I have to design a C project that is supposed to be run on Linux. I am very used to design C projects on Windows using Visual Studio or DevC++. Is it feasible to design the project on Windows and then port the code to Linux. Is it possible to use Eclipse CDT for switching compile configurations from Windows to Linux. What should i do? What do you suggest me to do or search?
This is a broad question since we have no info on what you're trying to achieve.
Some guidelines I can share with the limited information provided: in my experience it is feasible to write code on Windows and then port it to Linux although you should expect some differences in the Microsoft compiler and gcc compilers used in Linux/Unix (usually the more a compiler is conformant to the standard, the more it "warns" or won't accept something fishy in your code).
If you're dealing with a large number of dependencies / headers / source structures your project could greatly benefit from using a tool like CMake to deal with all those issues (a meta-generator that can generate makefiles and/or visual studio solutions depending on your platform from the same set of sources).
Also notice that you should NOT use any platform-dependent API in order to render your code portable. If you really need to, make sure to #ifdef those code sections for the specific platform you're compiling your code on.
Finally, if you plan to use a GUI in your application (or even if you're not planning one you might still benefit from the various libraries included), you might use a portable framework like Qt but keep in mind that this would require isolating the C part of your application from the C++ one (Qt). As another choice of your preference, you might also use GTK+.
Related
I am updating a 16-bit program written as a C program and originally compiled with a Borland C compiler. It will be compiled with Visual Studio as a 64-bit CLI app for Windows 7 and the hope is to minimize the coding changes. The 16-bit file management calls are no longer available. Basically, the functionality that was originally prototyped in dir.h is not available. What is the simplest way of replacing functionality for the following dir.h functions:
_setdisk()
_getdisk()
_getcurdir()
_searchpath()
Hoping to get advice as my experience with C APIs is limited?
You can use the Borland docs as a spec to help you implement your own versions in terms of win32 API calls. Some of them look like they will map easily, for example:
SetCurrentDirectory
GetCurrentDirectory
Others look like they may be more work:
SearchPath + GetEnvironmentVariable
One thing to consider if you have such an old application: depending on its size it may be better to rewrite it rather than to port it. You may find that C++ or C# provide libraries to allow you to achieve the same result with less code in a way that will allow you to more easily make enhancements.
I am getting interested in the Oberon language and I would like to know: is the language actually used by common programmers or is it still only used by researchers? Is it production-ready? What I have in mind are non-scientific applications requiring GUI support and possibly Internet connectivity (at least client-side POP3 and SMTP functionality).
Also, which of the Oberon flavors would you recommend for my needs (Oberon2, Active Oberon, etc)? The simpler, the better, as long as it is well maintained and has some community.
If possible, I would like to run my applications in a conventional host environment (Windows or Linux), without the need for a special runtime environment or a special operating system.
Thanks
BlackBox has some of what you want, runs on flavors of Windows.
There are also some environments that compile to Java bytecode and target the JVM.
Look at POW, and Gardens Point Component Pascal.
I happen to be using some command-line only tools that are Oberon Compilers.
OO2C is an Oberon to C compiler (but the output is not for human consumption).
Ofront is an Oberon to Human-Readable C, but I haven't yet set up a linux box to run it on. (otherwise, it is supposed to run inside of BlackBox on Windows).
There is also Oxford Oberon Compiler by Professor Spivey. A VERY enjoyable Compiler that compiles to a Virtual Machine, but the whole object code is a self-contained application (albeit command -line).
It is a VERY small download, meant for an educational environment, keeps everything CLEAN, and works well for prototyping some of the grunt work or procedures/modules of your code. It also is supposed to allow bitmap drawing in XWindows in Black and White only, probably for drawing graphs, etc, but I have not had an opportunity to use that feature yet.
It has a GUI-based debugger, profiling, and some other interesting tools, and still is very small by comparison to most modern compilers like gcc. It is also totally stand alone.
Works on Mac, Win, Linux, and has source.
By comparison, OO2C took me about a day of futzing and compiling to get it going (but it is working).
I don't have a Windows box right now, so I can't run my copy of BlackBox, but it had a full GUI, and lots of Source code available at the Component Pascal Collection website.
http://www.zinnamturm.eu/index.htm
If you are looking for source code you should also check out that site in hopes you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Really a joy to step into Oberon after having to fight C/C++ all day long to get simple stuff done.
OBNC is a new compiler for the latest version (2016) of the original Oberon language by Niklaus Wirth. It compiles via C and makes it easy to interface to existing C libraries.
https://miasap.se/obnc/
Given that Oberon [language] was developed as a complete [operating-]system, and that ETH's CS department ran ALL its computers (even the secretary's) on it I should think it is application-ready. This according to the following PDF:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~franz/Site/pubs-pdf/BC03.pdf
is the language actually used by common programmers or is it still only used by researchers?
