The title is fairly self explanatory... isn't anywhere to be found in the version I have (the latest), and all searches on the web have turned up little to nothing in the way of real solutions. There is only a pdf file which explains that omp flags must be marked in the C compiler I use, but I can't even get that far because I can't find the library anywhere!
Is there just a way to pull the library from somewhere and load it in? Or do I need an entirely new gcc file for my IDE to pull from, and if so, where do I get it?
EDIT: Still no luck searching. I'm also willing to work with a different IDE similar to NetBeans... preferably one that uses the Cygwin compiler set as well. If anyone has any suggestions on what I could use that would support OMP, I would be more than willing to entertain them.
Oracle Solaris Studio on Solaris (SPARC and x86) and Linux (x86) provides an IDE with C/C++/Fortran compilers with OpenMP 3.0 enabled, and a debugger and performance analyzer that understand OpenMP.
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solarisstudio/index.html
And, it's a free download and free to use.
Related
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!
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
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 11 years ago.
Does anyone have step-by-step instructions on how to build a Linux kernel using Visual Studio 2010?
I've tried to search for the solution to this question directly, but no joy. A few things I have been able to find out:
The Linux kernel is built using the GNU C compiler, so a prerequisite would be to build a Windows GNU C compiler, in order to compile a Linux GNU C compiler. I realize the GNU C compiler source code is available from GNU.org, but has anyone actually built the GNU C compiler for Windows using the Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 C/C++ compiler?
Once the Linux GNU C compiler is made, I can use it to build the Linux kernel, along with any other Linux-based software needed to get a Linux system up and going. This is what I got from www.linuxfromscratch.org
Some of you may be wondering why I don't simply download a pre-compiled GNU C compiler for this? The environment I'm working in is completely separated from any outside network. Even sneaker-net is not allowed. Every bit of software will have to be compiled from source, and those sources will have to be typed in by hand. It's inefficient, but it's also paranoid-secure. (Don't ask, I'm not the boss...)
Anyway, we're looking at bringing up in-house Linux boxes, but we're starting with Windows 7 and Visual Studio 2010. Can someone please advise how we can turn all that re-typed source code into a working GNU C compiler for Windows? And also for Linux?
Thanks for any advice!
I think that Ken Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust" explains very well how futile and not paranoid enough is this idea.
You can't trust
code that you did not totally create
yourself. (Especially code from
companies that employ people like me.)
No amount of source-level verification
or scrutiny will protect you from
using untrusted code.
How do you know that the compiler you are going to use to build GCC is secure if you didn't compile it yourself from source? And the compiler you used for that?
You need to type in by hand the machine code for a compiler to bootstrap your 100% secure environment. Only then can you trust compiled source code, whether you typed it in by hand or not.
Fact: you need gcc to compile a kernel.
Fact: you need kernel source to compile a kernel.
Once you have those two, you can bootstrap a working kernel, targeted for any platform you wish.
You can do all this on any platform you wish. For example, you can build a Linux kernel on Windows. You can just as easily build a Linux kernel for ARM or PPC on Windows.
But you've got to have the kernel source and the gcc compiler to get started.
And both the kernel source as well as gcc source depend on literally thousands headers and .c files. They're simply not practical to key in by hand.
IMHO...
If you're going to build a kernel, use a Linux distribution. There is no point in building one under Windows. Even if you'll be making your own Linux, still use Linux for that.
You could always try cygwin, but I doubt that will do you much good, even if you install all the packages.
Fabrice Bellards tcc is able to compile Linux.
It's so small you can probably compile it in Visual C++ (or modify until it works).
You could also try his qemu to simulate a computer.
Recently he even implemented a x86 virtual machine in Javascript, so you can run everything within your browser.
Even sneaker-net is not allowed. Every bit of software will have to be compiled from source, and those sources will have to be typed in by hand. It's inefficient, but it's also paranoid-secure.
Tell your boss that having someone type source code by hand is going to do nothing but induce bugs. If they want Linux boxes, then they're going to have to use the source code for Linux. You guys didn't type in all the Windows 7 source code by hand either, did you? The kernel is some 13.5 million lines of source code. There's no way you're going to be able to type that all out without inducing a ton if typo-related bugs, and that's less secure than just copying the source.
