I can think of at least a few use-cases or scenarios for this:
An "examples" configuration that builds multiple example programs.
A project with a client program and a host program.
A project with one main program and some associated utility programs (ex: gcc).
More generally, if the project has multiple output executables that have the same or similar set of dependencies, then it may make sense to build them all at once. It is easier for a user to decide which executable to run than to figure out how to make a DUB create the executable they want (they might not be a D developer that is familiar with DUB). It is convenient for me as a D developer too, because I can run fewer build commands to get what I want in total.
As an example, I might have a project layout like this:
dub.json
.gitignore
source/common/foo.d (Code called by all examples)
source/examples/simple_example.d (Build input with main function)
source/examples/complex_example.d (Build input with main function)
source/examples/clever_example.d (Build input with main function)
bin/simple_example.exe (Output executable)
bin/complex_example.exe (Output executable)
bin/clever_example.exe (Output executable)
Another project might look like this:
dub.json
.gitignore
source/common/netcode.d (Code called by all programs)
source/common/logic.d (Code called by all programs)
source/executables/host-daemon.d (Does privileged things for the server)
source/executables/server.d (Unprivileged network endpoint)
source/executables/client.d (Queries the server)
bin/host-daemon (Output executable)
bin/server (Output executable)
bin/client (Output executable)
In either project, I would want to build all executables with a single invocation of DUB. Ideally, this would all be managed from one dub.json file, due to the interrelated nature of the inputs and outputs.
It seems like subPackages might be able to do this, but managing it from one dub.json file is "generally discouraged":
The sub directories /component1 and /component2 then contain normal packages and can be referred to as "mylib:component1" and "mylib:component2" from outside projects. To refer to sub packages within the same repository use the "*" version specifier.
It is also possible to define the sub packages within the root package file, but note that it is generally discouraged to put the source code of multiple sub packages into the same source folder. Doing so can lead to hidden dependencies to sub packages that haven't been explicitly stated in the "dependencies" section. These hidden dependencies can then result in build errors in conjunction with certain build modes or dependency trees that may be hard to understand.
Can DUB build multiple executables in one go, as above, and if so, what is the most recommended way and why?
I managed to do it using configurations, without subpackages.
First, you prefix all your main functions with versions specifiers.
Suppose you have 3 different files, each with its own main.
one.d:
....
versions(one)
void main() {
....
}
two.d:
....
versions(two)
void main() {
....
}
three.d:
....
versions(three)
void main() {
....
}
In your dub project file (I use sdl format here), you can define three configurations, such that each configuration defines a different version, and outputs to a different output file.
dub.sdl:
....
configuration "one" {
versions "one"
targetType "executable"
targetName "one"
}
configuration "two" {
versions "two"
targetType "executable"
targetName "two"
}
configuration "three" {
versions "three"
targetType "executable"
targetName "three"
}
If you just call dub build, it will use the first configuration, but you can pass a different configuration:
dub build --config=two
"Subpackages are intended to modularize your package from the outside".
Instead, you should be able to create multiple configurations to do what you want like dub itself does (it defines multiple libraries but you could just as easily do multiple executables).
I'm not sure if there is a command to build all configurations at once. --combined maybe (the documentation isn't clear but I think it's actually for building all source files with a single compiler invocation rather that generating object files one by one).
Related
Context: I am primarily a Java developer and I use gradle for all my builds. As a hobby I've been playing around with C/C++ and found that gradle has the ability to build these as well. So instead of learning cmake/make just for some small hobby projects I thought I'd use gradle since I am familiar with it.
Question: How do I define locations for non-source files?
With Java there is a resources folder that you can put things like images, text files, etc... in and gradle will put these in the jar so in your code you can load them with relative paths pretty easily.
src > main > java for source files.
src > main > resources for assets.
Is there an equivalent way to do this for c++ projects?
Also if there is a default folder that would be good to know, but also how to define it in the build.gradle file to a different location would also be appreciated.
For reference here is my simple build file right now:
apply plugin: "cpp"
model {
components {
main(NativeExecutableSpec) {
sources {
cpp {
source {
srcDir "src"
}
}
}
}
}
}
In my code I'd like to be able to load an image, for example, with something like:
HoweverYouLoadAnImageInCpp("imageName.png");
While having a simple structure like:
root
--src
--images
If there is no way to currently do this, is there a workaround or a more standard way people do this in C/C++?
As mentioned in the comments, unlike jars in java, c/c++ does not seem to have a standard way of including assets in the executable. There do seem to be platform specific ways and gradle does seem to have support for Windows resource files, so if that is what you are looking for see the gradle docs.