There was/is little use of the original Oberon language outside academia; there was some industrial adaptation of Oberon dialects like e.g. Component Pascal.
Is it production-ready?
Depends on your requirements. Given todays expectations of software developers the (original) language and available toolchains seem very minimalistic.
non-scientific applications requiring GUI support and possibly Internet connectivity ... in a conventional host environment... which of the Oberon flavors would you recommend for my needs?
GUI support and network programming in a conventional host environment is e.g. supported by https://blackboxframework.org as already mentioned, which uses a language related to Oberon.
You could also have a look at https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon which includes a platform independend IDE with semantic navigation and a source-level debugger, plus a platform independent foreign function interface as a language extension which allows you to directly use any C shared library, and thus reuse the plethora of existing proven GUI or network libraries out there without having to program in C. It also offers a modern, lean syntax variant without all the semicolons and capitalized keywords, which should appeal especially to younger developers; but of course also the traditional syntax is supported, even mixed modern/traditional syntax projects.
a previous relevant question from me is here Reverse Engineering old paint programs
I have set up my base of operations here: http://animatorpro.org
wiki coming soon.
Okay, so now I have a 300,000 line legacy MSDOS codebase. It's sort of a "be careful what you wish for" situation. I am not an experienced C programmer. I'm not entirely inexperienced either, but for all intents and purposes I'm a noob to the language and in particular the intricacies of its libraries. I am especially ignorant of the vagaries of the differences between C programs written specifically for MSDOS and programs that are cross platform. However I have been studying this code base for over a year now, and this is what I know about Animator Pro:
Compilers and tools used:
Watcom C compiler
tcmake (make program from Turbo C)
386asm, a specialised assembler for the Phar Lap dos extender
and of course, the Phar Lap dos extender itself.
a selection of obscure dos utilities
Much of the compilation seems to be driven by batch files. Though I have obtained copies of all these tools, I have not yet succeeded at compiling it. (though I have compiled its older brother, autodesk animator original.
It's got a plugin system that replicates DLL before DLL's were available, based on REX. The plugin system handles:
Video Drivers (with a plethora of included VESA drivers)
Input drivers (including wacom tablets, and keyboards)
Drawing Tools
Inks (Like photoshop's filters, or blending modes)
Scripting Addons (essentially compiled scripts)
File formats
It's got its own script interpreter named POCO, based on the C language- The scripting language has enough power to do virtually all the things the plugin system can do- Just slower.
Given this information, this is my development plan. Please criticise this. The source code is available in the link above, so you can easily, if you are so inclined, assess the situation yourself.
Compile with its original tools.
Switch to using DJGPP, and make the necessary changes to get it to compile with that, plus the original assembler.
Include the Allegro.cc "Game" library, and switch over as much functionality to that library as possible- Perhaps by simply writing new video and input drivers that use the Allegro API. I'm thinking allegro rather than SDL because: there is a DOS version of Allegro, and fascinatingly, one of its core functions is the ability to play Animator Pro's native format FLIC.
Hopefully after 3, I will have eliminated most or all of the Assembler in the project. I say hopefully, because it's in an obscure dialect that doesn't assemble in any modern free assembler without significant modification. I have tried them all. Whatever is left gets converted to assemble in NASM, or to C code if I can define the assembler's actual function.
Switch the dos extender from Phar Lap to HX Dos http://www.japheth.de/HX.html, Which promises to replicate as much of the WIN32 api as possible. Then make all the necessary code changes for that to work.
Switch to the win32 version of Allegro.cc, assuming that the win32 version can run on top of HXDos. Make any further necessary changes
Modify the plugin system to use some kind of standard cross platform plugin library. What this would be, I have no idea. Maybe you can offer some suggestions? I talked to the developer who originally wrote the plugin system, and he said some of the things it does aren't possible on modern OS's because of segmentation restrictions. I'm not sure what this means, but I'm guessing it means all the plugins will need to be rewritten almost from scratch.
Magically, I got all the above done, and we can try and make it run in windows, osx, and linux, whilst dealing with other cross platform niggles like long file names, and things I haven't thought of.
Anyone got a problem with any of this? Is allegro a good choice? if not, why? what would you do about this plugin system? What would you do different? Is this whole thing foolish, and should I just rewrite it from scratch, using the original as inpiration? (it would apparently take the original developer "About a month" to do that)
One thing I haven't covered above is the text/font system. Not sure what to do about that, but Animator Pro has its own custom font format, but also is able to use Postscript Type 1 fonts, and some other formats.
