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.
Related
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+.
I've run into an issue with writing some code in c. My basic problem is that I am pressed for time and the code I am dealing with has lots of bugs which I have to "erradicate" before tomorrow evening.
The bigger part of the problem is that there is no adequate IDE that can do real time debugging, especially when using threads or spawning processes with fork(). I tried Mono, Eclipse, and finally NetBeans, and have concluded that those are very good but not for coding in C. More over the learning curve to utilize the command line debugger properly is quite steep. (Like I mentioned earlier... I am pressed on time.)
So, since I am a C# developer by profession I was wondering whether I can pull this off in VS2003/VS2005/VS2008/VS2010. If I abstain from using system calls, can I do this?
Of particular interest are FILE* descriptor and fread(), fclose(), fseek() methods. I know they are part of the standard C library, however are they tied to the platform itself? Are the headers the same in Linux vs Windows? What about fork() or shared memory?
Maybe if I use VS2010 to build parts of the component at a time (by mocking inputs and stuff), debug those, and then migrate the working code in the overall Linux project would prove most useful?
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
The bigger part of the problem is that there is no adequate IDE that can do real time debugging, especially when using threads or spawning processes with fork().
The Eclipse CDT would probably have the best overall support for C/C++ development and integrated debugging.
Note that multithreaded and multiprocess debugging can be difficult at the best of times. Investing in a good logging framework would be advisable at this point, and probably more useful than relying on a debugger. There are many to choose from - have a look at Log4C++ and so on. Even printf in a pinch can be invaluable.
So, since I am a C# developer by profession I was wondering whether I can pull this off in VS2003/VS2005/VS2008/VS2010. If I abstain from using system calls, can I do this?
If you take care to only use portable calls and not Win32-specific APIs, you should be ok. Also, there are many libraries (for C++ libraries such as Boost++ that provide a rich set of functionality which work the same on Windows, Linux and others.
Of particular interest are FILE* descriptor and fread(), fclose(), fseek() methods. I know they are part of the standard C library, however are they tied to the platform itself? Are the headers the same in Linux vs Windows? What about fork() or shared memory?
Yes, the file I/O functions you mention are in <stdio.h> and part of the portable standard C library. They work essentially the same on both Windows and Linux, and are not tied to a particular platform.
However, fork() and the shared memory functions shmget() are POSIX functions, available on *nix platforms but not natively on Windows. The Cygwin project provides implementations of these functions in a library for ease of porting.
If you are using C++, Boost++ will give you portable versions of all these system-level calls.
Maybe if I use VS2010 to build parts of the component at a time (by mocking inputs and stuff), debug those, and then migrate the working code in the overall Linux project would prove most useful?
You could certainly do that. Just be mindful that Visual Studio has a tendency to lead you down the Win32 path, and you must be vigilant to not start using non-portable functions. Fortunately the library reference on MSDN gives you the compatibility information. In general, using standard C or POSIX calls will be portable. In my experience, it is actually easier to write on *nix and port to Windows, but YMMV.
Looks like I am the first to recommend Emacs here. Here is how Emacs works. When you install it, it is simply a text editor with a lot of extensions(debugger and C font-locking are included by default). As you start using it and install the extensions you miss, it becomes more than just an editor. It grows to become an IDE very soon and easily, then on to something that can eschew the OS under one frame.
Emacs might take long to learn, in the mean time, you could use Visual Slick Edit if you are not pressed on the cost part. I have used it on both platforms and seen it work good with version control, tags, etc.
Perhaps Code::Blocks? I love it and while it says it's for C++ it is, of course, very good for plain C as well.
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.
I program in Delphi (D7 and D2006) on Windows XP (migrating in the near future to Windows 7). I need to use a mathematical library for some of the work I am doing and most of the math libraries (I am inclining towards Mathematica at present) I have looked at will produce compiled C code. Such code will provide specific functionality to my main programs.
I have a very basic question - given this development setup - how do I start utilising the compiled c code from Delphi? I really need baby steps to get me started on the process.