I prefer not to do any platform specific things though so I thought I'd answer this with what I decided to do in case someone else finds this question with a similar need. If another, better, answer pops up and I notice I will change the selection.
In the end the executable will look for paths relative to where it is executed (from what I can tell at least.) So I just made a copy task to put the assets in a parallel folder.
task copyAssets {
copy {
from "."
into "build/exe/main"
include "images/**" // This will take the whole images folder from project root
}
}
build.dependsOn copyAssets
So when I gradle build now it will copy my images folder to the same folder that it builds my 'main' cpp source executable. And in my code I can access those images with:
HoweverYouGetImages("images/imagename.png");
You could of course get more fancy with your task and zip it up or compress your images and decompress on loading in your code.
I have 2 application, both uses the same library but the library should be build with a flag enabled in one and disabled in other. this is a static library, so at run time there won't be a conflict in runtime. But the library is separate ie, the application is build separately and the library is separate. In each configuration, the library will be build with a different name which is taken care by the makefile. This can be done manually. but now I need to add it to Yocto.
In yocto, how can I build the same library 2 times in separate configuration?
If you're limited to .bbappend and you don't want to duplicate the recipe, you can add some additional tasks then. In these additional tasks (after regular installation) you can do configuration/compilation/installation once again but with any kind of additional actions/variable overrides or whatever. Something like this:
do_special_configure() {
oe_runmake clean
export MAGIC_VARIABLE="magic value"
do_configure
}
do_special_compile() {
export MAGIC_VARIABLE="magic value"
do_compile
}
fakeroot do_special_install() {
export MAGIC_VARIABLE="magic value"
do_install
}
do_special_configure[dirs] = "${B}"
do_special_compile[dirs] = "${B}"
do_special_install[dirs] = "${B}"
addtask special_configure after do_install before do_special_compile
addtask special_compile after do_special_configure before do_special_install
addtask special_install after do_special_compile before do_package do_populate_sysroot
If the different configurations really produce different installed files, then you'll have no problems adding two separate recipes that just happen to have the same SRC_URI
Well, you can't, not without two recipes.
Your two applications, can't influence in any way, how the library is being used. Thus, your options (as long as both these two applications should be available for the same machine / distro combination) basically are:
Create a 2nd recipe (in this case, likely in your layer, though preferably in the upstream layer). If the recipe you're copying uses in .inc and a small .bb that mostly includes that file, you can easily do just the same. Otherwise, your options are to either copy the recipe and modify it, or to have your new recipe
require <PATH_FROM COREBASE-TO-THE-UPSTREAM-RECIPE>/upstream-recipe.bb
If possible, modify the upstream recipe (preferably using a .bbappend) to simultaneously build both versions that you require.
So I am running into an issue when I go to build my projects using tfs build controller using the Output location "AsConfigred" it will not detect my unit tests. Let me give a little info on my setup.
TFS 2013 Update 2, Default Process Template
Here is a few screenshots that can hopefully help fill in what I can't in typing. I am copying my build out to a file share on our network so that we can use other utilities use the output. I don't want to use "PerProject" or "SingleFolder" because they mess up the file structure we have configured (These both will run the tests). So i have the files copy to folder names "SingleOutputFolder" which is a child of the DropLocation. I would like to be able to run from the drop folder or run from the bin folder for each of my tests (I don't care which). However it doesn't seem to detect/run ANY of the tests. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
I have tried using ***test*.dll, Install\SingleFolderOutput**.test.dll, and $(TF_BUILD_DROPLOCATION)\Install\SingleFolderOutput*test*.dll
But I am not sure what variables are available and understand where the scope of its execution is.
Given that you're using Build Output location set to AsConfigured you have to change the default values of the Test sources spec setting to allow build to find the test libraries in the bin folders. Here's an example.
If the full path to the unit test libraries is:
E:\Builds\7\<TFS Team Project>\<Build Definition>\src\<Unit Test Project>\bin\Release\*test*.dll
use
..\src\*UnitTest*\bin\*\*test*.dll;
This question was asked on MSDN forums here.
MSDN Forums Suggested Workaround
The suggested workaround in the accepted answer (as of 8 a.m. on June 20) is to specify the full path to the test projects' binary folders: For example:
C:\Builds\{agentId}\{teamProjectName}\{buildDefinitionName}\src\{solutionName}\{testProjectName}\bin*\Debug\*test*.dll*
which really should have been shown as
{agentWorkingFolder}\src\{relativePathToTestProjectBinariesFolder}\*test*.dll
However this approach is very brittle, for the following reasons:
Any new test projects you add to the solution will not be executed until you add them to the build definition's list of test sources:
It will break under any of the following circumstances:
the build definition is renamed
the working folder in build agent properties is modified
you have multiple build agents, and a different agent than the one you specified in {id} runs the build
Improved Workaround
My workaround mitigates the issues listed in #2 (can't do anything about #1).
