I am currently developing a C++ command line utility to be distributed as an open-source utility on Github. However, I want people who download the program to be able to easily compile and run the program on any platform (specifically Mac, Linux, and Windows) in as few steps as possible. Assuming only small changes have to be made to the code to make it compatible with the various platform-independent C++ compilers (g++ and win32), how can I do this? Are makefiles relevant?
My advice is, do not use make files, maintaining the files for big enougth projects is tedious and errors happen sometimes which you don't catch immediatly (because the *.o file is still there).
See this question here
Makefiles are indeed highly relevant. You may find that you need (at least) two different makefiles to compensate for the fact that you have different compilers.
It's hard to be specific about how you solve this, since it depends on how complex the project is. It may be easiest to write a script/batchfile, and just document "Use the command build.sh on Linux/Unix, and build.bat on Windows") - and then let the respective files deal with for example setting up the name of the compiler and flags, etc.
Or you can have an include into the makefile, which is determined by the architecture. Or different makefiles.
If the project is REALLY simple, it may be just enough to provide a basic makefile - but it's unlikely, as a compile of x.cpp on Linux/MacOS makes an object file is called x.o, on windows the object file is called x.obj. Libraries have different names, dll's have differnet names, and on Linux/MacOS, the final executable has no extension (typically) so it's called "myprog", where the executable under windows is called "myprog.exe".
These sorts of differences mean that the makefile needs to be different.
Related
I pretty new to C++. I was wondering, as what is considered generally a neat way to provide paths for various files/libraries while compiling or executing c++ codes.
For ex:
I have Boost libraries installed in some location on my system. Lets call it X
In order to execute anything I have to type in
c++ -I LongpathWhichisX/to/boost_1_60_0 example.cpp -o example
Similarly, also Long path for the input file while executing the code.
Is there a better way to address it. Is it possible to create environment variables lets Y, which refers to path 'X'. And we can use following command to compile code
c++ -I Y/to/boost_1_60_0 example.cpp -o example
Best way is to use build tools. For example you can use Make. You define all your include paths (and other options) in the Makefile. In console you just have to call make to build your project or something like make run to run your project.
The usual way is to make a Makefile where you can specify all needed paths and compile options in proper variables.
If you don't want/need a Makefile and rather want to run compiler from command-line, then you may use the CPATH environment variable to specify a colon-separated list of paths to include files.
This is a broad question but the other answers highlight the most important step. It is essential to learn build tools like make because they will make it easier to build your projects during development and for others to build it later. In the modern programming age though this is not enough. If you are using something like Boost (which targets many platforms) you will probably want to make your build cross-platform as well. For this you would use either cmake or autotools which both have scripts that make it much easier to locate the Boost libraries (and others).
Any other build systems, in my opinion, are a pain and are the bane of maintainers of Linux distributions. CMake used to be in that catergory but it has gained wide acceptance now. CMake targets building cross-platform projects across operating systems (Windows and Unixes) better (again in my opinion) because it attempts to provide the native build system on each platform (for example: Visual Studio in Windows, Make on all Unices, XCode on Mac). The autotools instead target the Unix environment with much greater depth (you have a bit of a harder time on Windows, but you can target embedded Unix systems to high end Unix server systems with much more flexibility).
Note: Autotools support for cross-compiling is superior in almost every way to other solutions. I always cringe when I download something that needs to be cross compiled for Arm Linux and it uses some weird build system. Funnily enough, boost is one of these.
This is a bit of a long winded answer. In summary, it is essential that you learn a build system for native development. It is part of your skill set and until you have that skill you can't really contribute to open-source projects or even your employer developing closed-source projects.
Let's say I have created and compiled a simple program using the MinGW 64 (g++ compiler). Running this program on my computer and looking in Process Explorer for what DLL files the program is using I find (among many others):
libgcc_s_seh-1.dll
libstdc++6.dll
libwinpthread-1.dll
These are the only ones that reside under my MinGW installation folder. The rest of the DLL files used reside under C:\Windows.
