It seems I've got a real problem here due to my lack of any knowledge about Linux systems:
I have downloaded some open source code, which
is written in C
uses complex.h, so I assume it is ANSI C99
comes with makefiles designed for compilation under Linux systems
provides interfaces to IDL, MATLAB, Python etc.
I am indeed familiar about compiling C/MEX files under Windows-based MATLAB environments, but in this case I don't even know where to start. The project is distributed in several folders and consists of dozens of source and header files. And, to begin with, the Visual Studio 2010 compiler I've used to compile MEX files until now does not comply with the C99 standard, i.e. it does not recognize the complex.h header.
Any help towards getting this project compiled would be highly appreciated. In particular, I have the following questions:
1) Is there any possibility to automatically extract compilation information from the MEX files and transfer it to Windows reality?
2) Is there any free compiler being able to compile C99 stuff, which is also easy to embed in MATLAB?
I have done this (moved in-house legacy code inc. mex files to Win64). I can't recommend the experience.
You will have to recompile, no way around it.
Supported compilers for mex depend on your MATLAB version
This File Exchange entry for using Pelles C may be a starting point (if it works with your version of MATLAB).
I am guessing that there is a main makefile which then works through the makefiles in the subdirectories - have a read through the instructions for compiling under Linux, it will give you some idea of what's going on and may also discuss what to do if you want to change compiler. Once you've found a compatible compiler, the next stage is to understand what the makefiles are doing and edit them accordingly (change paths, compiler, compiler flags, etc.)
Then, from memory (it was a while ago), you get to enjoy a magical mystery tour through increasingly obscure compiler errors. Document everything because if you do get it working, you won't be in a mood to do this twice.
MATLAB R2016b on Windows now supports the MinGW compiler. I'm successfully using this to compile code written primarily for Linux/gcc. I installed this from the Add-On menu in MATLAB (search MinGW).
For my case, I'm building with the legacy code tool. The only thing I needed to do differently than normal was to tell the compiler to support c99 via a compiler flag. This does the trick:
legacy_code('compile', def, {'CFLAGS=-std=c99'})
I had trouble getting the flag command just right (I had some extra quotes that apparently broke things), and asked The MathWorks, so credit is due to their support team for this.
If you are using mex, I would expect to do something very similar.
I would guess that the makefiles are irrelevant for your application; you will need to tell the mex or legacy_code function about all of the files necessary to build the whole application or link against pre-built libraries (which it sounds like you don't have).
I hope this helps!
Related
Let assume a complex project (in C/C++), is there a solution to know which sources files are responsible/used for the creation of a specific binary without compiling the project itself.
I know I could just read the Makefile and try to follow the dependency chain like this but it's not very scalable and it could be hard if multiple Makefiles and / or implicit rules are used.
Thanks a lot for your help
PS: To clarify the first comments, I'm looking for a method which does not need to have a valid build environment (e.g. so compiling, even as a dry-run, is not an option).
is there a solution to know which sources files are responsible/used for the creation of a specific binary without compiling the project itself
If you compile with GCC (or perhaps Clang) you could use appropriate preprocessor options like -M to generate and keep in some textual file the dependencies, in a format acceptable by GNU make or ninja build automation tools. This works well on Linux distributions like Debian.
You could also be interested by other builders, including omake, and package managers like opam, urpmi, etc...
You could also be in touch with SoftwareHeritage team.
If you use GCC, you could write your own GCC plugin to maintain these dependencies in your database.
At last, be aware of Rice's theorem, and think about crazy examples (in C++) like
#if __TIME__[0]=='1'
int something=0;
#else
constexpr int something=1;
#endif
So my current intuition is that your wish is impossible. I could have misunderstood it.
Refer to some C standard like n1570, or to some C++ standard like n3337.
Study the behavior of tools like GNU autoconf.
Think of programs generating C or C++ code like GNU bison, my manydl.c, bismon, SWIG, RefPerSys, ANTLR .... Notice that GCC has many C++ code generators (notably gengtype) and is definitely "a complex project coded in C++".
See also linuxfromscratch.
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
i want to compile a 'c' code and create an executable from my application. as of now i do it by specifying the path of my compilation .exe (c++) present in the bin folder of my Dev-Cpp folder.
it works fine but i need to pack the compiler along with the application so i wanted to know what files and folders are needed so that i can compile it directly from the application.
what are the files needed exactly i.e. headers,the compilation application, libs and what else...
any help?
