - the linker
loc-86 - the image locater.
There is some information on these tools at a very old site here.
Another method that was used at the time was to process the .exe file produced by a Microsoft standard real mode PC compiler (MS-Pascal was the language used on that project) into an absolutely located image that could be blown into EPROM. The tool used for the conversion was proprietary to the company so I have no idea whether there is an equivalent available
A CS course I'm taking online suggests students compile their source code and run tools like valgrind on the OS UNIX. I'm completely new to UNIX, Linux, their tools, and coding in c. I've made some attempts at installing FreeBSD 8.1 on VMWare Player 3.1.3, and even managed to get VMWare Tools running. But the FreeBSD documentation has led me down many dead-ends in accomplishing common tasks i.e. mounting an NFS or USB device. It turns out that the packages I need to make this happen aren't installed or configured, and I don't see any straight answer on how to install them.
So, if I'm using UNIX only as a tool to run gcc, g++, valgrind for this CS course, and these can be run on Linux instead, it seems like I can get the job done faster using Ubuntu Linux.
Can Linux be used to compile and run c code identically on UNIX, if compiled on Linux? Or if not, what are the differences to look for?
Thanks
For the novice-level C programmer such as OP, the difference of environment is negligible. Go ahead with Linux.
I think for purposes of the course you could run your programs and tools on Linux,
but I guess the reason your teacher wants you to use FreeBSD is so that you learn other things besides just coding up your problems
The two should be effectively the same. The only major difference you might see would be due to different versions being used. I would check to see what versions of gcc, g++ and valgrind the teacher is having you use, and make sure that you have the same version running on your install of Linux.
You can also use MinGW or Cygwin. You mentioned VMWare, so I'm guessing you're trying to just get an environment up and running in a windows environment. They both allow you to use the compiler and some of the tools without a full install of a Linux based system. In a CS course they would be more than enough.
The main differences too look for:
Compiling C / C++ is not machine independent. You need to have a small environment to compile on UNIX anyway if you need to submit compiled programs to your professor.
C / C++ is rather portable if you don't use anything that's non-portable. It's very hard to verify that you didn't use something that's different between the two machines, so you may wish to compile on UNIX to verify you didn't let an unavailable library (or an specific to the OS procedure, argument, behavior, bugs, etc.) slip into your code.
The vendor of make between the two machines may differ. This means that while the core of make will operate similarly, certain features might not be available in both. In reality, you probably won't use most of makes extended features, but in a worst case scenario you might opt to maintain multiple Makefiles or limit yourself to a common subset of features.
At the end of the day, it all boils down to what your professor will want. Odds are 95+% that you can do 100% of the work in Linux, but the prof's requirements or grading environment might be such that you will have to copy your code into a UNIX account to build the final "submission" executable. Considering that university UNIX accounts aren't nearly as portable as Linux on a laptop, the cost of the "final verification / porting" to the University computer is likely to be small compared to the convenience of working on your homework more hours than you can manage in a fixed lab.
Sorry if this is an obvious question, but I've found surprisingly few references on the web ...
I'm working with an API written in C by one of our business partners and supplied to us as a .so binary file, built on Fedora 11. We've been testing out the API on a Fedora 11 development machine with no problems. However, when I try to link against the API on our customer's target platform, which happens to be SuSE Enterprise 10.2, I get a "File format not recognized" error.
Commands that are also part of the binutils package, such as objdump or nm, give me the same file format error. The "file" command shows me:
ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, AMD x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
and the "ldd" command shows:
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `./libuscuavactivity.so.1.1'
./libuscuavactivity.so.1.1: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found (required by ./libuscuavactivity.so.1.1)
[dependent library list]
I'm guessing this is due to incompatibility between the C libraries on the two platforms, with the problem being that the code was compiled against a new version of glibc etc. than the one available on SuSE 10.2. I'm posting this question on the off chance that there is a way to compile the code on our partner's Fedora 11 platform in such a way that it will run on SuSE 10.2 as well.
I think the trick is to build on a flavour of linux with the oldest kernel and C library versions of any of the platforms you wish to support. In my job we build on Debian 4, which allows us to officially support Debian 4 and above, RedHat 3,4,5, SuSE 10 plus various other distros (SELinux etc.) in an unofficial fashion.
I suspect by building on a nice new version of linux, it becomes difficult to support people on older machines.
(edit) I should mention that we use the default compiler that comes with Debian 4, which I think is GCC 4.1.2. Installing newer compiler versions tends to make compatibility much worse.
Windows has it problems with compatability between different realeases, service packs, installed SDKs, and DLLs in general (DLL Hell, anyone?). Linux is not immune to the same kinds of issues.
The compatability issues I have seen include:
Runtime library changes
Link library changes
Kernel changes
Compiler technology changes (eg: pre and post EGCS gcc versions. This might be your issue).
Packager issues (RPM vs. APT)
In your particular case, I'd have them do a "gcc -v" on their system and report to you the gcc version number. Compare that to what you are using.
You might have to get hold of that version of the compiler to build your half with.
You can use Linux Application Checker tool ([1], [2], [3]) in order to solve compatibility problems of an application between Linux distributions. It will check your file formats and all dependent libraries. It supports almost all popular Linux distributions including all versions of SuSE and Fedora.
This is just a personal opinion, but when distributing something in binary-only form on Linux, you have a few options:
Build the gamut of .debs and .rpms for every distro under the sun, with a nominal ".tar.gz full of binaries" package for anything you've missed. The first part is ideal but cumbersome. The latter part will lead you to point 2 and 3.
Do as some are suggesting and find the oldest distro you can find and build there. My own opinion is this is sort of a ridiculous idea. See point 3.
Distribute binaries, and statically link where ever you can. Especially for libstdc++, which appears to be your problem here. There are seemingly very many incompatible versions of libstdc++ floating around, which makes it a compatibility nightmare. If you can't link statically, you can also put *.so files alongside your binary, and use stuff like LD_PRELOAD or LD_LIBRARY_PATH to make them link preferentially at runtime. Note that if you take this route you may have to comply with LGPL etc. since you are now distributing other people's work alongside your project.
Of course, distributing your project in source form is always preferred on Linux. :-)
If the message is file format not recognized then the problem is most likely one mentioned by elmarco in a comment -- namely, different architecture. It might (I'm not sure) be a dynamic linker version mismatch, but that would mean the .so file was built with an ancient dynamic linker. I do not believe any incompatibility in libc could cause this -- they could cause link failures and runtime problems (latter very rarely), but not this.
I don't know about Suse, but I know fedora likes to stay on the bleeding edge. So you may very well be right about library versions. Why don't you ask and see if you can get the source code and build it on your Suse machine?