I'm on an XP Virtual Machine running the GNU Visual Debugger 1.2.6, trying to open an Ada file (.adb), but keep getting the following error:
not in executable format: File format
not recognized
I should also mention that I've installed both the Ada compiler kit and win32 tools for GNAT 3.14p.
I've since tried opening other .adb files from the GVD and even .c files, but all with the same happy response above.
Any idea why this is happening?
GVD does not take a source file as an argument, it takes an executable program. Skipping a lot of if this and if that, to debug foo.adb you probably want to pass foo.exe to the debugger.
But this is Ada, and you shouldn't be here. ;-) If you got your source program to compile and produce an executable, you very seldom need to run the debugger. I can remember the last time I used the debugger with GNAT, and why. (A bug in Solaris, the workaround was change a constant to a variable--Solaris was overwriting the value passed in instead of using a temp.) But that was what? Five years ago?
It is much easier to put in some debugging code (see pragma Debug in the GNAT documentation), then run the program with the debug flag if necessary.
Oh, most important. You may need to look in C:\GNAT\2010\share\doc\ to find all the documentation that came with GNAT. Read it. Or at least figure out how to search it for what you need. ;-)
Related
I want to compile and run C/C++ programs with sublimetext 2 itself.I dont want to use terminal to do so. What do I need to do for this??I am compeletely new to this so a lot of answers to similar questions did not help me as most of them were for windows.
sublime text 2 build system for C programming language should show you how to setup your build environment. Note: you need gcc etc. installed
Edit: you should although run your programm in a Terminal because SublimeText2 is an Editor and can not recieve user input for your programm. so you better just build it with ST2 and run it in Terminal or you just forget about ST2 and make your own Bash script that manages compiling and runs the programm.
I would use sublime text as an editor (which is what IDEs are). Then you'll need to have a Makefile for your program. And build it by typing make in a terminal (or by configuring your editor to run that command). BTW, you can type m a k e enter once in your day (and later use up in the same terminal, to reapeat the latest command).
Learning how to write simple Makefile-s is a reusable skill (see here for "why?"). See this and that and many other examples. Don't attach yourself to one particular editor (even if you may like one more than others; my preference goes to emacs).
You'll learn a big lot by studying (and improving) the source code of some free software. Look at sourceforge, github, etc.. to find some free software interesting to you, then download its source code, build it, and study it.
The tips and advices I gave here are still valid today, with a recent Ubuntu (e.g. 14.x)
BTW, your question looks like you might be confused; Sublime Text is an editor (perhaps glorified as an IDE). It does not compile anything. The C or C++ compiler on Ubuntu is GCC (using gcc command for compiling C code, and g++ command for compiling C++ code) or perhaps Clang/LLVM (using clang command for C code, and clang++ command for C++ code). That compiler is often started by make, and IDEs on Linux are often running make -or directly the compiler- command for you. You'll better be able to run these commands yourself.
I have been trying to compile open source projects since past few months with no success. I just don't know how to go about the entire thing. Readings over the internet have not helped much.
Some come with ./Configure and a Makefile while others with only a Makefile. How to use them to generate executables (or they have some other purpose ).
My machine currently has:
Windows XP,
Mingw Compiler for C/C++,
Cygwin
Do I need any other software?
Thanks!
Edit:
Thanks for the response. Currently I am trying to compile "Null Httpd". It comes only with a makefile.
In my command line prompt I type
/directoryContainingMakeFile/mingw32-make Makefile
I get
"Nothing to be done for 'Makefile'"
:(? Am I doing it the right way?
./configure is the first thing to run, if it exists -- it checks if your system has the requirements for the project, and also allows you to set project specific settings or simply set the default values.
Next, the command make (though some projects require automake, or cmake, which are similar but more powerful utilities) takes those configurations and builds from the source code into the executable. Make isn't a compiler in itself though -- its simply used to specify how to build the project. Most projects in C use gcc, probably with many standard libraries to be linked in, in which case this should run on top of cygwin perfectly well. If it has other dependencies however, you are on your own for the most part (this gets complicated very quickly -- if this happens, its usually a less time-consuming effort to work in the OS the source was made to compile on).
After this, you should find the binaries you require in the same directory :)
There is few files with .c anf .h extensions (cmdline.c cmdline.h core.c core.h and so on) in src directory, also there is one file "MakeFile" without extension. Is there any possibility to build these source files into some executable file on Windows 7 (64bits) ? I think i need to download compilers for C or some sdks right?
Yes.
You need to:
download and install a C/C++ compiler (I recommend TDragon's distribution of MinGW ),
add the compiler to your PATH (the installer can do it for you most of the cases); verify it's done by opening cmd.exe and typing gcc -v and mingw32-make -v, both should give you half a screenful of version information if your path is set correctly,
via cmd.exe, navigate to the folder in which the Makefile resides and call mingw32-make.
From now on everything should compile automatically. If it doesn't, post the errors.
Update:
First of all, it'd be useful for you to get the MSys package. Install it and you'll have a more recent version of make (use it instead of mingw32-make from now on).
About the CreateProcess bug, it has to do with the system PATH variable being too long. You'd need to do something like this:
open cmd
execute set PATH=c:/mingw32/bin;c:/msys/1.0/bin (change the paths here to reflect your own installation if it's different)
then as before: navigate to your project's directory, run make. Everything should be smooth now if you're not missing any external libraries.
BTW- remember not to install MinGW or MSys in directories with spaces.
I am not a Windows Developer..
But still as per my knowledge. Visual Studio (i.e 2008, I guess) has the ability to read the Makefile.
Please have a look at it..and if needed change this makefile to their format..
There are many opensource product which are platform independent..and they get compiled on both OS with the just Makefile they provided.