If you're asking how to create and distribute a project which is able to build upon an existing compiler for its functionality, there are packages you can find which are just the compiler portion without the IDE. Minimalist GNU for Windows is such a package:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinGW
(In fact, when the people who put together Dev-C++ wrote their integrated development environment, they get the actual compilation functionality from MinGW...which they bundled into their package for good measure. So if you were going to write an IDE of your own, you would start from the MinGW distribution...not by trying to hand-pick files out of Dev-C++.)
One issue to be sensitive to is licensing. While there are not generally any legal issues out of the box regarding distributing executables built with a system like MinGW, when you go as far as to include the compiler in your own "product", it might be tricky. Dev-C++ is under the same license as MinGW (GPL) but I'd imagine there'd be issues if it were not.
If you only need a subset of the full functionality (let's say you only compile C and not C++) there will be a lot of header files and such that you could cut out. But you have to trade off the difficulty of maintaining this sort of optimization vs. just having your program ask users to install MinGW and then tell your program where they installed it. It might take up more space and lead installation to be a two-step process...but frees you from a large number of concerns.
So that's what I would suggest: Have a setting in your program (much like Dev-C++ does) which lets people specify where the MinGW binaries are installed on their system. But let them install it independently.
I'm an avid Python user and it seems that I require MinGW to be installed on my Windows machine to compile some libraries. I'm a little confused about MinGW and GCC. Here's my question (from a real dummy point of view):
So Python is language which both interpreted and compiled. There are Linux and Windows implementations of Python which one simply installs and used the binary to a execute his code. They come bundled with a bunch of built-in libraries that you can use. It's the same with Ruby from what I've read.
Now, I've done a tiny bit a of C and I know that one has a to compile it. It has its built-in libraries which seem to be called header files which you can use. Now, back in the school day's, C, was writing code in a vi-like IDE called Turbo-C and then hitting F9 to compile it. That's pretty much where my C education ends.
What is MinGW and what is GCC? I've been mainly working on Windows systems and have even recently begun using Cygwin. Aren't they the same?
A simple explanation hitting these areas would be helpful.
(My apologies if this post sounds silly/stupid. I thought I'd ask here. Ignoring these core bits never made anyone a better programmer.)
Thanks everyone.
MinGW is a complete GCC toolchain (including half a dozen frontends, such as C, C++, Ada, Go, and whatnot) for the Windows platform which compiles for and links to the Windows OS component C Runtime Library in msvcrt.dll. Rather it tries to be minimal (hence the name).
This means, unlike Cygwin, MinGW does not attempt to offer a complete POSIX layer on top of Windows, but on the other hand it does not require you to link with a special compatibility library.
It therefore also does not have any GPL-license implications for the programs you write (notable exception: profiling libraries, but you will not normally distribute those so that does not matter).
The newer MinGW-w64 comes with a roughly 99% complete Windows API binding (excluding ATL and such) including x64 support and experimental ARM implementations. You may occasionally find some exotic constant undefined, but for what 99% of the people use 99% of the time, it just works perfectly well.
You can also use the bigger part of what's in POSIX, as long as it is implemented in some form under Windows. The one major POSIX thing that does not work with MinGW is fork, simply because there is no such thing under Windows (Cygwin goes through a lot of pain to implement it).
There are a few other minor things, but all in all, most things kind of work anyway.
So, in a very very simplified sentence: MinGW(-w64) is a "no-frills compiler thingie" that lets you write native binary executables for Windows, not only in C and C++, but also other languages.
To compile C program you need a C implementation for your specific computer.
C implementations consist, basically, of a compiler (its preprocesser and headers) and a library (the ready-made executable code).
On a computer with Windows installed, the library that contains most ready-made executable code is not compatible with gcc compiler ... so to use this compiler in Windows you need a different library: that's where MinGW enters. MinGW provides, among other things, the library(ies) needed for making a C implementation together with gcc.
The Windows library and MSVC together make a different implementation.
MinGW is a suite of development tools that contains GCC (among others), and GCC is a C compiler within that suite.
MinGW is an implementation of most of the GNU building utilities, like gcc and make on windows, while gcc is only the compiler. Cygwin is a lot bigger and sophisticated package, wich installs a lot more than MinGW.
The only reason for existence of MinGW is to provide linux-like environment for developers not capable of using native windows tools. It is inferior in almost every respect to Microsoft tooolchains on Win32/Win64 platforms, BUT it provides environment where linux developer does not have to learn anything new AND he/she can compile linux code almost without modifications. It is a questionable approach , but many people find that convenience more important than other aspects of the development .
