I've just updated MinGW using mingw-get-setup and i'm unable to build anyting that contains <cmath> header if I use anything larger than -O0 with -std=c++1y. (I also tried c++11 and c++98) I'm getting errors like this one:
g++.exe -pedantic-errors -pedantic -Wextra -Wall -std=c++1y -O3 -c Z:\Projects\C++\L6\src\events.cpp -o obj\src\events.o
In file included from z:\lander\mingw\lib\gcc\mingw32\4.8.1\include\c++\cmath:44:0,
from Z:\Projects\C++\L6\src\utils.h:4,
from Z:\Projects\C++\L6\src\events.cpp:10:
z:\lander\mingw\include\math.h: In function 'float hypotf(float, float)':
z:\lander\mingw\include\math.h:635:30: error: '_hypot' was not declared in this scope
{ return (float)(_hypot (x, y)); }
Is something wrong on my side?
Or version at mingw repo is bugged? And if so, is there any quick fix for this header?
To avoid any further speculation, and downright bad suggestions such as using #if 0, let me give an authoritative answer, from the perspective of a MinGW project contributor.
Yes, the MinGW.org implementation of include/math.h does have a bug in its inline implementation of hypotf (float, float); the bug is triggered when compiling C++, with the affected header included (as it is when cmath is included), and any compiler option which causes __STRICT_ANSI__ to become defined is specified, (as is the case for those -std=c... options noted by the OP). The appropriate solution is not to occlude part of the math.h file, with #if 0 or otherwise, but to correct the broken inline implementation of hypotf (float, float); simply removing the spurious leading underscore from the inline reference to _hypot (float, float), where its return value is cast to the float return type should suffice.
Alternatively, substituting an equivalent -std=gnu... for -std=c... in the compiler options should circumvent the bug, and may offer a suitable workaround.
FWIW, I'm not entirely happy with MinGW.org's current implementation of hypotl (long double, long double) either; correcting both issues is on my punch list for the next release of the MinGW runtime, but ATM, I have little time to devote to preparing this.
Update
This bug is no longer present in the current release of the MinGW.org runtime library (currently mingwrt-3.22.4, but fixed since release 3.22). If you are using anything older than this, (including any of the critically broken 4.x releases), you should upgrade.
As noted by Keith, this is a bug in the MinGW.org header.
As an alternative to editing the MinGW.org header, you can use MinGW-w64, which provides everything MinGW.org provides, and a whole lot more.
For a list of differences between the runtimes, see this wiki page.
MinGW uses gcc and the Microsoft runtime library. Microsoft's implementation support C90, but its support for later versions of the C standard (C99 and C11) is very poor.
The hypot function (along with hypotf and hypotl) was added in C99.
If you're getting this error with a program that calls hypot, such as:
#include <cmath>
int main() {
std::cout << std::hypot(3.0, 4.0)) << '\n';
}
then it's just a limitation of the Microsoft runtime library, and therefore of MinGW. If it occurs with any program that has #include <cmath>, then it's a bug, perhaps a configuration error, in MinGW.
Related
I am compiling with g++ 10.2 using -std=c++20 but i get errors like error: ‘atomic_notify_one’ is not a member of ‘std’. I see in the docs that those methods are supported in c++20. Do i miss something?
As far as I understand neither g++-10.2 nor g++-10.3 does not support atomic_notify_one. However, here the trunk version of the compiler (in which __cplusplus is equal to 202002), as well as my local unstable version of the compiler g++-11.0 (in which __cplusplus is also equal to 202002) perfectly cope with the functions atomic_notify_one, atomic::notify_one
And BTW, unfortunately I did not find official support information. In some places it is introduced in g++-10, in some it is still not implemented yet. Cppreference says it is implemented in g++-11, so I guess it is. In general I would not rush to use atomic_notify_one in production
Here is my code:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <complex>
#include <cmath>
int main()
{
using namespace std::complex_literals;
std::cout<< std::fixed<<std::setprecision(1);
std::complex<double> z1= 1i *1i; //imaginary unit squared
std::cout<<"i * i= " <<z1 <<'\n';
std::complex<double> z2=std::pow(1i, 2); //imaginary unit squared
std::cout <<"pow(i,2) =" <<z2 <<'\n';
}
I compile with gcc hello.cpp -lstdc++ -o hello.o
Basically it won't let me double the powers of a complex number when i do std::complex z2=std::pow(1i, 2);..
I get the following error
error: no matching function for call to 'pow(complex int, int)'
std::complex z2=std::pow(1i, 2);
However, if i remove the complex number and do std::complex z2=std::pow(2, 2);
it returns 4, the correct answer..
There are many more lines of compile errors, but i made it brief
This answer follows up the comments to the original question:
you have to force the compiler to use the c++14 standard with the -std=c++14 option because the literal operator""i is part of the C++14 spec.
GCC uses c++14 by default since version 6.1. Check your compiler version with gcc -v and refer to this link for GCC standard support.
