So a few hours ago I started learning c++ in codelite but I was getting frustated with, so I just got codeblocks and imported the project. But now whenever I try to compile it returns:
fatal error: imports.h: No such file or directory
This is my project hierarchy in codeblocks:
And this is what the project folder looks like:
What am I doing wrong?
I know this is years later, but I've recently seen students following what I deem is frankly bad advice such as what is given above. For those learning c++ this functionality is NOT for you. To add headers you should simply check that you are using double quotes, instead of angled brackets i.e.
#include "myheader.h"
and NOT
#include <myheader.h>
Angled brackets are meant for libraries (informally) and adding a simple header file for you basic classes does not require you to change default search directories. The problem comes when someone else tries to run your code (assuming you're doing this for uni) and their IDE isn't setup to search for a "library" (your header) where it shouldn't be. Double quotes tells the compiler the files exist in your current relative directory. This way you can keep your main, headers and header implementation in one directory. Fiddling with your IDE should only be done when necessary. KISS
You have to tell Codeblocks where to find the header files that you include. Try adding the full path to your '/Headers' in the include directories of codeblocks
Goto 'Codeblocks menu > Settings > Compiler > Search directories > Add'.
EDIT: Since your issue, however, is quite irrelevant to learning the C++ language itself, I suggest that you start with simpler programs, then move on to more complex ones. That, of course, unless you have previous experience with other programming languages
Since I haven't found any Makro for
#define 'hostname of device where compiler is located' // which is unique and not to be copied !
I have now successfully used and included
#include "myCompileEnv.h"
as a workaround with the comments above, which is located more central - above the project directories in CodeBlocks.
I'm in VS2013, C++ console applications. I'm having a problem integrating boost into a large framework. If I try integrating them in a blank console application, they work fine. Once I include the "root" .h file of the framework (that includes "many" other .h files in the bargain), it breaks. These .h files are "polluting" the boost ones (and anything included after, with mixed results, and no, I can't just include boost ones first, that's not always an option unfortunately). I've found at least one root-level #define that interfered and caused a compile error, but I can't find some of the other conflicts that are causing run-time problems.
Specifically, my problem is this: how do I tell what symbols have been defined by .h files? And hopefully, which ones are then conflicting later? I tried googling, but couldn't find a tool for doing this.
Or is there some other method which can "isolate" them (my problem .h files), and yet still have them link correctly to the functions they're calling in other .dlls?
You can use g++ -E as a static code checking tool (without changing your toolset). It is able to tell you when something is redefined but not when a #define is used as another name (it would have no way to tell whether it was a real substitution or not).
If that's not the source of your problem then you may need to take a more holistic approach: Start changing your project's #define use to other constructs such as const and short functions. This will then allow the compiler to either resolve differences by overloading or complain that there are conflicts.
Including same header file again might have caused the problem,you can create a symbol for each header file so that if that header file is already included in some other header file it shouldn't be included.
#ifndef
#define __header_file_name_H
.....some code
#endif
When defining code templates in Eclipse CDT, we can use a variable named ${include_guard_symbol} that translates to MYFILE_H.
I would like to have something more explicit: SRC_MYFOLDER_MYFILE_H.
I followed the steps given in an answer to Stack Overflow question Customizing include-guard for Eclipse CDT, but all I get is for ${include_guard_symbol} to return an empty string! I also saw other related questions on Stack Overflow about adding the namespace to the include guard, but that's not what I'm looking for.
I am using Eclipse version 3.5.2 with CDT version 6.0.2.
Is there another way of achieving the desired result?
The oldest version I have installed is 3.7 and I tested there and on 4.2 and the referenced link does exactly what the OP wants. (The OP is using 3.5.2). For anyone coming here in the future here are the steps
Exit Eclipse
Navigate to your workspace folder and then keep navigating to \.metadata\.plugins\org.eclipse.core.runtime\settings
I always like to make a backup of the settings folder before making mods
Load the file named org.eclipse.cdt.ui.prefs into a text editor
Add this line (I put mine at line 3)
codetemplates.includeGuardGenerationScheme=2
Save the file.
Restart eclipse
I created a folder named MyFolder under my src folder. Then I right-clicked and added a new header file the result was:
#ifndef SRC_MYFOLDER_TEST_H_
#define SRC_MYFOLDER_TEST_H_
#endif /* SRC_MYFOLDER_TEST_H_ */
Main points from this: How to customize eclipse CDT code templates
One solution is to throw out ${include_guard_symbol} in the template all together, and define it yourself, possibly using some of the other predefined variables. Something like this:
${filecomment}
#ifndef MyProject_${file_base}_h
#define MyProject_${file_base}_h
${typecomment}
${declarations}
#endif /* MyProject_${file_base}_h */
So for a header file named inc/Foo.h, the include guard would be inserted like this:
#ifndef MyProject_Foo_h
#define MyProject_Foo_h
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to customize much beyond that. For example, if I defined a class nested in a namespace, I might want to put the namespace as part of the include guard. I can't find a way to do that in eclipse, currently.