Question 1:
Are the MinGW DLL files the MinGW C++ runtime libraries (so to speak)? Do they serve the same purpose as for example msvcrXXX.dll (XXX = version of Microsoft runtime library).
Question 2:
If I want to run the application on a different computer which does not have MinGW installed, is it sufficient to include those DLL files listed above (i.e. placing them in the same folder as my executable) to have it run on the other computer (we assume the other computer is also a 64-bit Windows machine). If yes, does this mean we basically ship the MinGW C++ runtime with our executable. If no, why?
libstdc++6.dll is the C++ standard library, like you said.
libwinpthread-1.dll is for C++11 threading support. MinGW-W64 has two possible thread variants: Either use the native Windows functions like CreateThread, but C++11 stuff like std::thread won´t be available then; or include this library and use the C++11 classes (too).
Note that to switch the thread model, you´ll need to reinstall MinGW. Just removing the DLL and not using the C++11 stuff won´t work, the DLL will be required nonetheless with your current install.
libgcc_s_seh-1.dll is something about C++ exception handling.
Yes, it should be sufficient to deliver the DLLs too
(or use static linking and deliver only your program file).
For complicated projects where you're not exactly sure which DLL files need to be included to distribute your application, I made a handy dandy Bash script (for MSYS2 shells) that can tell you exactly what DLL files you need to include. It relies on the Dependency Walker binary.
#!/usr/bin/sh
depends_bin="depends.exe"
target="./build/main.exe" # Or wherever your binary is
temp_file=$(mktemp)
output="dll_list.txt"
MSYS2_ARG_CONV_EXCL="*" `cygpath -w $depends_bin` /c /oc:`cygpath -w $temp_file` `cygpath -w $target`
cat $temp_file | cut -d , -f 2 | grep mingw32 > $output
rm $temp_file
Note that this script would need to be modified slightly for use in regular MSYS (the MSYS2_ARG_CONV_EXCL and cygpath directives in particular). This script also assumes your MinGW DLL files are located in a path which contains MinGW.
You could potentially even use this script to automatically copy the DLL files in question into your build directory as part of an automatic deploy system.
You may like to add the options -static-libgcc and -static-libstdc++ to link the C and C++ standard libraries statically and thus remove the need to carry around any separate copies of those.
I used ntldd to get a list of dependencies.
https://github.com/LRN/ntldd
I'm using msys2 so i just installed it with pacman. Use that and then copy all the needed dependencies
There are several major challenges to distributing compiled software:
Compiling the code for all target processors (remember, when it comes to compiled code, you need to produce separate downloads/distributions for each type of instruction set architecture).
Ensuring that the builds are reproducible, consistent, and can be easily correlated with a specific version of the code (and versions of the dependencies).
Ensuring that the build output is self-contained and includes all of its dependencies within it (so that it is not dependent on any other installations that happen to exist on just your system).
Making sure that your code is built and distributed regularly, with updates distributed automatically so that -- in the event of security issues -- you can push out new patched versions.
For convenience and to increase reach, it is nice for non-savvy users to have a prebuilt version that they can install. However, I would recommend sharing the source code as a first step.
Most of these requirements are fairly non-trivial to hit and often require automating not only build process, but also automating the instantiation / configuration of VMs in which the build should take place. However, there are open source projects that can help... for example, check out Gitian.
In terms of bullet point #3, the key thing here is to use static linking... while this does make the binary you distribute much larger (because its dependencies are now baked into the output), it also makes your binary isolated from the version of the libraries on the system (avoiding "dependency hell").
Point #4 is very tricky, but thankfully there are also opensource tools to help here, as well such as cloudup, which provides a way to add auto-updating capability to your application distribution.
I want to compile a bunch of C++ files into raw machine code and the run it with a platform-dependent starter written in C. Something like
fread(buffer, 1, len, file);
a=((*int(*)(int))buffer)(b);
How can I tell g++ to output raw code?