Or else use 'cygwin'
Developer C++ works in windows but it is actually GCC code bought into Windows, Is anyone familiar about the procedure they used to convert the linux ( .sh) to executables ??
I think i need to download compilers for C or some sdks right?
A compiler certainly, but what additional libraries you may need will depend entirely on the code itself. A successful build may also depend on the intended target of the original code and makefile. The makefile may be a GNU makefile, but there are other similar but incompatible make utilities such as Borland Make and MS NMake. If it is a simple build, you may be able to avoid the makefile issue altogether and use the project management provided by an IDE such as Visual C++ 2010 Express.
If you do not know what this code is or what it does and what it needs to build, you are taking a risk building it at all. Maybe you should post a link to the original source so that you can get more specific advice on how to build it.
[EDIT]
Ok, now looking at the code you are attempting to build, it is a very simple build, so if you wanted to avoid using GNU make, then you could just add all the *.c files in the src folder to a project in your IDE and build it.
However there is one serious gotcha, it uses the BSD sockets API and Linux system headers. You will need to first port the code to Windows APIs such as WinSock (very similar to BSD Sockets), or build it under Cygwin (a sledgehammer for a nut somewhat). There may be other Linux dependencies that need sorting, I have not looked in detail, but it looks fairly simple. That said, if you did not have the first clue regarding compiling this stuff, then perhaps this is not a task you could do?
Of course compiling the code may only be half teh problem, if it was designed to run on Linux, there may be run-time dependencies that prevent it running on Windows. Again I have not looked in detail.
Also looking at the code, I would suggest some caution, this may not be the best quality code. That may be unfair, but one obvious flaw and an indication if inexperience is the lack of include guards in the headers.
When I link to the one under Release/ ,got a fatal error:
LINK : fatal error LNK1146: no argument specified with option '/machine:'
Then I tried to link to the .lib under Debug/ and this time it works.
But what can be different?
Usually, no optimization is done to debug assemblies, while release assemblies are optimized. Debug assemblies will also often contain cruft like source file line numbers.
This isn't actually a C question; it relates to the platforms used.
Frequently, a project/solution will be set up to create a version for debugging and one for release, and putting them in Debug/ and Release/ directories is a common way to distinguish. The debug version will typically compile fast and run slowly, and contain information to link the internal execution to the source code (such as line numbers and variable names). The release version is typically slower to compile and faster to run, and it's much more difficult to track what's going on inside.
Obviously, there have to be differences between the debug and release versions, if only the appropriate compiler flags. However, in the build systems I'm familiar with, it's possible to make arbitrary other changes, and sometimes this will cause a release-version-only bug, which is a pain. Alternately, if the C code doesn't specify the behavior properly, the debug and release versions might interpret it differently, and that's also a pain.
In this case, I'd guess that there was a difference in how they were built. I can't really comment further without more information.
What is the OS? What is the C compiler used? What build system do you use (if you're using an IDE, possibly the one standard with the IDE)? What is the library you're using. Does your organization build it, or do you get it from outside? Knowing these things would give us a clue as to where to start looking.
You may want to change the build configuration for debug and release versions seperately.
This is a hard question to ask because I'm positive I'm about to be bombarded with haters commenting on "if I can't write an operating system already, I won't ever to be able to write an operating system". Well I've read Modern OS by Tanembaum, Linux Kernel Development, Understanding the Linux kernel and others I still don't know if or not I can write an operating system and only by pushing forward to write one will I realise what I don't know. On top of that none of the books I read even bother to describe the boot sequence / compilation sequence.
Anyway I hate to be negative but I would just like to build the example code from the bkerndev tutorial below and have an absolutely minimum operating system:
http://www.osdever.net/bkerndev/index.php?the_id=90
You can download the associated source code in a zip format from here:
http://www.osdever.net/bkerndev/bkerndev.zip
When you try and compile this kernel you run into all sorts of errors caused by the fact that some of the code is broken. Another user was seeking help for this here on stack overflow here:
compiling my own kernel (not from linux-kernel source)
Although didn't get much help. I have addressed those errors by adding the gcc flag fleading-underscores and by changing some of the data types. You can see my code here:
http://github.com/PhillipTaylor/farmix
The code will compile sucessfully and leave me with a kernel.bin executable but when I boot into it from grub I get:
Error 13: Unrecognised or unsupported format (or something to that nature)
When I take the kernel.bin directly from the authors zip file and run it on my eeepc it boots absolutely fine so I think I have a problem with compiling the code correctly. The author is building it from a Windows machine, I believe, but I am trying to compile it using Fedora 10 i386 with GNU GCC 4.3 and I think this is what is causing the issue so I ask you, how do I build a valid executable kernel? Am I missing the correct target or the wrong binary format?
I would really appreciate someone helping me over this embarrassing "first step"
My comment above wasn't very clear. What I meant is "What does the 'file' command report on your kernel.bin vs. theirs?". The output of the linker is a raw binary file. It should start with a few magic words that grub recognizes. They are defined in start.asm near "mboot". I suspect yours is different than theirs.
I don't have nasm handy so I can't build, but you might want to start by comparing the first few words of the .bin file.
It turns out that the line used to compile the app was explicitly set to compile to "aout" format which was what the guide said and what I assumed to be true. Only reading stuff in the "barebones" guide convinced me that I may have been confused. As soon as I changed that one line to "nasm -f elf" it all worked.
This is a tag in my repository that points to a basic WORKING version of bkerndev tutorial code (How to write your own Operating system) for future reference and people who were in my position..
It comes with a makefile for building it from a 32 bit Linux system.
http://github.com/PhillipTaylor/farmix/tree/bkerndev_tutorial_working