Solaris' stdlib.h functions implemented by C++ libs? - c++

I am struggling with a port of an open-source tool to Solaris. Most things work, cmake/pkg-config/etc. are there, dependencies are found, gmake works, compiler and linker calls look all fine and tren, boom:
Undefined first referenced
symbol in file
std::qsort(void*, unsigned int, unsigned int, int (*)(const void*, const void*)) ...
This part I don't understand. At the first glance, std::qsort does not make sense, it is supposed to be part of C library, not STL. So I looked into stdlib.h and found a list of things like using std::sort; and dozens of other standard functions like free, malloc, atoi, etc., redirected in case of C++ context.
What is Oracle doing there and why? Which library am I supposed to link with if they do redirect it like this? Or why does CC command not pull that in automatically like GCC does?
I tried adding -lstdc++ but no luck.
Alternatively, the plain libc versions seem to be defined in <iso/stdlib_c99.h> (or <iso/stdlib_iso.h>). Is it legal to include one of those headers directly or will this wreak other random havoc at link time?
Edit:
since there are multiple suspicions of the build system weirdness, here is the basically the linking call from the gmake execution:
/opt/developerstudio12.6/bin/CC -std=c++11 -xO3 -DNDEBUG <i.e. bunch of object files> -o ../systest -L/opt/csw/lib/64 -lintl
I cannot see anything special there and I expect CC to figure out what to link to get the obligatory functionality.

The rule is that #include <xxx.h> puts names into the global namespace and is allowed to also put them in std. Conversely, #include <cxxx> puts names into std and is allowed to also put them into the global namespace. In practice, this means that there are two approaches to implementing the functions from the standard C library in C++: declare the standard C library names in the <xxx.h> headers and hoist those declarations into std in the cxxx headers, or declare the names in std in the headers and hoist those declarations into the global namespace in the <xxx.h> headers. With the former approach, the name of the function will be qsort; with the latter, it will be std::qsort. Either way, that error message usually indicates a setup problem with the compiler. The linker isn’t finding the standard library.

This compile command
/opt/developerstudio12.6/bin/CC -std=c++11 -xO3 -DNDEBUG ...
will produce a 32-bit executable. Per the Oracle CC man page:
On Oracle Solaris, -m32 is the default. On Linux systems supporting 64-bit programs, -m64 -xarch=sse2 is the default.
But this library option
-L/opt/csw/lib/64
is searching a directory full of 64-bit libraries.
Either add -m64 to the compile command or use the 32-bit library path.
Update
The question almost certainly would be answerable had it included the full error message, which is almost certainly something like this:
CC -g qsort.cc -o qsort
"qsort.cc", line 15: Error: Could not find a match for std::qsort(int[4], unsigned, unsigned, int(void*,void*)) needed in main(int, char**).
"/usr/include/iso/stdlib_iso.h", line 184: Note: Candidate 'std::qsort(void*, unsigned, unsigned, extern "C" int(*)(const void*,const void*))' is not viable: argument '4' can't be converted from 'int(void*,void*)' to 'extern "C" int(*)(const void*,const void*)'.
"/usr/include/iso/stdlib_iso.h", line 187: Note: Candidate 'std::qsort(void*, unsigned, unsigned, int(*)(const void*,const void*))' is not viable: argument '4' can't be converted from 'int(void*,void*)' to 'int(*)(const void*,const void*)'.
This code works just fine when compiled with Oracle Developer Studio 12.6 on Solaris 11.4:
#include <stdlib.h>
int compare( const void *p1, const void *p2 )
{
int i1 = *( ( int * ) p1 );
int i2 = *( ( int * ) p2 );
return( i1 - i2 );
}
int main( int argc, char **argv )
{
int array[ 4 ] = { 5, 8, 12, 4 };
qsort( array, sizeof( array ) / sizeof( array[ 0 ] ),
sizeof( array[ 0 ] ), &compare );
}