Will function calls work? How can I make it work?
I think the calling conventions of Linux and Windows differ. Is this a problem? How can I solve it?
EDIT: I know that PE and ELF prevent the DIRECT starting of the executable. But that's what I have the starter for.
There is one (relatively) simple way of achieving some of this, and that's called "position independent code". See your compiler documentation for this.
Meaning you can compile some sources into a binary which will execute no matter where in the address space you place it. If you have such a piece of x86 binary code in a file and mmap() it (or the Windows equivalent) it is possible to invoke it from both Linux and Windows.
Limitations already mentioned are of course still present - namely, the binary code must restrict itself to using a calling convention that's identical on both platforms / can be represented on both platforms (for 32bit x86, that'd be passing args on the stack and returning values in EAX), and of course the code must be fully self-contained - no DLL function calls as resolving these is system dependent, no system calls either.
I.e.:
You need position-independent code
You must create self-contained code without any external dependencies
You must extract the machine code from the object file.
Then mmap() that file, initialize a function pointer, and (*myblob)(someArgs) may do.
If you're using gcc, the -ffreestanding -nostdinc -fPIC options should give you most of what you want regarding the first two, then use objdump to extract the binary blob from the ELF object file afterwards.
Theoretically, some of this is achievable. However there are so many gotchas along the way that it's not really a practical solution for anything.
System call formats are totally incompatible
DEP will prevent data executing as code
Memory layouts are different
You need to effectively dynamically 'relink' the code before you can run it.
.. and so forth...
The same executable cannot be run on both Windows and Linux.
You write your code platform independently (STL, Boost & Qt can help with this), then compile in G++ on Linux to output a linux-binary, and similarly on a compiler on the windows platform.
EDIT: Also, perhaps these two posts might help you:
One
Two
Why don't you take a look at wine? It's for using windows executables on Linux. Another solution for that is using Java or .NET bytecode.
You can run .NET executables on Linux (requires mono runtime)
Also have a look at Agner's objconv (disassembling, converting PE executable to ELF etc.)
http://www.agner.org/optimize/#objconv
Someone actually figured this out. It’s called αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε (APE) and you use the Cosmopolitan C library. The gist is that there’s a way to cause Windows PE executable headers to be ignored and treated as a shell script. Same goes for MacOS allowing you to define a single executable. Additionally, they also figured out how to smuggle ZIP into it so that it can incrementally compress the various sections of the file / decompress on run.
https://justine.lol/ape.html
https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan
Example of a single identical Lua binary running on Linux and Windows:
https://ahgamut.github.io/2021/02/27/ape-cosmo/
Doing such a thing would be rather complicated. It isn't just a matter of the cpu commands being issued, the compiler has dependencies on many libraries that will be linked into the code. Those libraries will have to match at run-time or it won't work.
For example, the STL library is a series of templates and library functions. The compiler will inline some constructs and call the library for others. It'd have to be the exact same library to work.
Now, in theory you could avoid using any library and just write in fundamentals, but even there the compiler may make assumptions about how they work, what type of data alignment is involved, calling convention, etc.
Don't get me wrong, it can work. Look at the WINE project and other native drivers from windows being used on Linux. I'm just saying it isn't something you can quickly and easily do.
Far better would be to recompile on each platform.
That is achievable only if you have WINE available on your Linux system. Otherwise, the difference in the executable file format will prevent you from running Windows code on Linux.
I've got a C++ project where we have loads and loads of dependencies. The project should work on Linux and Windows, so we've ported it to CMake. Most dependencies are now included right into the source tree and build alongside the project, so there are no problems with those.
However, we have one binary which depends on Fortran code etc. and is really complicated to build. For Linux, it's also not available as a package, but only as precompiled binaries or with full source (needs a BLAS library installed and several other dependencies). For windows, the same library is available as binary, building for Windows seems even more complicated.