My biggest concern with your plan, in a nutshell: Your approach seems to be to attempt to keep the whole enormous thing working at all times, tweaking the environment ever-further away from DOS. During each tweak to the environment, that means you will have approximately a billion subtle assumptions that might have broken at once, none of which you necessarily understand yet. Untangling them all at once will be incredibly painful.
If I were doing the port, my approach would be to disable as much code as possible to get SOMETHING running in a modern environment, and bring the parts back online, one piece at a time. Write a simple test harness program that loads a display driver and draws some stuff, and compile it for DOS to make sure you understand the interface. Then write some C code that implements the same interface, but with Allegro (or SDL or SFML), and make that program work under Windows or Linux. When the output differs, you have a simple test case to work from.
Your entire job on this port is swapping out implementations of various interfaces and functions with completely new ones. This is a job that unit testing excels at. Don't write any new code without a test of some kind that runs on the old code under DOS! Make your potential problems as small and simple as you possibly can. Port assembly code instead of rewriting it only if you're reasonably confident that it will actually make your job easier (ie, algorithmic stuff that compiles fine with few tweaks under NASM). Don't bite off a bigger piece than you can comfortably fit in your brain at once.
I, for one, look forward to seeing your progress! I think what you're attempting to do is great. Thanks for doing it.
Hmmm - I might approach it by writing an OpenGL video "driver" for it. and todays machines are fast enough with tons of ram that you could do all the pixel specific algorithms on main CPU into a back buffer and it would work. As the "generic" VGA driver just mapped the video buffer to a pointer this would be a place to start. There was a zoom mode in the UI so you can look at the pixels on a high res display.
It is often very difficult to take an existing non-trivial code base that wasn't written with portability in mind - you mention a few - and then try to make it portable. There will be a lot of problems on the way. It is probably a better idea to start from scratch and rewrite the code using the existing code as reference only. If you start from scratch you can leverage existing portable UI solution in your new project like Qt.
So, I have a large C project that was built entirely on Unix (SPARC Solaris). me and several others have begun to revisit it because their was some interest in a windows build.
none of us have done this with a project of such size, so for starters, has anyone ported something from unix to windows and could maybe give me some pointers or how they did it.
our first step on our plan was to decide on a compiler/dev environment.
it seems that our options are MS Visual Studio, Cygwin, mingw/gcc, and Windows Services for UNIX (SFU).
we are on a fairly short timetable so we want to rewrite as little code as possible.
so, Deciding on a compiler.
Another issue is that the code does use POSIX thread commands (pthread, etc)
we would prefer to compile natively, not using some sort of layer between the executable and the OS. unfortunatly with the pthread calls in our code, this may not be possible.
I believe both Cygwin and SFU do just that. Cygwin has a .dll that must be included in compiled code to work. I am not sure about SFU, any information about that would be greatly appreciated. It seems like it would be a good option but was developed to allow for UNIX compiled software to run on a windows machine with SFU, not any old windows box.
mingw does have the ability to create native exes, but lacks the POSIX support.
So, can anyone give me any more information, suggestions, knowledge on any of these compilers in this context. or any experience they have with this sort of thing, it is greatly appreciated.
Short timetable? CygWin, plain and simple.
Despite your preference to not use a layer, that's going to provide the fastest path and you don't seem to indicate that the timeframe requirement is flexible.
We've ported both command-line and X-based UNIX programs to Windows using CygWin with minimal hassle.
Cygwin is likely the fastest path to a working executable. However it will leave you with some interesting distribution choices. Most obviously, cygwin.dll becomes a dependency. Its licensed GPL, unless you pay money to buy commercial use rights.
Cygwin is not particularly friendly to an ordinary Windows user. Its goal is to provide a full POSIX experience on Windows, supplying a shell, all the familiar *nix utilities, and even a port of X. However, it also remaps the Windows disk drive naming into a POSIX-like file system. I've never attempted to distribute an application built for Cygwin to machines that don't already have a full Cygwin installation. I will note that to my knowledge none of the big well-known open-source applications with Windows ports are based on Cygwin.
If the only hard POSIX dependency you have is pthreads, then that is solvable. There is a pthreads port built on native Windows threads that works well with MinGW. IIRC, it is even distributed along with MinGW, or at least is one of their core supported packages.
If the rest of your handling of file names is largely as opaque strings, you may not even need to care about changing / to \. The Windows API is generally happy to treat either character as a path separator, even mixed in the same name. It is the CMD.EXE and early DOS convention of using / for command line options that prevents the use of / for pathnames at the command prompt, not the underlying Windows API.
