Does anybody know the difference between Win-builds and MinGW-builds? I'm really interested in C++11 (14) compiler for Windows, but unfortunately MSVC is not yet fully C++11 compliant.
The difference is simple: they have little bit different goals.
In particular, if you want to develop on Windows (i.e. don't need cross-compilation), then you better off with MinGW-builds project which essentially provides several feature-rich variants of the MinGW-w64 toolchain. The table in the link gives good summary of the features I'm talking about. You can basically pick the compiler based on your requirements to addressing model, threading model, exception model. I consider it mature and stable as I use it for everyday work and I'm very satisfied with the quality.
On the other hand, Win-builds project's primary goal seems to be cross-compilation. You'll notice that in their thesis in the link, and you'll also notice that it is less feature-rich than MinGW-builds, hence you have less flexibility with it. It is also relatively new compared to MinGW-builds, so I would expect to potentially experience some issues with it.
NOTE: Please, understand that both of these projects are simply builds (distributed ready-to-use binaries) of the MinGW-w64 toolchain (GCC port for Windows which supports both x86 and x64 targets) on whose web-site both links above are pointing. They are provided only for user convenience, so that we (users) don't have to hassle with compilation of the MinGW-w64 toolchain ourselves, but nobody prevents you from doing that if you're experienced enough and know what you want.
For further reading on related topic and C++11, I would recommend my other answer which you might find interesting.
Good luck.
Related
I read about tool called "include-what-you-use" which can help clean superfluous includes
from source code. I understood that there is a version for compiler LLVM(clang) and version for GCC.
My questions are:
Why this tool is compiler-dependent and not "cross-platform" for compilers. Why from the beginning the creators of the tool didn't make it compiler-independent? Is it related to the special implementation it has or something like that?
If I want to take a version of the tool compatible for LLVM and I want to make it compatible with GCC (since I'm working with GCC), what do I have to do for that?
For the most part, Include-What-You-Use should be able to handle any valid C++ codebase, regardless of whether that codebase was written with gcc or clang in mind. I recently had the occasion to run Include-What-You-Use on a very large codebase that was usually compiled with gcc and it worked fine. So in that sense it is already compatible.
That said, it might not work perfectly. It's likely that some of the information it provides will be wrong, even if it's a clang codebase. So always verify the output manually.
why this tool is compiler-dependent and not "cross-platform" for compilers. Why from the beginning the creaters of the tool didn't make
it compiler-independent ? is it related to the special implementation
it has or something like that ?
Reason is simple, clang has is more modern fresh and has better modular architecture. As a result is is much easier to create tools using clang modules.
That is why clang was first which had address sanitizer and have more cool sanitizers. And this is why when someone creates new tool for C++ stars from clang.
If i want to take a version of the tool compatible for llvm and i want to make it compatible with gcc(since i'm working with gcc). What
i have to do for that ?
clang was created since Apple was not happy with gcc. So when it was written it supposed to be as much compatible with gcc as possible, since there was lots of code which was verified with gcc.
Since clang is mature now and provides new own features, there might be small differences with gcc (for example different bugs in implementations of new C++ standards), but in most common code there should be no problem.
IWYU should work without problems on both compilers. My coworker used it on large project build with 3 compilers (clang, gcc and VS) and it worked like a charm.
The tool itself needs parts of the compiler! It is sitting somewhere between reading the source and parsing it. LLVM provides an API which is used for the tool. The tool itself is not standalone but a plugin to the clang/llvm. As this, it needs the clang/llvm.
The modifications which will be done by the tool are fully compatible to every c++ compiler. And also the plugin in combination with clang/llvm should be able to parse more or less every code base independent of used other compilers. There might be some strange macros which are supported by other tool chains, which llvm might be struggle with. But that should be a rare case at all.
My task is to create a C++ SDK - in the form of a dynamic library(s), most likely.
It is supposed to be used on different platforms - Windows (32/64 bit), Linux (32/64 bit), Mac OS, Android and iOS. I don't have much experience with multi-platform project setup and I'm trying to decide what methods and tools to use for easiest development and deployment.
Side note: I will also have to prepare automatic builds (jobs) on Bamboo CI server, in order to run compilation and tests for each required target.
My main dilemmas are:
Project setup. Should I prepare different project schemas for use on different platforms (like .sln on Windows and makefiles on Linux), or maybe try using a tool like CMake? Is it even possible to prepare a CMake project that will suit all these target platforms?
Compilation toolchain. Should I use "native" C++ compilers for every platform (like MSVC on Windows and GCC on Linux), or maybe a single toolchain like Clang + LLVM? Would Clang + LLVM (and some linker obviously) be even able to build distributable binaries for all these platforms I need?
Development Environment. Which OS/IDE would be best for working on that kind of project? I prefer working on Windows and my usual IDE is Visual Studio - would it be viable in this case, or maybe something else would be more appropriate?