Related

Problems compiling C++ programs with wineg++/winelib

I am having trouble compiling C++ programs with wineg++. To illustrate my problem, I have written two test programs.
msgbox.cpp
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
#include <cstdio>
#include <windows.h>
int APIENTRY WinMain(HINSTANCE, HINSTANCE, LPSTR, int)
{
char buf[30], *pos = buf;
int xs[] = {1,3,2,4,3,5,4,6,5,7,6,8,7,9};
std::sort( std::begin(xs), std::end(xs) );
for (int x : xs) {
pos += std::sprintf(pos, "%d ", x);
}
MessageBox(0, buf, "Hello", 0);
return 0;
}
frame.cpp
#include "../win32xx/include/wxx_wincore.h"
#include "../win32xx/include/wxx_frame.h"
int APIENTRY WinMain(HINSTANCE, HINSTANCE, LPSTR, int)
{
CWinApp winApp;
CFrame frame;
CWnd view;
frame.SetView(view);
frame.Create();
winApp.Run();
}
The second program uses the Win32++ library, which I can't recommend enough.
Both programs compile and run just fine using a cross-compiler:
okuu% x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ msgbox.cpp -o msgbox.exe
okuu% wine ./msgbox.exe
okuu% x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ frame.cpp -o frame.exe -lgdi32 -lcomctl32 -static
okuu% wine ./frame.exe
okuu% rm *exe*
But I want to use winelib so that I can use both the Windows API and Unix libraries. This is what I tried first:
okuu% wineg++ msgbox.cpp -o msgbox.exe
okuu% ./msgbox.exe
okuu% wineg++ frame.cpp -o frame.exe -mwindows
In file included from ../win32xx/include/wxx_appcore.h:57:0,
from ../win32xx/include/wxx_wincore.h:96,
from frame.cpp:1:
../win32xx/include/wxx_appcore0.h:120:12: fatal error: process.h: No such file or directory
#include <process.h>
^~~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.
winegcc: g++ failed
Then I read wineg++'s man page, which says:
-mno-cygwin
Use Wine implementation of MSVCRT, instead of linking against the host system libc. This is necessary for the vast majority of Win32 applications, as they typically depend on various features of MSVCRT. This switch is also used by the MinGW compiler to link against MSVCRT on Windows, instead of linking against Cygwin libc. Sharing the syntax with MinGW makes it very easy to write Makefiles that work under Wine, MinGW+MSYS, or MinGW+Cygwin.
So I tried again with -mno-cygwin, and got a 2000-line error message that begins with:
okuu% wineg++ frame.cpp -o frame.exe -mwindows -mno-cygwin
In file included from /usr/include/c++/7.2.1/cstdlib:75:0,
from /usr/include/c++/7.2.1/bits/stl_algo.h:59,
from /usr/include/c++/7.2.1/algorithm:62,
from ../win32xx/include/wxx_appcore0.h:110,
from ../win32xx/include/wxx_appcore.h:57,
from ../win32xx/include/wxx_wincore.h:96,
from frame.cpp:1:
/usr/include/stdlib.h:310:5: error: ‘int32_t’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘wint_t’?
int32_t *fptr; /* Front pointer. */
^~~~~~~
wint_t
/usr/include/stdlib.h:311:5: error: ‘int32_t’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘wint_t’?
int32_t *rptr; /* Rear pointer. */
^~~~~~~
wint_t
/usr/include/stdlib.h:312:5: error: ‘int32_t’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘wint_t’?
int32_t *state; /* Array of state values. */
^~~~~~~
wint_t
/usr/include/stdlib.h:316:5: error: ‘int32_t’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘wint_t’?
int32_t *end_ptr; /* Pointer behind state table. */
^~~~~~~
wint_t
/usr/include/stdlib.h:320:8: error: ‘int32_t’ has not been declared
int32_t *__restrict __result) __THROW __nonnull ((1, 2));
^~~~~~~
So it seems C99's fixed-size integer types are not available. That seems easy enough to solve:
frame.cpp
#include <stdint.h>
#include "../win32xx/include/wxx_wincore.h"
#include "../win32xx/include/wxx_frame.h"
// etc. etc. etc.
And I tried again, but got a different 2000-line error message that begins with:
okuu% wineg++ frame.cpp -o frame.exe -mwindows -mno-cygwin
In file included from /usr/include/c++/7.2.1/cwchar:44:0,
from /usr/include/c++/7.2.1/bits/postypes.h:40,
from /usr/include/c++/7.2.1/bits/char_traits.h:40,
from /usr/include/c++/7.2.1/string:40,
from ../win32xx/include/wxx_appcore0.h:111,
from ../win32xx/include/wxx_appcore.h:57,
from ../win32xx/include/wxx_wincore.h:96,
from frame.cpp:2:
/usr/local/include/wine/msvcrt/wchar.h:398:23: error: conflicting declaration of C function ‘size_t mbstowcs(wchar_t*, const char*, size_t)’
size_t __cdecl mbstowcs(wchar_t*,const char*,size_t);
^~~~~~~~
At this point I have run out of ideas. This is what I have understood so far:
My system's libc and Wine's MSVCRT have conflicting definitions. (This was probably to be expected.)
My system's libc++ is hardwired to work with my system's libc.
Wine comes with a MSVCRT, but not with a C++ standard library implementation.
The logical course of action with the information I have so far would be to look for a C++ standard library implementation that's compatible with Wine's MSVCRT, but I don't know of one. Does anybody here know of one?
The only solution I can think of is to stick with the system libc and write your own process.h. This file should either #include the standard header files that have the functions Win32++ needs or provide its own implementations of those functions. If Win32++ won't compile without a particular function but your program does not actually depend on that function, the implementation of that function can simply return 0 or another fake value.
If the system libc has a header file that Win32++ asks for, but the file does not declare all of the functions that Win32++ expects, you'll have to write a header file such as win32xx-compat.h that defines those functions and #include it before any Win32++ header.

