I want to separate my IAR Embedded Workbench workspace into several projects. Currently we have the OS and other code in the same project as the main application but I want the OS and other external code to be static libraries which my application depends on.
I know how to create a static library project and how to add is as a dependency for my executable, but my problem is with the compilation process. It doesn't seem like IAR understands that it must compile the library before the executable. When the library doesn't exist I get an error saying that the file is missing, but it's even worse when the library was compiled once before but some file inside changed. Then the executable compiles without any errors but it uses the OLD library!
Is it possible to make IAR build the static library on its own when it changes? And how about when I have several static libraries and more dependencies?
I had an idea to use a pre-build event, but I was wondering if there's anything out of the box for this situation, and if not what is the best solution.
We're currently using IAR 6, but will probably move to 7 soon.
I talked to the IAR support. This is the conclusion:
- Pre-build events are a valid solution
- Batch-build allows you to define an ordered list of projects which all need to be built together and in that specific order
- For command line compilation - no support for batch-build (which is defined on the workspace level) - so simply compile separately all the projects in the order they need to be compiled.
Personally I like the batch-build option better than pre-build events because it allows both regular building (i.e. don't build what hasn't changed) and clean rebuilding (from scratch). It's a shame though there's no support for batch-building using command line becasue this makes us define twice in two different places the projects and their ordering...
Related
I try to use Xcode (v.7.3.1) for my C++ project (build system - make), but the experience is quite poor (and it was always like that since old versions like v4 when I started using it) - code completion doesn't work, color syntaxing works oddly (no coloring sometimes, or partially colored code), no "jump-to-definition" functionality, can't switch b/w header/source files with shortcuts. Basically, it's just a text editor where I have to use "Find" and Cmd+Shift+O all the time.
Is this intentional and Xcode will never get any proper support for C++ projects with external build system (make) or am I misconfiguring my project? How can I re-index files in the project? How can I make code completion work?
Thanks,
I believe there is a way to use Xcode with makefiles by adding an external build target, file->new->target->External Build System.
This is an older tutorial but the steps may be worth looking through: http://web.ist.utl.pt/jose.alberto.coelho/mac/MakefilesXcode.pdf
I've never had a problem with the syntax highlighting, but I remember the refactoring support being limited for C++ in some ways.
So, I ended up using this workaround: even though, I use external build system, I create Console Application project in Xcode and choose C++ language in settings. Then, I simply add my source files to the project (just drag folders from the Finder window) and then manually create project targets of type External Build System as I need. I don't use default target and don't use generated main.cpp file at all.
My files get indexed with no problems. I'm also able to debug code as I used to.
I still think Xcode developers should review indexing process for the projects with external build system...
Thanks for all the insights though!
In Eclipse, is there a way for, when I save a code file, to compile the object file for the file saved, and then link them together when I go to run or debug? This is with C++ on Linux with GCC.
I don't think so. In Eclipse CDT build process is started explicitly. I think that "Build automatically" option is used for Java and other languages which Eclipse knows how to build. C++ projects are usually built using some kind of make utility. You can customize your make file to set different build targets to improve performance and reduce build/compile times.
I am a Java programmer and have come across a very nasty situation. For POC purposes, I need to write down a small segment of my solution that will run as a standalone application doing something very specific.
I have 2 questions:-
I can write the code, but what I don't know is how do I create an installer and exe out of that C++ code.
Secondly, I need to parse a sqlite db file and show its data in the application. Is there a sqlite windows dll or some C++ library or something that I can use, instead of asking the user to install sqlite (or doing it myself through the installer)? So basically, I don't want an extra program to be pushed in, just a dll or some C++ library..
Please let me know if you have an answer to either or both the issues that I'm facing.
Thanks
Compiling your code will turn it in to an executable. For distribution, you'll want to build it in Release mode. I'm not sure what version of Visual Studio you are using, but you might have a "Setup and Deployment" Project type which will enable you to create an installer. Failing that, you may have to look at InstallShield or a tool like that to ensure that the installer has all necessary files (such as the runtime libraries).
SQLLite is called light for a reason! The source code for it can be incorporated directly in to your project and compiled alongside the rest of the files (see: http://www.sqlite.org/selfcontained.html ). This means no external libraries are necessary to link against, and no extra DLLs need to be redistributed alongside your executable.
I have written and tested a library in C++. The code even works in my Android application if I add the source files directly. While I do have experience compiling static and dynamic libraries for common operating systems, I have zero experience compiling for a mobile system like this. I've done some research, and I'm still a bit lost as to exactly how to approach this. For example, I am unsure of whether to build a makefile for use with ndk-build or to just invoke one of the Android's compilers directly.
I did see this question, but it does not quite match my situation. I just want to run build and have it spit out libfoo.a (I'd like to produce libfoo.so as well, but libfoo.a is of greater interest to me right now.) The example in that question's winning answer implied that it would build the library as one step/module for building the final application. I tried doing it that way just to see, but I had no luck.
Can anyone please guide me in this endeavor?
CLARIFICATION -- I do not want to build the library and immediately pipe it into an application. I want a .a or .so file that I can link against in multiple future Android applications.
Create a dummy java file with empty code and make sure there is a android_main function in your C++ code. Build using ndk-build. the resulting apk will make your library an application.