Not really an answer to your question, but I would like to suggest an alternative. Include guards provide a working, albeit crude way to forbid code in a header file to be included more than once per compilation unit. As an alternative, you might use the
#pragma once
compiler directive. I realise that it is not defined in the standard, but it is supported by numerous compilers, including GNU, Clang, MSVC, and Intel. If you use #pragma once, you loose little portability and you avoid name clashes which I assume is the reason you want to change ${include_guard_symbol} in the first place.
You might also check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma_once for a more thorough discussion.
I'm a newbie so be easy.
I'm "trying" to build a LCD test program which was given to me by an instructor that uses the XLCD.h and Delays.h headers. Problem is that the headers don't seem to be linked during the build process as the compiler keeps tossing me an error about a function not being defined.
MPLINK 4.42, Linker
Device Database Version 1.7
Copyright (c) 1998-2011 Microchip Technology Inc.
Error - could not find definition of symbol 'SetDDRamAddr' in file './LCD_Main.o'.
Errors : 1
I used the Project Wizard and selected my chip...added the .lnk file for my chip, added the .h files for xlcd and delays, added the p18cxxx.h file.
The test code is tried and true. I've done the #include at the top and I've even put the file in the same directory and then used #include "xlcd.h" but nothing seems to work for me.
Yes, I've double tripple checked the syntax for errors and eventually just copied and pasted from the header file to the main.c so it's not that.
Looking at the error it seems to me that only the prototype might be being seen and not the defined function. I thought that was all done with magic in the background so I have no idea how to check for paths or even if it is happening.
As the whole thing is a bit of a walkthru I figured it should be straight forward but it's not.
I'm sure it must just be a simple fix but I've been working on it for hours now and I'm getting ready to drop kick the stupid protoboard and PIC across the room.
Anybody have an idea what I could be doing wrong?
Thanks
You need to point the linker to the proper library.
Go to Project->Build Options. Select the Directories tab. On the Show Directories For combobox, select Library Search Path. Click New.
Then, select the directory that has your libraries. For C18 it's likely (on Windows 7):
C:\Program Files (x86)\Microchip\mplabc18\v3.41\lib
You should then be able to link without problem.
I am working on a large C++ project in Visual Studio 2008, and there are a lot of files with unnecessary #include directives. Sometimes the #includes are just artifacts and everything will compile fine with them removed, and in other cases classes could be forward declared and the #include could be moved to the .cpp file. Are there any good tools for detecting both of these cases?
While it won't reveal unneeded include files, Visual studio has a setting /showIncludes (right click on a .cpp file, Properties->C/C++->Advanced) that will output a tree of all included files at compile time. This can help in identifying files that shouldn't need to be included.
You can also take a look at the pimpl idiom to let you get away with fewer header file dependencies to make it easier to see the cruft that you can remove.
PC Lint works quite well for this, and it finds all sorts of other goofy problems for you too. It has command line options that can be used to create External Tools in Visual Studio, but I've found that the Visual Lint addin is easier to work with. Even the free version of Visual Lint helps. But give PC-Lint a shot. Configuring it so it doesn't give you too many warnings takes a bit of time, but you'll be amazed at what it turns up.
There's a new Clang-based tool, include-what-you-use, that aims to do this.
!!DISCLAIMER!! I work on a commercial static analysis tool (not PC Lint). !!DISCLAIMER!!
There are several issues with a simple non parsing approach:
1) Overload Sets:
It's possible that an overloaded function has declarations that come from different files. It might be that removing one header file results in a different overload being chosen rather than a compile error! The result will be a silent change in semantics that may be very difficult to track down afterwards.
2) Template specializations:
Similar to the overload example, if you have partial or explicit specializations for a template you want them all to be visible when the template is used. It might be that specializations for the primary template are in different header files. Removing the header with the specialization will not cause a compile error, but may result in undefined behaviour if that specialization would have been selected. (See: Visibility of template specialization of C++ function)
As pointed out by 'msalters', performing a full analysis of the code also allows for analysis of class usage. By checking how a class is used though a specific path of files, it is possible that the definition of the class (and therefore all of its dependnecies) can be removed completely or at least moved to a level closer to the main source in the include tree.
I don't know of any such tools, and I have thought about writing one in the past, but it turns out that this is a difficult problem to solve.
Say your source file includes a.h and b.h; a.h contains #define USE_FEATURE_X and b.h uses #ifdef USE_FEATURE_X. If #include "a.h" is commented out, your file may still compile, but may not do what you expect. Detecting this programatically is non-trivial.
Whatever tool does this would need to know your build environment as well. If a.h looks like:
#if defined( WINNT )
#define USE_FEATURE_X
#endif
Then USE_FEATURE_X is only defined if WINNT is defined, so the tool would need to know what directives are generated by the compiler itself as well as which ones are specified in the compile command rather than in a header file.