Why can C compile time() without its library?

When I use the time() function (i.e., just randomize seed for rand() ) but not include the header file time.h, it works for C. For example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
int i;
srand(time(NULL));
for(i=0;i<10;i++){
printf("\t%d",rand()%10);
}
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
When I try to compile the code above, g++ cannot compile it since time.h isn't included. But gcc can.
$gcc ra.c
$./a.out
4 5 2 4 8 7 3 8 9 3
$g++ ra.c
ra.c: In function ‘int main()’:
ra.c:8:20: error: ‘time’ was not declared in this scope
srand(time(NULL));
^
Is it related with version of gcc or just a difference between C/C++ ?
You should include <time.h> for time(2) and turn on the warnings. In C, a function with no visible prototype is assumed to return int (which has been deprecated since C99). So compiling with gcc seems fine while g++ doesn't.
Compile with:
gcc -Wall -Wextra -std=c99 -pedantic-errors file.c
and you'll see gcc also complains about it.
C89/C90 (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "ANSI C") had an "implicit int" rule. If you called a function with no visible declaration, the compiler would effectively create an implicit declaration assuming that the function takes arguments of the types that appear in the call and returns int.
The time function takes an argument of type time_t* and returns a value of type time_t. So given a call
time(NULL)
with no visible declaration, the compiler will generate code as if it took an argument of the type of NULL (which is likely to be int) and returns an int result. Given
srand(time(NULL))
the value returned by time(NULL) will then be implicitly converted from int to the `unsig
If int, time_t, and time_t* all happen to be, say, 32 bits the call is likely to work. If they're of different sizes,