For tools that might make porting your build process easier, check out the MSYS component of MinGW. It provides a lightweigh fork from the Cygwin environment in which enough *nix utilities are available to generally run ./configure and similar processes.
In addition, the GnuWin32 project has ports of a large number of utilities and libraries that are all built to run as native Windows applications without unusual dependencies.
If the code is (at least mostly) portable and the only major issue is the use of pthreads, you might want to use the Pthreads Win32 library. While incomplete, it's sufficiently complete and accurate to deal with most pthreads code I've tried it with. While normally built as a DLL, this can also be built as a static library to avoid creating an extra dependencies in your executable.
That, of course, leaves everything else to port -- but you haven't said enough to even guess whether porting the rest within your timeframe is at all reasonable.
What things should be kept most in mind when writing cross-platform applications in C? Targeted platforms: 32-bit Intel based PC, Mac, and Linux. I'm especially looking for the type of versatility that Jungle Disk has in their USB desktop edition ( http://www.jungledisk.com/desktop/download.aspx )
What are tips and "gotchas" for this type of development?
I maintained for a number of years an ANSI C networking library that was ported to close to 30 different OS's and compilers. The library didn't have any GUI components, which made it easier. We ended up abstracting out into dedicated source files any routine that was not consistent across platforms, and used #defines where appropriate in those source files. This kept the code that was adjusted per platform isolated away from the main business logic of the library. We also made extensive use of typedefs and our own dedicated types so that we could easily change them per platform if needed. This made the port to 64-bit platforms fairly easy.
If you are looking to have GUI components, I would suggest looking at GUI toolkits such as WxWindows or Qt (which are both C++ libraries).
Try to avoid platform-dependent #ifdefs, as they tend to grow exponentially when you add new platforms. Instead, try to organize your source files as a tree with platform-independent code at the root, and platform-dependent code on the "leaves". There is a nice book on the subject, Multi-Platform Code Management. Sample code in it may look obsolete, but ideas described in the book are still brilliantly vital.
Further to Kyle's answer, I would strongly recommend against trying to use the Posix subsystem in Windows. It's implemented to an absolute bare minimum level such that Microsoft can claim "Posix support" on a feature sheet tick box. Perhaps somebody out there actually uses it, but I've never encountered it in real life.
One can certainly write cross-platform C code, you just have to be aware of the differences between platforms, and test, test, test. Unit tests and a CI (continuous integration) solution will go a long way toward making sure your program works across all your target platforms.
A good approach is to isolate the system-dependent stuff in one or a few modules at most. Provide a system-independent interface from that module. Then build everything else on top of that module, so it doesn't depend on the system you're compiling for.
XVT have a cross platform GUI C API which is mature 15+ years and sits on top of the native windowing toollkits. See WWW.XVT.COM.
They support at least LINUX, Windows, and MAC.
Try to write as much as you can with POSIX. Mac and Linux support POSIX natively and Windows has a system that can run it (as far as I know - I've never actually used it). If your app is graphical, both Mac and Linux support X11 libraries (Linux natively, Mac through X11.app) and there are numerous ways of getting X11 apps to run on Windows.
However, if you're looking for true multi-platform deployment, you should probably switch to a language like Java or Python that's capable of running the same program on multiple systems with little or no change.
Edit: I just downloaded the application and looked at the files. It does appear to have binaries for all 3 platforms in one directory. If your concern is in how to write apps that can be moved from machine to machine without losing settings, you should probably write all your configuration to a file in the same directory as the executable and not touch the Windows registry or create any dot directories in the home folder of the user that's running the program on Linux or Mac. And as far as creating a cross-distribution Linux binary, 32-bit POSIX/X11 would probably be the safest bet. I'm not sure what JungleDisk uses as I'm currently on a Mac.
There do exist quite few portable libraries just examples I've worked within the past
1) glib and gtk+
2) libcurl
3) libapr
Those cover nearly every platform and so they are extremly useful tool.
Posix is fine on Unices but well I doubt it's that great on windows, besides we do not have any stuff for portable GUIs there.
I also second the recommendation to separate code for different platforms into different modules/trees instead of ifdefs.
Also I recommend to check beforehand what are the differences in you platforms and how you could abstract them. E.g. this is some OS related stuff (e.g. the annoying CR,CRLF,LF in text files), or hardware stuff. E.g. the previous mentioned posix compability doesnt stop you from
int c;
fread(&c, sizeof(int), 1, file);
But on different hardware platforms the internal memory layout can be complete different (endianess), forcing you to use conversion functions on some of the target platforms.
You can use NAppGUI for both console and desktop apps. The SDK uses ANSI-C and your code will work on Windows/macOS/Linux.
https://www.nappgui.com
It's free and OpenSource.