The question is, how do you handle such dependencies? Just check in the binaries for the supported platforms, and require the user to set up his build environment otherwise (that is, manually point to the binary location), or would you really try to get them compiled along (even if it requires installing like 10 libraries -- BLAS libraries are the biggest pain here), or is there some other recommended way to handle that?
If the binary is independant of the other part of your build process, you definitively should check-in it. But as you cannot include every version of the binary (I mean for every platform and compile flags the user might use) the build from source seems mandatory.
I have done something similar. I have checked-in the source code archives of the libraries/binaries I needed. Then I wrote makefile/scripts to build them according to the targeted platform/flags in a specific location (no standard OS location) and make my main build process to point to the right location. I have done that to be able to handle the correct versions and options of the libraries/binaries I needed. It's quite a hard work to make things works for different platforms but it's worth the time !
Oh, and of course it's easier if you use crossplatform build tools :)
One question to you. Does the users need to modify this binary, or are they just happy it's there so the can use/access it? If they don't need to modify it, check in the binaries.
I would agree, check in the binaries for each platform if they are not going to be modified very often. Not only will this reduce build times, but it will also reduce frustration from unnecessary compilations.
When writing an app that one wants to have compile on mac, linux and windows, what is the best way of managing the different libraries that will need to be included on the various operating systems. For example, using the glut opengl toolkit requires different includes on each operating system.
Your question is actually two questions in one:
1) How do I write my C++ code to include the right include files on the right platform?
2) How do I write my Makefile to work on different platforms?
The C++ code question is already answered - find the platform-specific defines and use them to figure out what platform you're on.
Automake or scons are quite complex, and are worth your time only if you intend to release your code to a wide audience. In the case of in-house code, a "generic" makefile with per-platform include is usually sufficient. For Windows, you can get GNU Make for Windows (available from here, or use nmake and limit yourself to the subset of syntax common between all platforms.
If you just need to worry about header files, then the preprocessor will do everything you need. If you want to handle differing source files, and possibly different libraries you'll need a tool to handle it.
Some options include:
The Autotools
Scons
CMake
My personal favorite is CMake. The Autotools uses a multi-stage process that's relatively easy to break, and scons just feels weird to me. Cmake will also generate project files for a variety of IDEs, in addition to makefiles.
There is a good article on Macros. One of the answers how to use conditional compilation based on OS/COmpiler (its near the top).
The use of the Autoconfiguration tools is a nice addition on top of this but is not needed for small projects where it may be easier to detect the OS explicitly, though for larger projects that may need to run on many different types of OS you should also explore the Available autoconfiguration tools mentioned by Branan
Several projects I've worked on use an autoconf-based configure script which builds a Makefile, hence the reason you can build all of them from source with a simple:
./configure
make
make install
Scons has a configuring mechanism that will do a lot of what autotools do without as much complexity, and is pretty darn portable (although not as portable as autotools).
The compiler should have a set of preprocessor symbols it will provide that you can use. For example linux for gcc on a Linux system, _WIN32 for VC++. If you need something more complex then look at autoconf, but that works best for Unix based code.
I'd recommend checking out how some of the larger OpenSource projects handle this. See AutoSense.hpp from (an old release of) Apache Xerces.
If the libraries offer the same API on the different platforms, I would create a "proxy" include file containing all the necessary #ifdefs. That 'platform-independent' include file is then included in your client code instead of cluttering it with numerous and ugly-reading preprocessor commands. These will be contained in the ugly and cluttered platform-independent include.
If the API differs across platforms, you will need to create your own abstraction.
Perhaps this is a cop-out answer, but have you looked at how boost handles this? They build on quite a few platforms without autoconf, although they do have their own build system - bjam - that probably handles some of the same situations. They also do a nice auto-linking trick on windows that automatically selects the right version of libraries for linking depending on the version of the MSVC compiler. Based on your initial description, it sounds like just macro defs checking for various platforms/compilers might do the trick, but perhaps there is more to your problem that would prevent this.