How to trace out why gcc and g++ produces different code

Is it possible to see what is going on behind gcc and g++ compilation process?
I have the following program:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
size_t sym1 = 100;
size_t *addr = &sym1;
size_t *arr = (size_t*)((size_t)&arr + (size_t)&addr);
int main (int argc, char **argv)
{
(void) argc;
(void) argv;
printf("libtest: addr of main(): %p\n", &main);
printf("libtest: addr of arr: %p\n", &arr);
while(1);
return 0;
}
Why is it possible to produce the binary without error with g++ while there is an error using gcc?
I'm looking for a method to trace what makes them behave differently.
# gcc test.c -o test_app
test.c:7:1: error: initializer element is not constant
# g++ test.c -o test_app
I think the reason can be in fact that gcc uses cc1 as a compiler and g++ uses cc1plus.
Is there a way to make more precise output of what actually has been done?
I've tried to use -v flag but the output is quite similar. Are there different flags passed to linker?
What is the easiest way to compare two compilation procedures and find the difference in them?
In this case, gcc produces nothing because your program is not valid C. As the compiler explains, the initializer element (expression used to initialize the global variable arr) is not constant.
C requires initialization expressions to be compile-time constants, so that the contents of local variables can be placed in the data segment of the executable. This cannot be done for arr because the addresses of variables involved are not known until link time and their sum cannot be trivially filled in by the dynamic linker, as is the case for addr1. C++ allows this, so g++ generates initialization code that evaluates the non-constant expressions and stores them in global variables. This code is executed before invocation of main().
Executables cc1 and cc1plus are internal details of the implementation of the compiler, and as such irrelevant to the observed behavior. The relevant fact is that gcc expects valid C code as its input, and g++ expects valid C++ code. The code you provided is valid C++, but not valid C, which is why g++ compiles it and gcc doesn't.
There is a slightly more interesting question lurking here. Consider the following test cases:
#include <stdint.h>
#if TEST==1
void *p=(void *)(unsigned short)&p;
#elif TEST==2
void *p=(void *)(uintptr_t)&p;
#elif TEST==3
void *p=(void *)(1*(uintptr_t)&p);
#elif TEST==4
void *p=(void *)(2*(uintptr_t)&p);
#endif
gcc (even with the very conservative flags -ansi -pedantic-errors) rejects test 1 but accepts test 2, and accepts test 3 but rejects test 4.
From this I conclude that some operations that are easily optimized away (like casting to an object of the same size, or multiplying by 1) get eliminated before the check for whether the initializer is a constant expression.
So gcc might be accepting a few things that it should reject according to the C standard. But when you make them slightly more complicated (like adding the result of a cast to the result of another cast - what useful value can possibly result from adding two addresses anyway?) it notices the problem and rejects the expression.

gcc not giving warning even with -Wall flag

I call the function timer_settimer with an argument of type timer_t* (a pointer) or timer_t and gcc compiles both versions. Doesn't give any error or nothing else.
void initialize_timer(timer_t * tid, int seconds)
...
timer_settime(*tid, 0, ts, NULL) == -1;
OR
timer_settime(tid, 0, ts, NULL) == -1;
No error no nothing. (the first version works correctly. the second bugs).
This is my Makefile:
all:
gcc -Wall -ggdb -lrt -pthread -o jenia_thread thread.c
How can I make gcc output all the warnings?
Thanks in advance.
The type timer_t is defined as void*. Specifically, on my system, I have:
typedef void * __timer_t;
...
typedef __timer_t timer_t;
(You have to go several levels deep in system include files to find this; I compiled a small program with gcc -E to see the preprocessed source with all the includes expanded.)
Your system most likely has something similar, particularly if you're using the GNU C library.
The first parameter of timer_settime is of type timer_t, or void* -- which means that an argument of any pointer-to-object or pointer-to-incomplete type will be implicitly converted to void* and not require a compile-time diagnostic.
It's an unfortunate choice, and one that doesn't seem to be imposed by POSIX. You'll just have to be careful to pass an argument of the right type without any help from the compiler.

runtime initialization a const

I have a header (only) file constants.h, where I define all the constant variables, to be used later in the library. However, there is one variable, which I would like to define run-time in an implementation file. I tried to do something like this:
constant.hpp
extern const unsigned int numTests;
somewhere else in run.cpp
const unsigned int numTests = 10;
and, then yet another file tester.cpp uses
if ( n < numTests) {
// do something
}
Now, when I compile it, I get a linker error in tester.o as undefined symbol numTests. I sort of understand why this is happening: the tester.cpp includes constants.hpp and not the run.cpp and so, it can not find the constant numTests initialized in run.cpp.
Is there any better way to do it?
TIA,
Nikhil
Make sure you are compiling both run.cpp and tester.cpp when you compile your program and you won't get a linker error.
You need to link run.o when creating the executable:
g++ -o tester tester.cpp run.o ; for GNU C++
(Check your own compiler's command line switches if you're not using GNU C++)