See the samples from the android-ndk-r5/samples directory, see the sample native-bitmap to get some idea.
If I understand it correctly that a shared library is not acceptable and you want to be static (but why is that so important?), probably the easiest way to do so is to simply supply source code that can be added to a project.
Ultimately there is nothing special about the ndk build system other than it knowing the right commands to issue to build the necessary files for the assortment of curent android architectures. If you really want to do something different, you can log the operation of the android build system in creating a shared library, and then write your own Makefile that performs the analogous steps to create a static library. HOWEVER, you will have to update your Makefile any time the underlying assumptions or target collections change in a new android version.
I have a number of native C++ libraries (Win32, without MFC) compiling under Visual Studio 2005, and used in a number of solutions.
I'd like to be able to choose to compile and link them as either static libraries or DLLs, depending on the needs of the particular solution in which I'm using them.
What's the best way to do this? I've considered these approaches:
1. Multiple project files
Example: "foo_static.vcproj" vs "foo_dll.vcproj"
Pro: easy to generate for new libraries, not too much manual vcproj munging.
Con: settings, file lists, etc. in two places get out of sync too easily.
2. Single project file, multiple configurations
Example: "Debug | Win32" vs "Debug DLL | Win32", etc.
Pro: file lists are easier to keep in sync; compilation options are somewhat easier to keep in sync
Con: I build for both Win32 and Smart Device targets, so I already have multiple configurations; I don't want to make my combinatorial explosion worse ("Static library for FooPhone | WinMobile 6", "Dynamic library for FooPhone | WinMobile 6", "Static library for BarPda | WinMobile 6", etc.
Worse Con: VS 2005 has a bad habit of assuming that if you have a configuration defined for platform "Foo", then you really need it for all other platforms in your solution, and haphazardly inserts all permutations of configuration/platform configurations all over the affected vcproj files, whether valid or not. (Bug filed with MS; closed as WONTFIX.)
3. Single project file, selecting static or dynamic via vsprops files
Example: store the appropriate vcproj fragments in property sheet files, then apply the "FooApp Static Library" property sheet to config/platform combinations when you want static libs, and apply the "FooApp DLL" property sheet when you want DLLs.
Pros: This is what I really want to do!
Cons: It doesn't seem possible. It seems that the .vcproj attribute that switches between static and dynamic libraries (the ConfigurationType attribute of the Configuration element) isn't overrideable by the .vsprops file. Microsoft's published schema for these files lists only <Tool> and <UserMacro> elements.
EDIT: In case someone suggests it, I've also tried a more "clever" version of #3, in which I define a .vsprops containing a UserMacro called "ModuleConfigurationType" with a value of either "2" (DLL) or "4" (static library), and changed the configuration in the .vcproj to have ConfigurationType="$(ModuleConfigurationType)". Visual Studio silently and without warning removes the attribute and replaces it with ConfigurationType="1". So helpful!
Am I missing a better solution?
I may have missed something, but why can't you define the DLL project with no files, and just have it link the lib created by the other project?
And, with respect to settings, you can factor them out in vsprop files...
There is an easy way to create both static and dll lib versions in one project.
Create your dll project. Then do the following to it:
Simply create an nmake makefile or .bat file that runs the lib tool.
Basically, this is just this:
lib /NOLOGO /OUT:<your_lib_pathname> #<<
<list_all_of_your_obj_paths_here>
<<
Then, in your project, add a Post Build Event where the command just runs the .bat file (or nmake or perl). Then, you will always get both a dll and a static lib.
I'll refrain from denigrating visual studio for not allowing the tool for this to exist in a project just before Linker (in the tool flow).
I think the typical way this is done is choice 2 above. It is what I use and what I have seen done by a number of libraries and companies.
If you find it does not work for you then by all means use something else.
Good luck.
I prefer 2 configurations way.
Setup all common settings via 'All configurations' item in a project properties windows. After it separated settings. And it's done. Let's go coding.
Also there is very good feature named 'Batch build', which builds specified configurations by turn.
Multiple projects are the best way to go - this is the configuration i have most widely seen in umpteen no of projects that i have come across.
That said, it might be also possible to implement the third option by modifying your vcproj files on the fly from external tools(like a custom vbscript), that you could invoke from a make file. You can use shell variables to control the behavior of the tool.
Note that you should still use use visual studio to make the build, the makefile should only launch your external tool if required to make the mods and then follow that by the actual build command
I use Visual Studio 6.0 (Still) due to issues that are preventing us from Migrating to VS2005 or newer. Rebuilding causes severe issues (everything breaks)... so many of us are considering lobbying a migration to GnuC++ moving forward in a structured way to eventually get us off of licensed Visual Studio products and onto Eclipse and Linux.
In Unix/Linux it is easy to build for all configurations.. so I can't believe what a time and productivity sink it is to try and accomplish the same task in Visual Studio. For VS6.0 I have so far found that only having two separate projects seems to be workable. I haven't yet tried the multiple configuration technique, but will see if it works in the older VS6.0.
Why not go for version 1 and generate the second set of project files from the first using a script or something. That way you know that the differences are JUST the pieces required to build a dll or static lib.