I know that my problem is very complex and there is no straight answer for any of these points, but every advice and even partial answer will be much appreciated :)
As you say, there is no one-size-fits all solution, so I will make some general suggestions. Feel free to pick-and-choose as you feel is most beneficial.
If you plan to do your building on the host OS, cmake sounds like exactly the tool for you. It self-describes as a "build system generator", where the steps to build on a specific host OS are abstracted away, meaning the same setup "should" work for any system cmake supports.
If you're thinking of cross-compiling, you're in for some hurt with the iOS and MacOS goals. As far as I know, and I have put some effort into trying, Apple does not release compilers for their systems that do not run on their systems -> You will have to compile for iOS and MacOS from a MacOS computer. If you can prove me wrong on this point, I would be glad to hear it :)
Depending on your licensing requirements, if you really want an overkill solution you could look into Qt* and qmake. I have had excellent luck with their multiarchitecture solutions, and Qt supports all of the systems you listed in your original question. I find Qt + qmake far easier to deal with than cmake.
* Yes, Qt does non-GUI work quite well too!
I touched on this in the second point of 1., but my general suggestion would be to use native toolchains. Excluding MacOS, it's easy to set up Virtual Machines, build server, etc. to build native code, and my experience with cross-compilers is they always add another layer of heartache, even worse than having to remote-access a separate builder computer.
Provided you avoid system-dependent headers, libraries, or extensions, it shouldn't matter what system you use. Things like <windows.h> and <linux/*.h> are obvious, but the best way cross-platform compatibility can be verified is by testing the foreign systems as often as possible.
Agnostic of compiler used, I would suggest turning on all the warnings. They are usually important, and may indicate a place where the compiler was able to band-aid over a problem but trying to compile for another system will blow up. If you're working on a team, it might be a good idea to set warnings to result in build errors to make sure the rest of the team is as rigorous as you are.
I don't know about LLVM or MSVC, but GCC will give you some hints as to platfom-specific extensions if you give it the -pedantic and -ansi flags. As explaind here, those flags tell GCC to warn for any GNU-specific extensions.
You are very likely going to need multiple tool-chains (you mention C++ and it has no ABI so to be usable on Windows you are more or less required to build with CL). It follows that you will not be able to use a single vendor-specific project setup. As the project grows maintaining multiple versions of project files becomes quickly untenable so your choice of build system is critical. Have a look at Shake and compare to alternatives with a similar feature-set. The choice of IDE is of less importance - many programmers prefer their favorite editor (Emacs or Vim) and may need to do work on any of the supported platforms.
Firstly, please forgive my ignorance regarding these matters, I have done a search and not found any comprehensive answers as of yet.
I plan on learning how to develop for Windows, however I am very fond of the GNU toolchain and don't really want to move onto using big environments like Visual Studio until I feel more comfortable with the underlying basics.
From what I understand, one can download the Windows SDK, which contains the headers and libraries needed to build native Windows applications.
Is the SDK literally just a collection of libraries and headers? If so, as my logic goes, it should be possible to point MinGW towards these libraries/headers, and simply build as normal.
When I build using Visual Studio, I can't see what preprocessor directives are being defined, what is being linked in etc. etc., as I am still learning, I like to be able to know exactly what is going on, preferably so I have to manually define, link etc. Hence the question.
So, what I want to know: is my logic correct?
Again, apologies if the question is rudimentary, I am still learning.
P.s. I am planning to develop Windows applications in a windows environment, this is not a question regarding cross-compilation.
Thanks!
MinGW is not compatible with the official Windows SDK, with one of the reasons
being that the SDK contains many VS-specific things (opposed to the GCC base
on MinGW). MinGW has adapted many of the necessary files, and for many programs
this is enough.
You don´t need to know the VS project settings for some program;
MinGW is still GCC in the core and used as such. If you can compile
programs with GCC on linux, learning how to use MinGW won´t be hard.
If you need functions/structures/etc. which are not yet part of it,
you´re out of luck, other than doing the adaption yourself, which
can be everything between very easy or very hard, depending on the case.
Additionally, proper thread usage is a bit quirky (has some "hidden" pitfalls,
which could go unnoticed in an actual program for years, but then...).
(While this is a disadvantage to VS, you´ll get C++11/14 (while VS hasn´t
even finished with 11, see link), better optimzation in many cases etc.)
If you´re choosing what exactly to download, look at WinGW-W64 instead of
the "original" old one. The original project somewhat stopped, has poor
lib support compared to W64, no 64bit compiler etc. (and don´t misunderstand
the "W64", it can be used for 32bit programs too)
I am an experienced Mac/iOS developer, but I initially started to program in C++. I haven't touched C++ for years, and now, it's time to do so, because I want to have multi platform support for a new kind of file type I am trying to create.