I've done quite a bit of this with my FE product OrcaFlex. You have two options to link to your C code from Delphi: static or dynamic. I link statically because it makes distribution and versioning much easier. But it's really quite a trick to get it to work statically and you have to rely on a number of undocumented aspects of Delphi.
I suspect that for your needs dynamic linking is best. Basically you need to compile and link your C code into a DLL. I recommend using the Borland C compiler to do this. You can use the free command line version BCC55 to do this. The advantage of using Borland C is that it makes the same assumptions about the 8087 floating point unit as Delphi does. If you build with MSVC then you will find that MS have elected not to raise floating point exceptions. Borland C does raise floating point exceptions. This is a bit of a corner case but it becomes relevant if you are trying to ship a product that you need to be robust.
You should know that the C code will, by default, use the C calling convention and I'd just stick with that. You bring it into Delphi by declaring the external routine as cdecl calling convention.
The other thing you need to take care on is defining a clear interface between the two modules. You need to make sure that exceptions don't cross the module boundary and that you don't pass any special types (e.g. Delphi strings) across the boundary. So for a string use a PChar (or even better PAnsiChar or PWideChar to be sure that it won't change meaning when you upgrade to Delphi 2009 and later).
I have been very happy with the SDL Library from Lohninger (http://www.lohninger.com/mathpack.html). It is written in Delphi and compiles right into your application, so there are no bundling or calling convention problems or floating point usage differences, as discussed by other responses in this thread.
Take a look at what he includes. If you're lucky, your needs will be met by his library and you'll be able to use it!
If you currently have Mathematica installed, go to the documentation centre and lookup guide/CLanguageInterface otherwise that guide is available on the web and have a good read there.
My understanding is that Mathematica can generate C-programs that link up with the Mathematica engine via MathLink if you need full function, or if you only need lower-level features then it is capable of generating code that can be statically linked with compiled Mathematica libraries. So that standalone code is possible.
See the Code Generator documentation.
If you can convert the C programs in to DLLs, then accessing such external functions from Delphi is relatively simple with external declarations.
function MathematicaRoutine(const x : double) : double; external 'MyInterface.dll';
There are bound to be a great number of complexities in getting this to work if you need to achieve a static bind, for use where Mathematica is not installed, if indeed it is possible. I have never attempted it.
You can mix your project with Delphi and C++ (Builder) code using RAD Studio. Put the automatically created C code into a C++ Builder file (.cpp) and for the rest add Delphi files.
I am looking into making a C program which is divided into a Core and Extensions. These extensions should allow the program to be extended by adding new functions. so far I have found c-pluff a plugin framework which claims to do the same. if anybody has any other ideas or reference I can check out please let me know.
You're not mentioning a platform, and this is outside the support of the language itself.
For POSIX/Unix/Linux, look into dlopen() and friends.
In Windows, use LoadLibrary().
Basically, these will allow you to load code from a platform-specific file (.so and .dll, respectively), look up addresses to named symbols/functions in the loaded file, and access/run them.
I tried to limit myself to the low-level stuff, but if you want to have a wrapper for both of the above, look at glib's module API.
The traditional way on windows is with DLLs. But this kind of obselete. If you want users to actually extend your program (as opposed to your developer team releasing official plugins) you will want to embed a scripting language like Python or Lua, because they are easier to code in.
You can extend your core C/C++ program using some script language, for example - Lua
There are several C/C++ - Lua integration tools (toLua, toLua++, etc.)
Do you need to be able to add these extensions to the running program, or at least after the executable file is created? If you can re-link (or even re-compile) the program after having added an extension, perhaps simple callbacks would be enough?
If you're using Windows you could try using COM. It requires a lot of attention to detail, and is kind of painful to use from C, but it would allow you to build extension points with well-defined interfaces and an object-oriented structure.
In this usage case, extensions label themselves with a 'Component Category' defined by your app, hwich allows the Core to find and load them withough havng to know where their DLLs are. The extensions also implement interfaces that are specified using IDL and are consumed by the core.
This is old tech now, but it does work.