Your boss needs to get it through his head that even just typing that much code, even if the person in question was a 100% perfect typists, would take years.
By typing the whole code you mean copying/retyping every single line of code?
Please, allow me to ask, how different of the original code is this going to be?
If you're just copying, you're not fixing bugs nor checking possible vulnerabilities. Are you? I'd rather spend the respective amount of time reviewing the actual code and reporting or fixing the problems you occasionaly find.
Okay. That is almost impossible.
How you could do it:
Download virtualbox
Download an Ubuntu iso
Install Virtualbox
Create and install an Ubuntu Virtual Machine
On that virutal machine's terminal:
sudo apt-get build-essential
wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.39.2.tar.bz2
tar vxjf linux-2.6.39.2.tar.bz2
cd linux-2.6.39.2
make menuconfig ; make
Or something like that...
Assuming this question isn't a troll (is that possible?)... Maybe you're planning to OCR the source into your system, like how PGP used to get around encryption software export restrictions.
But I don't think you'll have any luck building GCC using MSVC, regardless of how many monkeys might be typing in the source. From http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html:
GCC will build under Cygwin without modification; it does not build with Microsoft's C++ compiler and there are no plans to make it do so.
Of course, if you do manage to ever get GCC onto the system under the conditions you give, and you get the Linux kernel source there somehow, I think you'll run into difficulties cross compiling Linux under a Windows-based GCC cross compiler. If nothing else, the Linux source tree and build environment depend at least a little bit on the case-sensitive nature of Unix file systems (ie., they depend on the fact that fielname can differ only in the case of characters). Windows doesn't deal well with filename that differ only by case (I think that NTFS can be configured somehow to support them, but the Win32 subsystem will almost certainly be hopelessly confused).
I'm sure there are other hurdles.
I have learned C and I would like to start to improve open source software. I would like to hack away one irritating bug in GTK+. To see the bug I need to use Gedit.
How can I download the sources of GTK+ and gedit and compile both of them so that I can see where the bug is? And I have never used any debugger in Linux so is there somewhere a tutorial for that?
You can get information about downloading and compiling of gedit here:
http://projects.gnome.org/gedit/developers.html
My Debugger of choice is GDB:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/
GDB is a console application that may be hard to handle for a beginner. Try an IDE like Eclipse that provides a GUI to GDB.
Almost all Linux debuggers are front-ends for or adaptations of the gdb debugger. You should therefore learn how to use this first, preferably by starting on
small programs of your own construction, not giant FOSS codebases. The gdb manual,
available from here is actually a pretty good tutorial.
The information on building and installing GTK+ should be here:
http://www.gtk.org/development.html
The sources should be here:
http://www.gtk.org/download-linux.html
You can check out gdb:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/ That's a pretty standard linux debugger. I would spend time with it on something simple first, or get an IDE that uses it. Learning gdb can be worth the time though.
gdb is a dinosaur which should long since have been made extinct. Debugging is one area where (gasp!) Windows beats Unix. Having got that off my chest, I advise you to start with the Data Display Debugger (DDD) graphical front end to gdb. Yes, the GUI is quaint, but you will be far more productive, quicker, than if you start with gdb.
Also don't overlook valgrind for finding and diagnosing memory errors. The KDE project actually mandates use of valgrind; I'm not sure about Gnome.
It is possible that you won't see the bug if you download the latest gedit and gtk+ sources. It might be fixed in the latest sources or the latest sources might be different enough to not trigger your bug.
What Linux distribution are you running?
First of all I'd suggest consulting your distribution's bug database to see if someone has filed a similar bug. If you don't find anything, I'd suggest using your distribution's tools to obtain the source that corresponds to the binary that you have installed on your sytem (e.g. apt-get source libgtk-2.0 on Debian or Ubuntu).
Also, your distribution might also make a debug package available (e.g. libgtk2.0-0-dbg on Debian) which will let you run a debugger on the binary that you already have without requiring the source. While this is no substitute for having the sources, it can be useful for running valgrind or making sense out of a core file.