In the path specified above, replace the initial part:
{agentWorkingFolder}
with
..
so you have
..\src\{relativePathToTestProjectBinariesFolder}\*test*.dll
This works because the internal working directory is apparently the \binaries\ folder that is a sibling of the \src\ folder. Navigating up to the parent folder (whatever it is named, we don't care) and back in to \src\ before specifying the path to the test projects binaries does the trick.
Note: If you have multiple test projects, you add additional entries, separated with semicolons:
..\src\{relativePathToTestProjectONEBinariesFolder}\*test*.dll;..\src\{relativePathToTestProjectTWOBinariesFolder}\*test*.dll;..\src\{relativePathToTestProjectTHREEBinariesFolder}\*test*.dll;
What I ended up doing was adding a post build event to copy all of the test.dll into the staging location folder in the specific build that is basically equivalent to where it would go on a SingleFolder build and do that on each test project.
if "$(TeamBuildOutDir)" == "" (
echo "Building Interactively not in TFS"
) else (
echo "Building in TFS"
xcopy "$(TargetDir)*.*" "$(TeamBuildBinaries)\" /Y /E /S
)
MSBUILD parameter in the build def that told it to basically drop in the folder that TFS looks for them.
/p:TeamBuildBinaries="$(TF_BUILD_BINARIESDIRECTORY)"
Kept the default Test assembly file specification:
**\*test*.dll
View this link for the information on the variable that I used and what relative path it exists at.
Another solution is to do the reverse.
Leave all of the files in the root so that all of the built in functionality works. There is more than just test execution in there. What about static code analysis, impact analysis..among others. You would have to do something custom for them all.
Instead use a pre-drop powershell script to create your Install arrangement from the root files.
If it is an application then you can use the _ApplicationFolder Nuget package to create an _PublishApplications folder same as you get for web applications.
Is there a way to compile a C++Builder project (a specific build configuration) from the command line?
Something like:
CommandToBuild ProjectNameToBuild BuildConfiguration ...
There are different ways for automating your builds in C++Builder (as of my experience, I'm speaking about old C++Builder versions like 5 and 6).
You can manually call compilers - bcc32.exe (also dcc32.exe, brcc32.exe and tasm32.exe if you have to compile Delphi units, resource files or assembly language lines of code in your sources) and linker - ilink32.exe.
In this case, you will need to manually provide the necessary input files, paths, and keys as arguments for each stage of compilation and linking.
All data necessary for compilation and linking is stored in project files and, hopefully there are special utilities, included in the C++Builder installation, which can automate this dirty work, provide necessary parameters to compilers and linker and run them. Their names are bpr2mak.exe and make.exe.
First you have to run bpr2mak.exe, passing your project *.bpr or *.bpk file as a parameter and then you will get a special *.mak file as output, which you can use to feed on make.exe, which finally will build your project.
Look at this simple cmd script:
#bpr2mak.exe YourProject.bpr
#ren YourProject.mak makefile
#make.exe
You can provide the real name of "YourProject.mak" as a parameter to make.exe, but the most straightforward way is to rename the *.mak file to "makefile", and then make.exe will find it.
To have different build options, you can do the following:
The first way: you can open your project in the IDE, edit options and save it with a different project name in the same folder (usually there are two project files for debug and release compile options). Then you can provide your building script with different *.bpr files. This way, it looks simple, because it doesn't involves scripting, but the user will have to manually maintain coherency of all project files if something changes (forms or units added and so on).
The second way is to make a script which edits the project file or make file. You will have to parse files, find compiler and linker related lines and put in the necessary keys. You can do it even in a cmd script, but surely a specialised scripting language like Python is preferable.
Use:
msbuild project.cbproj /p:config=[build configuration]
More specifics can be found in Building a Project Using an MSBuild Command.
A little detail not mentioned.
Suppose you have external dependencies and that the .dll file does not initially exist in your folder
You will need to include the external dependencies in the ILINK32.CFG file.
This file is usually in the folder
C:\Program Files (x86)\Borland\CBuilder6\Bin\ilink32.cfg
(consider your installation location)
In this file, place the note for your dependencies.
Example: A dependency for TeeChart, would look like this (consider the last parameter):
-L"C:\Program Files (x86)\Borland\CBuilder6\lib";"C:\Program Files (x86)\Borland\CBuilder6\lib\obj";"C:\Program Files (x86)\Borland\CBuilder6\lib\release";"C:\Program Files (x86)\Steema Software\TeeChart 805 for Builder 6\Builder6\Include\";"C:\Program Files (x86)\Steema Software\TeeChart 805 for Builder 6\Builder6\Lib\"
You will also need to include the -f command to compile.