EDIT:
I was able to reproduce the compiling issue with GCC 6.3 through the link provided by Mr Richard Critten in the comments to the original question, who was the first to point to the correct answer. My apology because I totally overlooked the reference to the C++14 standard.
Anyway, for the sake of clarity, I'm editing this answer, because I've found something that may be interesting to share.
The reason why compiling with GCC 6.3 fails is the fact that the reference standard has been changed in December 2016 from C++14 to GNU++14, see here.
GNU++14 is an extension to the C++ standard, that, among other things, provides additional functions overload for standard APIs.
I've found that with GNU++14 SFINAE fails in finding a proper overload for the std::pow() functions unless the type is explicitly set in the template call like in the snipped below:
std::complex<double> z2=std::pow<double>(1i, 2);
The GNU++14 includes changes to the cmath and complex header files, that I believe are the cause of the issue.
Turning on the C++14 flag, that is not the default anymore, fixes the problem.
I don't know why it is not compiling on your system, it runs fine on mine.
I think something is wrong with your compiler. And, not the version. yet you could try std::cout << __cplusplus. See what this prints.
C++11 doesn't recognize std::complex_literals, so doubt that is the case, but yet the compiler still couldn't find the function.
I honestly don't understand why it is searching for (complex int, int). The compiler is either corrupt or an old beta version.
You should either download a fresh version of the compiler or run it online somewhere. Try adding -std=c++14, but I doubt that would help.
Try your code here(it works):
https://www.jdoodle.com/online-compiler-c++14
So, I installed Microsoft Visual Studio.. I am using the clang compiler and my program ran smoothly with no errors!
Thanks for all the help guys, but i think clang is a better c++ compiler
In 29.5 Atomic types of the C++ Standard November 2014 working draft it states:
There is a generic class template atomic. The type of the template argument T shall be trivially copyable (3.9). [ Note: Type arguments that are not also statically initializable may be difficult to use. —end note ]
So - as far as I can tell - this:
#include <atomic>
struct Message {
unsigned long int a;
unsigned long int b;
};
std::atomic<Message> sharedState;
int main() {
Message tmp{1,2};
sharedState.store(tmp);
Message tmp2=sharedState.load();
}
should be perfectly valid standard c++14 (and also c++11) code. However, if I don't link libatomic manually, the command
g++ -std=c++14 <filename>
gives - at least on Fedora 22 (gcc 5.1) - the following linking error:
/tmp/ccdiWWQi.o: In function `std::atomic<Message>::store(Message, std::memory_order)':
main.cpp:(.text._ZNSt6atomicI7MessageE5storeES0_St12memory_order[_ZNSt6atomicI7MessageE5storeES0_St12memory_order]+0x3f): undefined reference to `__atomic_store_16'
/tmp/ccdiWWQi.o: In function `std::atomic<Message>::load(std::memory_order) const':
main.cpp:(.text._ZNKSt6atomicI7MessageE4loadESt12memory_order[_ZNKSt6atomicI7MessageE4loadESt12memory_order]+0x1c): undefined reference to `__atomic_load_16'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
If I write
g++ -std=c++14 -latomic <filename>
everything is fine.
I know that the standard doesn't say anything about compiler flags or libraries that have to be included, but so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
So why doesn't that apply to my example code? Is there a rational why -latomic is still necessary, or is it just something that hasn't been addressed by the compiler maintainers, yet?
Relevant reading on the GCC homepage on how and why GCC makes library calls in certain cases regarding <atomic> in the first place.
GCC and libstdc++ are only losely coupled. libatomic is the domain of the library, not the compiler -- and you can use GCC with a different library (which might provide the necessary definitions for <atomic> in its main proper, or under a different name), so GCC cannot just assume -latomic.
Also:
GCC 4.7 does not include a library implementation as the API has not been firmly established.
The same page claims that GCC 4.8 shall provide such a library implementation, but plans are the first victims of war. I'd guess the reason for -latomic still being necessary can be found in that vicinity.
Besides...
...so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
...-lm has been around for quite some time if you're using math functions.
I know that the standard doesn't say anything about compiler flags or libraries that have to be included
Right.
but so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
Well, no. As you just said, there is no particular reason to assume this. Consider also that GCC extensions are enabled by default.
That being said, it seems self-evident that the intention is to make -latomic a default part of the runtime when it's settled down a bit.
g++ is a wrapper for gcc which adds the correct C++ libraries. Clearly -latomic is missing from that list. Not a core compiler problem then, simply a minor bug in the wrapper.