I want to learn C language (is this something good ?) and i didn't know from where i can download the language to my PC ?
and are this FREE or must pay for ?
Is C a good language? Definitely. Is it the best first language? Depends.
If you are using Windows, you can download Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition SP1 from Microsoft for free.
On Ubuntu, just run
sudo apt-get install build-essential
On Mac OS X, install Xcode from Snow Leopard/Leopard DVD (or download the latest version from Apple developer Web site)
There are quite a few free C compilers for the PC.
As seen above, MS Visual Studio comes in a free version.
However, most introductory C programming materials will work best in a unix-like environment. Two options for such an environment are:
Cygwin, which provides a unix-like environment that can be installed over a windows system.
MinGW32/MSYS, which natively ports GCC and some unix-like development tooling onto Windows, allowing you to use GCC to build native Win32 apps.
For learning you might be better off running a native unix/linux environment. If you already have Windows and don't want to uninstall or dual-boot you can run this under a VM. Several free hypervisors are available that will let you do this.
If you want to use a different development environment you could try Eclipse.
Just go to this link and look for Eclipse IDE for C/C++ Developers (79 MB).
http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/
There is a free compiler called gcc that will compile C code. On Mac OS X and Linux you probably already have it, try typing gcc at a command prompt.
On Windows, you can still use gcc, but you need to use either Cygwin or Mingw.
Or if you want to use an IDE and Microsoft's C compiler you can get a free version of Visual Studio here.
You can use Dev C++ . Very decent tool for beginners and intermediates.
OK (all free):
For Windows
- there is Visual C++ Express
- MinGW (and is command-line based)
You will need the MS Platform SDK as well.
Linux/Sun
- GCC (there are a number of ways to get this distro depending)
OS X
- Apple's Developer Tools (Xcode and others)
It is definitely free to learn and program C, but the answer to your first question "is this something good ?" depends on what your goals are. C is a very good language for some things, but not everything.
System programming is almost always done in C, along with network programs and some applications. C is also the basis for most modern programming languages you will work with, so learning the C syntax can be applied as you go about learning other things. However, if you are looking to make a interactive webpage, you might want to learn PHP. If you are looking to make a desktop application with a GUI, you might want to learn Java.
If you want to just get a start learning about programming, C can help you with that. If that's what you want to do, and dont care much about application right now, I suggest you go to the bookstore and just find a book on learning C for beginners. It should have a CD in the back with a compiler (probably visual studio), and should get you on your way.
This is a an excellent reference of free compilers for many systems.
http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
Intel provides free non-commercial compilers for Linux. The download includes the excellent Intel debugger & profiler. The free license can be summed up in two points:
My use of software products is for personal non-commercial purposes.
I understand that technical support will be provided by community self-help and user forums (via the Software Support link above), but cannot get committed support with a non-commercial license.
For the projects I work on, I personally prefer Intel Compilers over GNU... Intel seems to do a better job of optimization.
On Windows, I'll suggest Dev CPP. This is free an a very good product. It is also easier for the newbies to learn. I used it a lot. You can download the latest from
http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html
If in Linux, there should be gcc. Use any editor of your choice( In my case vim). Just type vim filename.c in the terminal. This should bring the editor. press 'i' and write in the code. then press 'Esc' followed by ':' and x (This will save the file and exit the editor.
Now type gcc filename.c at the terminal. this should compile it. Now enter ./a.out to execute it.
If you wanted a "portable" compiler, Tiny C Compiler is a decent compiler that you can take with you on a USB stick - it's only a single .exe file or a single folder IIRC. It is cross platform as well, but the biggest downsides are that the warnings are lacking and that it's optimization isn't as good as the bigger compilers out there.
Nonetheless, it's a decent compiler to "play around with" if you don't want to install Visual Studio or Cygwin on Windows.
I think you need to be clear about the distinction between C and C++ before you decide what to do.
On Windows, try either Digital Mars C and C++ compilers or Open Watcom C and C++ products
About.com maintains a large list of c compilers for windows at http://cplus.about.com/od/glossary/a/compilers.htm