It has nothing to do with C or C++ as was indicated in earlier answers, it has everything to do with the environment developer wants. Argument about GNU toolchains on windows and its nessessety, is just that - an argument
GCC - unix/linux compiler,
MinGW - approximation of GCC on Windows environment,
Microsoft compiler and Intel compiler - more of the same as names suggest(both produce much , much better programs on Windows then MinGW, btw)
I need to verify something for which I have doubts. If a shared library ( .dll) is written in C, with the C99 standard and compiled under a compiler. Say MinGw. Then in my experience it is binary compatible and hence useable from any other compiler. Say MS Visual Studio. I say in my experience because I have tried it successfully more than once. But I need to verify if this is a rule.
And in addition I would like to ask if it is indeed so, then why libraries written completely in C, like openCV for example don't provide compiled binaries for every different OS? I know that the obvious reason would be to set all the compile-time parameters, but other than that there is none right?
EDIT: I am adding an additional question which I see as a logical extension to the original. Isn't this how one would go and create a closed source library? Since the option of giving source goes out of the window there, giving binaries is the only choice. And in that case providing binaries for as many architectures as possible is the desired result, with C being an obvious choice for having the best portability between systems and compilers. Right?
In the specific case of C compilers (MSVC and GCC/MinGW) in the Windows world, you are correct in the assumption of binary compatibility. One can link a C interface DLL compiled by GCC to a program in Visual Studio. This is the way C99 projects like ffmpeg allow developers to write application wiht Visual Studio. One only needs to create the import library with lib.exe found in the Microsoft toolchain from the DLL. Or vice versa, using mingw.org's pexports or better, mingw-w64's gendef tool, one can create a GCC import lib for a MSVC produced DLL.
This handy interoperability breaks down when you enter the C++ interface world, where the ABI of MSVC and GCC is different and incompatible. It may work, it may not, no guarantees are made and no effort is (currently) being done in changing that. Also, debugging info is obviously different, until someone writes a debug information generator/writer in GCC that is compatible to MSVC's debugger (along with gdb support of course).
I don't think C99 specifically changes anything to function declarations or the way arguments are handled in symbol definitions, so there should be no problem here either.
Note that as Vijay said, there is still the architecture difference, so a x86 library can't be used when linking to an AMD64 library.
To also answer your additional question about closed source binaries and distributing a version for all available compilers/architectures.
This is exactly the way you would create a closed source binary. In addition to the import library, it is also very important to hide exports from the DLL, making the DLL itself useless for linking (if you don't want client code to use private functions in the library, see for example the output of dumpbin /exports on a MSOffice DLL, lots of hidden stuff there). You can achieve the same thing with GCC (I believe, never used or tried it) using things like __attribute(hidden) etc...
Some compiler specific points:
MSVC comes with four (well, actually only three remaining in newer versions) different runtime libraries through /MT, /MD, and /LD. On top of this, you would have to provide a build for each version of Visual Studio (including Service Packs) to assure compatibility. But that is closed source binary and Windows for you...
GCC does not have this problem; MinGW always links to msvcrt.dll provided by Windows (since Windows 98), equivalent with /MD (and maybe also a debug library equivalent with /MDd). But I there are two versions of MinGW (mingw.org and mingw-w64) which do not guarantee binary compatibility. THe latter is more complete as it provides 64-bit options as well as 32-bit, and provides a more complete header/library set (including a substantial part of DirectX and DDK).
The general rule is that IF your OS/CPU combination has a standard ABI, and IF that ABI is powerful enough for your language, most compilers will follow that ABI and as a result will be binary compatible, allowing you to link libraries (shared or static) compiled with different compilers to programs compiled with other compilers just fine.
The problem is that most ABIs are fairly weak -- they're designed around low-level languages like C and FORTRAN and date back to the days before object oriented languages like C++. So they tend to lack support for things like function overloading, user-defined operators, exceptions, global contructors and destructors, virtual functions, inheritance, and such that are needed by C++.
This lack was recognized when C++ was designed which is why C++ has extern "C" -- which causes the compiler to limit itself to the standard ABI for certain functions, while disabling all the extra C++ features that the ABIs generally don't support.
A shared library or dll compiled to a particular architecture can be linked to applications compiled by other compilers that target the same architecture. (By architecture, I mean a processor/OS combination). But it is not practical for a library developer to compile against all possible architectures. Moreover, when a library is distributed in source form, users can build binaries optimized to their specific requirements.