i have created (executable) binary "sample" from .c using
gcc sample.c -o sample
it's created binary named sample sucessfully.
when i run this from terminal like ./sample it display a result..
but when i run this from my tcl like exec ./sample it shows error like ./sample no such file or directory..
can anyone help me to solve the above error?
If sample in the current directory is executable, exec ./sample should work. Assuming that the binary itself does not generate that error message when it runs, of course. (Messages on stderr will become errors in Tcl by default.)
Check that puts [pwd] tells you the place you expected; if you had a cd elsewhere in your script then that relative path would no longer work. If this is the problem, use the full, absolute path to the compiled file. (You can compute this at the start of your script using file normalize sample, but you have to do this before you cd; good library packages do not use cd precisely because it is so confusing while simultaneously being usually totally unnecessary for them…)
If file exists ./sample is true (and file executable ./sample is also true, which it should be if it has just been produced by a compiler) then check immediately after the failed execution what the contents of the errorInfo and errorCode global variables are. They may give a bit more indication of what went wrong. (Or maybe not; can't tell for sure.)
Related
I was trying to execute Makefile and wanted to execute a C program with it. First, how can I include test.c file for makefile?
I've placed makefile in root directly as there will be other .c files later added.
Can anyone hep me executing this?
File structure:
Makefile code so far not working (it will work if I place it inside src still not getting the output of file.)
# -o : object file
Test: test.c
gcc -o Test test.c
Glad if anyone can help or suggest anything!
I don't usually follow links but I was curious so I did so. Your problem isn't related to make or makefiles or how your code is built. As best as can be determined from the screenshots, all that is fine.
The problem is that when you try to run the program, it's not found.
When the shell tries to run a program it looks in the directories contained in the PATH environment variable, and only there. It won't look in the current directory, unless the current directory is on the PATH.
So when you type the name of a program without a pathname to tell the shell where to find it, such as Test (by the way it's not a good idea to call your program Test because there is a system program named test on POSIX systems and it can cause confusion), it will search the directories on PATH for Test, and if the program is not found there it will fail.
If you don't want to rely on PATH you need to give the shell the pathname of the program you want to run. So you can run .\Test instead (on POSIX systems it would be ./Test), to tell the shell that you want to run Test from the current directory.
As a beginner, I am trying to write a simple c program to learn and execute the "write" function.
I am trying to execute a simple c program simple_write.c
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
if ((write(1, “Here is some data\n”, 18)) != 18)
write(2, “A write error has occurred on file descriptor 1\n”,46);
exit(0);
}
I also execute chmod +x simple_write.c
But when i execute ./simple_write.c, it gives me syntax error near unexpected token '('
Couldn't figure out why this happens ??
P.S: The expected output is:-
$ ./simple_write
Here is some data
$
You did
$ chmod +x simple_write.c
$ ./simple_write.c
when you should have done
$ cc simple_write.c -o simple_write
$ chmod +x simple_write # On second thought, you probably don’t need this.
$ ./simple_write
In words: compile the program to create an executable simple_write
(without .c) file, and then run that.
What you did was attempt to execute your C source code file
as a shell script.
Notes:
The simple_write file will be a binary file.
Do not look at it with tools meant for text files
(e.g., cat, less, or text editors such as gedit).
cc is the historical name for the C compiler.
If you get cc: not found (or something equivalent),
try the command again with gcc (GNU C compiler).
If that doesn’t work,
If you’re on a shared system (e.g., school or library),
ask a system administrator how to compile a C program.
If you’re on your personal computer (i.e., you’re the administrator),
you will need to install the compiler yourself (or get a friend to do it).
There’s lots of guidance written about this; just search for it.
When you get to writing more complicated programs,
you are going to want to use
make simple_write
which has the advantages of
being able to orchestrate a multi-step build,
which is typical for complex programs, and
it knows the standard ways of compiling programs on that system
(for example, it will probably “know” whether to use cc or gcc).
And, in fact, you should be able to use the above command now.
This may (or may not) simplify your life.
P.S. Now that this question is on Stack Overflow,
I’m allowed to talk about the programming aspect of it.
It looks to me like it should compile, but
The first write line has more parentheses than it needs.
if (write(1, "Here is some data\n", 18) != 18)
should work.
In the second write line,
I count the string as being 48 characters long, not 46.
By the way, do you know how to make the first write fail,
so the second one will execute? Try
./simple_write >&-
You cannot execute C source code in Linux (or other systems) directly.
C is a language that requires compilation to binary format.
You need to install C compiler (the actual procedure differs depending on your system), compile your program and only then you can execute it.
Currently it was interpreted by shell. The first two lines starting with # were ignored as comments. The third line caused a syntax error.
Ok,
I got what i was doing wrong.
These are the steps that I took to get my problem corrected:-
$ gedit simple_write.c
Write the code into this file and save it (with .c extension).
$ make simple_write
$ ./simple_write
And I got the desired output.
Thanks!!
I have a problem with compiling and running C codes in notepad++.
I am using the nppexec plugin and wrote the following in the script section after pressing F6:
C:\MinGW\bin\gcc.exe -g "$(FULL_CURRENT_PATH)" -o "$(CURRENT_DIRECTORY)\$(NAME_PART).exe"
$(CURRENT_DIRECTORY)\$(NAME_PART).exe
After pressing OK, I get the following on the console:
C:\MinGW\bin\gcc.exe -g "D:\Silent\Documents\College Stuff\6th sem\NETWORKING lab\substitutioncypher.C" -o "D:\Silent\Documents\College Stuff\6th sem\NETWORKING lab\substitutioncypher.exe"
Process started >>>
<<< Process finished. (Exit code 0)
D:\Silent\Documents\College Stuff\6th sem\NETWORKING lab\substitutioncypher.exe
Process started >>>
Here, substitution.c is my program to be run. The problem is that the gcc part is working fine but I am not able to execute the program from here as there is no response.