C++ has evolved over the years, to what I find is a very bloated mess of 3rd party libraries and an effort by the C++ standards committee to control the evolution of the language. Hence, my questions.
I want to have as much advanced tools at my disposal as possible, and at the same time conform to standards as possible. My main development platform is OS X Lion, and I have access to a fedora 16 installation. I want to target Lion and above, Windows XP and above, and the latest Linux kernels, so backwards compatibility is not an issue here.
One choice is to install the Boost libraries to my machine, but to what I have experienced a long time ago it is a very painful process, with compile-time errors and quirks that have to be done to OS X. I don't know if that experience will be the same if I try that now. The other choice is to stick with TR1 which Lion currently offers. However, TR1 is not a standard as I understand, it is a de facto popular implementation of things that were scheduled to be done in C++11. That way I lose a lot of advanced features that Boost offers.
With these two options in hand, what is the recommended way to have advanced C++ features at your disposal and conform to standards as much as possible? If it's Boost, is it recommended to compile Boost as static libraries in order to avoid installing Boost on end-user machines?
What is the current support of Xcode 4.3 for C++11 features?
I would appreciate any comments on the above questions as well as any other thoughts on the matter. I am trying to get in sync with the current version and features of C++ and I begin to realize that this may not be so easy as I initially thought.
Thanks.
First of all, there are two very distinct parts in Boost:
those which are header-only
those which require compiled libraries
If you stick to header-only, it will definitely be much easier. Note that some libraries, like Asio, have two compilation modes (header-only and library). A number of useful libraries, however, such a boost::regex, do require a compiled library.
Second, C++11 support is moving fast. GCC 4.7 and the upcoming Clang 3.1 support all major features of the Standard, except from atomics (discussions are still ongoing on the best implementation strategies), so on Linux and Mac, things are great... however Visual Studio is lagging behind, and Microsoft is not really interested in moving fast, so on Windows support is minimal still (and advertised supported features are based on older versions of the Standard and not 100% compatible with the last version). It does not mean you cannot compile for Windows, merely that you should use Mingw or equivalent and thus forgo interaction with existing Windows DLLs.
Based on those two observations, I would recommend:
try to avoid C++11 for now if you want to interact with Windows DLL, otherwise I would recommend Clang (for its integration in XCode)
try to avoid Boost libraries and stick to the header-only parts (there is still much goodness)
if you want libraries, you can use DLL as long as you distribute them alongside the executable or use a package system or whatever, but it does present a greater difficulty (for the installation) than just static linking.
Note I'm not a Mac developer but I'd prefer Boost. Many C++11 standards are taken from it and you can expect more Boost features will be ported to C++ standards.
And as a Qt enthusiast: take a look at QtCore. It's very powerful and cross-platform.
I currently develop in C++ on Windows, using Visual Studio 2010. After the official announcement of C++11, I have begun to use some of its features that are already available in MSVC. But, as expected, the great majority of the new changes are not supported.
I thought maybe the upcoming version of Visual Studio would add these new features. However, after reading this it looks like very little is going to change.
And so, I'm curious about the feasibility of using GCC on Windows rather than MSVC, as it appears to support the great majority of C++11 already. As far as I can tell, this would mean using MinGW (I haven't seen any other native Windows versions of GCC). But I have questions about whether this would be worth trying:
Can it be used as a drop-in replacement for cl.exe, or would it involve a lot of hacks and compatibility issues to get Visual Studio to use a different compiler?
The main selling point for Visual Studio, in my opinion, is it's debugger. Is that still usable if you use a different compiler?
Since GCC comes from the *nix world, and isn't native to Windows, are there code quality issues with creating native Windows applications, versus using the native MSVC compiler? (If it matters: most of my projects are games.)
In other words, will the quality of my compiled exe's suffer from using a non-Windows-native compiler?
MSVC has the huge advantage of coming with an IDE that has no equals under Windows, including debugger support.
The probably best alternative for MinGW would be Code::Blocks, but there are worlds in between, especially regarding code completion and the debugger.
Also, MSVC lets you use some proprietary Microsoft stuff (MFC, ATL, and possibly others) that MinGW has no support for, and makes using GDI+ and DirectX easier and more straightforward (though it is possible to do both with MinGW).
Cygwin, as mentioned in another post, will have extra dependencies and possible license issues (the dependency is GPL, so your programs must be, too). MinGW does not have any such dependency or issue.
MinGW also compiles significantly slower than MSVC (though precompiled headers help a little).
Despite all that, GCC/MinGW is an entirely reliable quality compiler, which in my opinion outperforms any to date available version of MSVC in terms of quality of generated code.
This is somewhat less pronounced with the most recent versions of MSVC, but still visible. Especially for anything related to SSE, intrinsics, and inline assembly, GCC has been totally anihilating MSVC ever since (though they're slowly catching up).