Like Timmermans, I'm not familiar with any tools for this. But I have known programmers who wrote a Perl (or Python) script to try commenting out each include line one at a time and then compile each file.
It appears that now Eric Raymond has a tool for this.
Google's cpplint.py has an "include what you use" rule (among many others), but as far as I can tell, no "include only what you use." Even so, it can be useful.
If you're interested in this topic in general, you might want to check out Lakos' Large Scale C++ Software Design. It's a bit dated, but goes into lots of "physical design" issues like finding the absolute minimum of headers that need to be included. I haven't really seen this sort of thing discussed anywhere else.
Give Include Manager a try. It integrates easily in Visual Studio and visualizes your include paths which helps you to find unnecessary stuff.
Internally it uses Graphviz but there are many more cool features. And although it is a commercial product it has a very low price.
You can build an include graph using C/C++ Include File Dependencies Watcher, and find unneeded includes visually.
If your header files generally start with
#ifndef __SOMEHEADER_H__
#define __SOMEHEADER_H__
// header contents
#endif
(as opposed to using #pragma once) you could change that to:
#ifndef __SOMEHEADER_H__
#define __SOMEHEADER_H__
// header contents
#else
#pragma message("Someheader.h superfluously included")
#endif
And since the compiler outputs the name of the cpp file being compiled, that would let you know at least which cpp file is causing the header to be brought in multiple times.
PC-Lint can indeed do this. One easy way to do this is to configure it to detect just unused include files and ignore all other issues. This is pretty straightforward - to enable just message 766 ("Header file not used in module"), just include the options -w0 +e766 on the command line.
The same approach can also be used with related messages such as 964 ("Header file not directly used in module") and 966 ("Indirectly included header file not used in module").
FWIW I wrote about this in more detail in a blog post last week at http://www.riverblade.co.uk/blog.php?archive=2008_09_01_archive.xml#3575027665614976318.
Adding one or both of the following #defines
will exclude often unnecessary header files and
may substantially improve
compile times especially if the code that is not using Windows API functions.
#define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN
#define VC_EXTRALEAN
See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/166474
If you are looking to remove unnecessary #include files in order to decrease build times, your time and money might be better spent parallelizing your build process using cl.exe /MP, make -j, Xoreax IncrediBuild, distcc/icecream, etc.
Of course, if you already have a parallel build process and you're still trying to speed it up, then by all means clean up your #include directives and remove those unnecessary dependencies.
Start with each include file, and ensure that each include file only includes what is necessary to compile itself. Any include files that are then missing for the C++ files, can be added to the C++ files themselves.
For each include and source file, comment out each include file one at a time and see if it compiles.
It is also a good idea to sort the include files alphabetically, and where this is not possible, add a comment.
If you aren't already, using a precompiled header to include everything that you're not going to change (platform headers, external SDK headers, or static already completed pieces of your project) will make a huge difference in build times.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/szfdksca(VS.71).aspx
Also, although it may be too late for your project, organizing your project into sections and not lumping all local headers to one big main header is a good practice, although it takes a little extra work.
If you would work with Eclipse CDT you could try out http://includator.com to optimize your include structure. However, Includator might not know enough about VC++'s predefined includes and setting up CDT to use VC++ with correct includes is not built into CDT yet.
The latest Jetbrains IDE, CLion, automatically shows (in gray) the includes that are not used in the current file.
It is also possible to have the list of all the unused includes (and also functions, methods, etc...) from the IDE.
Some of the existing answers state that it's hard. That's indeed true, because you need a full compiler to detect the cases in which a forward declaration would be appropriate. You cant parse C++ without knowing what the symbols mean; the grammar is simply too ambiguous for that. You must know whether a certain name names a class (could be forward-declared) or a variable (can't). Also, you need to be namespace-aware.
Maybe a little late, but I once found a WebKit perl script that did just what you wanted. It'll need some adapting I believe (I'm not well versed in perl), but it should do the trick:
http://trac.webkit.org/browser/branches/old/safari-3-2-branch/WebKitTools/Scripts/find-extra-includes
(this is an old branch because trunk doesn't have the file anymore)
If there's a particular header that you think isn't needed anymore (say
string.h), you can comment out that include then put this below all the
includes:
#ifdef _STRING_H_
# error string.h is included indirectly
#endif
Of course your interface headers might use a different #define convention
to record their inclusion in CPP memory. Or no convention, in which case
this approach won't work.
Then rebuild. There are three possibilities:
It builds ok. string.h wasn't compile-critical, and the include for it
can be removed.
The #error trips. string.g was included indirectly somehow
You still don't know if string.h is required. If it is required, you
should directly #include it (see below).
You get some other compilation error. string.h was needed and isn't being
included indirectly, so the include was correct to begin with.
Note that depending on indirect inclusion when your .h or .c directly uses
another .h is almost certainly a bug: you are in effect promising that your
code will only require that header as long as some other header you're using
requires it, which probably isn't what you meant.
The caveats mentioned in other answers about headers that modify behavior
rather that declaring things which cause build failures apply here as well.