In cmd, do:
//first generate the file.mak
1 - bpr2mak.exe MyProject.bpr
//then compile the .mak
2 - make.exe -f MyProject.mak
You can also generate a temporary mak file with another name, as the answer above says, directly with bpr2mak
bpr2mak.exe MyProject.bpr -oMyTempMak.mak
How can I get Eclipse to build many binaries at a time within one project (without writing a Makefile by hand)?
I have a CGI project that results in multiple .cgi programs to be run by the web server, plus several libraries used by them. The hand-made Makefile used to build it slowly becomes unmaintainable. We use Eclipse's "Internal Build" to build all other projects and we'd prefer to use it here too, but for the good of me, I can't find how to get Eclipse to build multiple small programs as result instead of linking everything into one binary.
Solution for this described there: http://tinyguides.blogspot.ru/2013/04/multiple-binaries-in-single-eclipse-cdt.html.
There is an excerpt:
Create a managed project (File > New C++ Project > Executable)
Add the source code containing multiple main() functions
Go to Project > Properties > C/C++ General > Path & Symbols > Manage Configurations
Make a build configuration for each executable and name it appropriately (you can clone existing configurations like Debug and Release).
From the project explorer, right click on each source file that contains a main() function > Resource Configurations > Exclude from Build and exclude all build configurations except the one that builds the executable with this main() function
All other code is included in all build configurations by default. You may need to change this depending on your application.
You can now build an executable for each main function by going to Project > Build Configurations > Set Active , Project > Build Project
Using Eclipse as your build system for production code seems like a bad idea in general. I think it's a great IDE and have used it extensively for both Java and C++ projects, but for a build system I firmly believe that Ant, make, and other dedicated build utilities are the way to go.
There are several reasons for this:
Dedicated build utilities offer the very flexibility you are looking for in generating multiple executable targets.
Ant and make support most conceivable arbitrary build process chains (though not quite all).
A dedicated build utility is likely to offer greater stability and backward-compatibility for build description file formats than an IDE tool like Eclipse. Also, I'm pretty sure that Eclipse's internal build feature is dependent on the ".project" file description, and the latter's format is probably not as stable as the build description format for either Ant or make.
General-purpose, basic build utilities are usually command-line-based, which makes it easy to integrate them with more sophisticated, higher-level build utilities for automated build management like Pulse, CruiseControl, etc.
The need that is motivating your question is telling you that it's time to make the switch to a better build tool.
There is a way to use buildconfigurations to create one binary (or shared library, in my case) from each build config. Using the answer above, this means to manually exclude all but the effective main file from each build config.
I just used the above answers to ease up working on my eclipse project that creates 14 shared libraries through 14 build configs. However, configuring the indivdual "exclude from build" setting was quite cumbersome, so I switched to using the following code relying on a preprocessor-directive as my complete main file:
/*
*main.cpp
*/
/* Within
* Project | Properties | C/C++-Build | Settings
* | GCC C++ Compiler | Preprocessor
* set the following defined Symbol:
* _FILENAME=${ConfigName}
*/
#define __QUOT2__(x) #x
#define __QUOT1__(x) __QUOT2__(x)
#include __QUOT1__(_FILENAME.cpp)
#undef __QUOT1__
#undef __QUOT2__
/* The above include directive will include the file ${CfgName}.cpp,
* wherein ${CfgName} is the name of the build configuration currently
* active in the project.
*
* When right clicking in
* Project Tree | (Project)
* and selecting
* Build Configuration | Build all
* this file will include the corresponding .cpp file named after the
* build config and thereby effectively take that file as a main file.
*
* Remember to exclude ALL ${CfgName}.cpp files from ALL build configurations.
*/
Note that it does nothing else then include another .cpp file which's name is deduced from the preprocessor and a symbol that is set in the compiler options. The symbol is ${CfgName} and will be replaced by the current config name by eclipse automatically.
One does not need to configure, which file is included in which build config. Just exclude all ${CfgName}.cpp files in every build and include main.cpp in every build.
PS: the answer from hovercraft gave me the idea to have a main file that does not contain code on its own. If one includes shared code from the different effective main files ${CfgName}.cpp, working on their code may become infeasible because header files in main.cpp will not be visible in them.
I did this until yesterday, but maintaining the code with broken index etc. was a big pain.
PPS: this procedure currently breaks the automatic rebuild of the main file if only the included .cpp file was changed. It seems that eclipse does not recognize the changes in ${CfgName}.cpp (which is excluded from build). So a manual rebuild is required after every change. This is currently bugging me ;)