Standards compliance is a lot better in GCC too, which can be a double-edged sword (because it can mean that some of your code won't compile on the more conforming compiler!), as is C++11 support.
MinGW optionally also supports DW2 exceptions, which are totally incompatible with the "normal" flavour and take more space in the executable, but on the positive side are "practically zero cost" in runtime.
I want to add some information because the field may have changed since the question was asked.
The main problem for switching away from MSVC was the lack of a good IDE that flawlessly integrates with MinGW . Visual Studio is a very powerful tool and was the only player on Windows for quite some time. However, Jetbrains released a preview version of their new C++ IDE CLion some days ago.
The main benefit comes when working on cross platform applications. In this case, a GCC based tool chain can make life much easier. Moreover, CLion narrowly integrates with CMake, which is also a big plus compared to Visual Studio. Therefore, in my opinion, it is worth to consider switching to MinGW now.
GCC's C++11 support is quite phenomenal (and quite up to par with standards conformance, now that <regex> has been implemented).
If you replace your compiler, you'll need to make sure every dependency can be built with that new compiler. They're not made to be substitutable plugins (although Clang is working on becoming that way).
GCC is a fine compiler, and can produce code that has pretty much the same performance, if not better, than MSVC. It is missing some low-level Windows-specific features though.
Apart from this, to answer your questions:
To get VS to use GCC as a compiler, you'd pretty much need to turn to makefiles or custom build steps all the way. You'd be much better off compiling from the commandline and using CMake or something similar.
You cannot use the VS debugger for GCC code. GCC outputs GDB compatible debug information, and the VS debug format is proprietary, so nothing will change in that area anytime soon.
Code quality is just as good as you'd want it. See above.
No, the quality of your code will actually increase, as GCC will point out several assumed standard extensions MSVC would hide from you. All self-respecting open source projects can be compiled with GCC.
I my humble opinion, it's depends how someone started to code in the first place. I've been using g++ and gcc for more than 20 years now but the reason why i keep using gcc is mainly for licensing reasons. Although i like it too when i don't have a bunch of runtime dependencies or dll's to bundle with my stuff since i came from the DOS era, i still like my stuff small and fast. gcc for windows comes with standard win32 libraries and common control but i had to develop my own win32 controls for stuff that might require mcf shit to work properly or just to look nicer.
Although gcc might have strong support over internet, when it comes to win32 stuff, many rely on mcf and vc proprietary stuff so again, one may have to work his own issues around and be creative when difficulty arises.
I think it's all about needs and circumstances. If you are just a hobbyist coders and have the time for researches, creating you own libs and stuff but you want a solid compiler that's around since the late 80's and free, gcc sound perfect for the job.
But in the industry visual studio is a must if you want to be competitive and stay in the race. Many hardware manufacturers would prefer bundling visual studio compatible libraries for they hardware over some opensource gnu stuff.
That's my two cents.
To be honest, C++ should be handled with MS Visual Studio. If you want to make cross-platform or Unix apps, use GCC. GCC works and can be used with any IDE other than Visual Studio. Even Visual Studio Code can use GCC. Code::Blocks, Eclipse IDE for C/C++ developers, CLion, Notepad++ and even the good ol' tool we've always known, Notepad works with GCC. And finally, on a PC with low disk space, installing Visual Studio's "Desktop Development with C++" is something like 5 GB, if it was to be useful. And this is where GCC hits MSVC hard. It has native C support. MSVC can compile C, but only with a lot of fine-tuning. It takes a lot of time and effort to finally be able to compile. The final verdict:
If MSVC works, it hella works! If MSVC doesn't work, it HELLA DON'T WORK.
If GCC installs, it works, and if it doesn't work, it's the IDE's problem.
GCC is for people who don't mind spending 4 hours at the computer making it work properly. MSVC is for those who don't care about C and want it to install without any pokin' around.
It can't be used as a direct swap-out replacement for the microsoft compilers, for a start it has a vastly different set of command line arguments and compiler specific options.
You can make use of MinGW or Cygwin to write software but introduce extra dependencies ( especially in the case of cygwin ).
One not often touted advantage of gcc over cl is that gcc can be used with ccache to drastically speed up rebuilds or distcc to build using several other machines as compiler slaves.
Consider the Intel compiler (or "Composer" as they seem to have taken to calling it) as another option. I'm not too sure where its C++11 support is at compared with MS (certainly it has lambdas), but it does integrate very nicely with VisualStudio (e.g different projects within a solution can use the Intel or MS compilers) and there's also been some efforts made to match the MS compiler commandline options.
GCC and MSVC use different name mangling conventions for C++. C++ dlls compiled by one compiler can not be used in applications compiled with the other. I believe this is the main reason we don't see more widespread use of gcc in windows.