In 29.5 Atomic types of the C++ Standard November 2014 working draft it states:
There is a generic class template atomic. The type of the template argument T shall be trivially copyable (3.9). [ Note: Type arguments that are not also statically initializable may be difficult to use. —end note ]
So - as far as I can tell - this:
#include <atomic>
struct Message {
unsigned long int a;
unsigned long int b;
};
std::atomic<Message> sharedState;
int main() {
Message tmp{1,2};
sharedState.store(tmp);
Message tmp2=sharedState.load();
}
should be perfectly valid standard c++14 (and also c++11) code. However, if I don't link libatomic manually, the command
g++ -std=c++14 <filename>
gives - at least on Fedora 22 (gcc 5.1) - the following linking error:
/tmp/ccdiWWQi.o: In function `std::atomic<Message>::store(Message, std::memory_order)':
main.cpp:(.text._ZNSt6atomicI7MessageE5storeES0_St12memory_order[_ZNSt6atomicI7MessageE5storeES0_St12memory_order]+0x3f): undefined reference to `__atomic_store_16'
/tmp/ccdiWWQi.o: In function `std::atomic<Message>::load(std::memory_order) const':
main.cpp:(.text._ZNKSt6atomicI7MessageE4loadESt12memory_order[_ZNKSt6atomicI7MessageE4loadESt12memory_order]+0x1c): undefined reference to `__atomic_load_16'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
If I write
g++ -std=c++14 -latomic <filename>
everything is fine.
I know that the standard doesn't say anything about compiler flags or libraries that have to be included, but so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
So why doesn't that apply to my example code? Is there a rational why -latomic is still necessary, or is it just something that hasn't been addressed by the compiler maintainers, yet?
Relevant reading on the GCC homepage on how and why GCC makes library calls in certain cases regarding <atomic> in the first place.
GCC and libstdc++ are only losely coupled. libatomic is the domain of the library, not the compiler -- and you can use GCC with a different library (which might provide the necessary definitions for <atomic> in its main proper, or under a different name), so GCC cannot just assume -latomic.
Also:
GCC 4.7 does not include a library implementation as the API has not been firmly established.
The same page claims that GCC 4.8 shall provide such a library implementation, but plans are the first victims of war. I'd guess the reason for -latomic still being necessary can be found in that vicinity.
Besides...
...so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
...-lm has been around for quite some time if you're using math functions.
I know that the standard doesn't say anything about compiler flags or libraries that have to be included
Right.
but so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
Well, no. As you just said, there is no particular reason to assume this. Consider also that GCC extensions are enabled by default.
That being said, it seems self-evident that the intention is to make -latomic a default part of the runtime when it's settled down a bit.
g++ is a wrapper for gcc which adds the correct C++ libraries. Clearly -latomic is missing from that list. Not a core compiler problem then, simply a minor bug in the wrapper.
In 29.5 Atomic types of the C++ Standard November 2014 working draft it states:
There is a generic class template atomic. The type of the template argument T shall be trivially copyable (3.9). [ Note: Type arguments that are not also statically initializable may be difficult to use. —end note ]
So - as far as I can tell - this:
#include <atomic>
struct Message {
unsigned long int a;
unsigned long int b;
};
std::atomic<Message> sharedState;
int main() {
Message tmp{1,2};
sharedState.store(tmp);
Message tmp2=sharedState.load();
}
should be perfectly valid standard c++14 (and also c++11) code. However, if I don't link libatomic manually, the command
g++ -std=c++14 <filename>
gives - at least on Fedora 22 (gcc 5.1) - the following linking error:
/tmp/ccdiWWQi.o: In function `std::atomic<Message>::store(Message, std::memory_order)':
main.cpp:(.text._ZNSt6atomicI7MessageE5storeES0_St12memory_order[_ZNSt6atomicI7MessageE5storeES0_St12memory_order]+0x3f): undefined reference to `__atomic_store_16'
/tmp/ccdiWWQi.o: In function `std::atomic<Message>::load(std::memory_order) const':
main.cpp:(.text._ZNKSt6atomicI7MessageE4loadESt12memory_order[_ZNKSt6atomicI7MessageE4loadESt12memory_order]+0x1c): undefined reference to `__atomic_load_16'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
If I write
g++ -std=c++14 -latomic <filename>
everything is fine.
I know that the standard doesn't say anything about compiler flags or libraries that have to be included, but so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
So why doesn't that apply to my example code? Is there a rational why -latomic is still necessary, or is it just something that hasn't been addressed by the compiler maintainers, yet?
Relevant reading on the GCC homepage on how and why GCC makes library calls in certain cases regarding <atomic> in the first place.
GCC and libstdc++ are only losely coupled. libatomic is the domain of the library, not the compiler -- and you can use GCC with a different library (which might provide the necessary definitions for <atomic> in its main proper, or under a different name), so GCC cannot just assume -latomic.
Also:
GCC 4.7 does not include a library implementation as the API has not been firmly established.
The same page claims that GCC 4.8 shall provide such a library implementation, but plans are the first victims of war. I'd guess the reason for -latomic still being necessary can be found in that vicinity.
Besides...
...so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
...-lm has been around for quite some time if you're using math functions.
I know that the standard doesn't say anything about compiler flags or libraries that have to be included
Right.
but so far I thought that any standard conformant, single file code can be compiled via the first command.
Well, no. As you just said, there is no particular reason to assume this. Consider also that GCC extensions are enabled by default.
That being said, it seems self-evident that the intention is to make -latomic a default part of the runtime when it's settled down a bit.
g++ is a wrapper for gcc which adds the correct C++ libraries. Clearly -latomic is missing from that list. Not a core compiler problem then, simply a minor bug in the wrapper.