As you see, it just says process started and after that nothing. No response to a key being pressed, it just accepts everything like a text editor.
If I go to the working directory and execute the program from there (double clicking the exe file) then it seems to run perfectly fine. The problem seems to be in my script or the plugin.
Please, can anyone find out what is wrong with my compiling and running script?
In addition to #paxdiablo 's answer, you may also find useful the following NppExec script for single file projects:
npp_save
cd "$(CURRENT_DIRECTORY)"
cmd /c del "$(NAME_PART)".o "$(NAME_PART)".exe *.o
C:\MinGW\bin\gcc.exe -g3 -std=c89 -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -Wno-nonnull "$(NAME_PART)".c -o "$(NAME_PART)".exe
npp_run "$(NAME_PART)".exe
The 1st line saves the document that is currently active inside notepad++.
The 2nd line ensures your current directory is the one of the active document. This let you refraining from using the "$(CURRENT_DIRECTORY)" variable in the rest of the lines.
The 3rd line removes any executables and object-file leftovers from previous successful compilations. Removing the last executable is a nice idea, because if you don't then the last line will cause your .exe produced by the last compilation to be run anyway, even if your current compilation fails. A failed compilation does not produce an .exe, so normally you don't want NppExec to run the previous .exe. Removing the previously produced object-file is optional, but it does ensure that it will not affect fresh compilations (it makes more sense in multi-file projects, as an alternative to the touch command-line tool).
The 4th line compiles the active document. Feel free to modify gcc's options according to your needs. If you add C:\MinGW\bin into the Windows PATH environment variable, and assuming you are using only one gcc installation on your system, then you can skip the absolute path, and write just gcc instead.
The last line executes the produced executable. The npp_run command tells NppExec to launch a new command-prompt window, and run your program in it (unless it is a WIN32 GUI program). I personally find it more convenient compared to the NppExec console embed in notepad++. It looks more natural and it also avoids some I/O redirection problems of the NppExec console.
However, if your program is a console app that does not interact with the user say via a loop, then this approach will cause the launched command-prompt window to close immediately after your program terminates, not giving you the chance to inspect its output. In that case you should have you program waiting for a key to be pressed by the user just before its termination. A quick-and-dirty way is to put a system("pause"); right before your main() function's return and/or exit() statements (it is much better though to write a simple cross-platform function or macro for this).
You may experiment with the above script by typing it in F6's <temporary script> and save it permanently for general use when you are happy with its behavior.
On a side note, you may also find it useful to have a look at this post, where I'm trying to explain how to setup NppExec so it jumps to the appropriate line in the source code, by double-clicking on any error gcc spits in the NppExec console during compilation.
hello everyone
i try to debug a program, which have been installed by makefile.
it have a binary file of OpenDPI_demo.o and a shell shellscript OpenDPI_demo.
when i gdb OpenDPI_demo.o,i have a problem. i can't run it. the error is:
Starting program: /home/lx/ntop/test/opendpi/src/examples/OpenDPI_demo/OpenDPI_demo.o
/bin/bash: /home/lx/ntop/test/opendpi/src/examples/OpenDPI_demo/OpenDPI_demo.o：can't execute the binary file.
please tell me why. actually i can run the program by ./OpenDPI_demo.
thank you.
Based on the extension, the file is an object file. It is used by the linker (alongside other object files) to produce an executable. It's the real executable the one you want to run/debug.
This is another example of difficulties encountered with programs using libtool.
the file OpenDPI_demo alongside OpenDPI_demo.o is actually, as you said, a shell script which wraps the execution of the real compiled file, probably in .libs/OpenDPI_demo.
libtool needs this wrapper to adjust the runtime library paths and such so that you can execute the program transparently, as if it was actually installed on your system.
The way to correctly debug this application is not
/home/lx/ntop/test/opendpi $ gdb src/examples/OpenDPI_demo/.libs/OpenDPI_demo
but rather using libtool --mode=execute on the shell script, like the following (it's an example):
/home/lx/ntop/test/opendpi $ ./libtool --mode=execute gdb --args \
src/examples/OpenDPI_demo/OpenDPI_demo -f capture.pcap
Suggest you use
gdb OpenDPI_demo
instead
In your makefile if it depens on the object, make it depend on OpenDPI_demo, e.g.
I'm just starting programming and going through K&R to try and learn C. I've gotten to the section on command line arguments (5.10) but now I'm stumped. Every time I try and open a program I've written with command line arguments I'm told that file X, X being the argument, doesn't exist.
`gcc -o find find.c
open find test
The file /Documents/Learning_C/test does not exist.`
Any suggestions? Thanks
What system are you on? In Unix/Linux you compile & run your executable via:
gcc -o find find.c
./find test
As others have noted, when you prefix your binary with "./", there wont be any naming conflicts. However, if you made find accessible in your $PATH, you might have some conflicts with find and test--standard programs with most *nix distributions... Maybe you could choose more specific names (i.e. ./myFind testArg)
Try giving your output executable a different name.
I suspect your executing the system find command which is looking for a directory called 'test'.
Or try forcing it by executing
./find toto
Edit: Prepending the ./ to the command is important because it tells the shell to execute the find in the current directory as opposed to the first 'find' that exists in your PATH. It is normally recommended that you don't have . (the current directory) in your PATH for security reasons.
HTH
P.S. Forgot to say good one for working through K&R. I just finished doing the same after working in C for thirty years and it was good to get back and refresh the mind!
Instead of making us all individually guess what exactly you're doing wrong, perhaps you should paste the program you're using for the illustration mentioned ?