I'm trying to declare an object from a class in another file. I have added the #include "transfer.h" into my metadata.cpp file, but I'm getting the following error:
metadata.o: In function `importMetadata':
metadata.cpp:(.text+0x81): undefined reference to A::B::C::Transfer::Transfer()'
metadata.cpp:(.text+0x81): undefined reference to A::B::C::Transfer::~Transfer()'
And Transfer is defined with in transfer.h
namespace A{
namespace B{
namespace C{
class Transfer {
public:
Transfer();
~Transfer();
int copydata();
... more code goes here.
};
}
}
}
The file transfer.cpp looks like this:
Transfer::Transfer(){
}
Transfer::~Transfer(){
}
I'm also doing an using namespace A::B::C; on the header of the metadata.cpp file. Could someone please help me on that?
In the function int importMetadata() in metadata.cpp I'm declaring Transfer transfer; so in metadata.cpp I'm doing 'transfer.copydata();`
Since you have linker error and not a compiler error this tells you that your #include statement is doing what you want and the compiler recognizes the Transfer class and its constructor. The error occurs when the linker tries to find a reference to the implementation of the Transfer::Transfer() function in one of the .o or .lib files its told to link but cannot find it.
It's likely you have a transfer.cpp to go along with the transfer.h and this file is missing the implementation of the Transfer constructor and destructor. This could be because the functions are missing altogether or have been accidentally defined with a different signature.
So transfer.cpp should look something like:
A::B::C::Transfer::Transfer()
{
}
A::B::C::Transfer::~Transfer()
{
}
Another possibility is that you are trying to link the implementaiton of transfer from a library. In this case you would need to tell your linker to use the .lib file as input. The syntax for this will depend on the compiler you are using.
Hopefully you left out part of your transfer.cpp file, but in case you didnt it should define the namespace to match your header file like such:
namespace A{
namespace B{
namespace C{
Transfer::Transfer(){
}
Transfer::~Transfer(){
}
}
}
}
In case you have fully defined the namespaces, either inline or as above, you'll want to make sure you have the transfer.cpp file included in your project. Seems like the linker is unable to find your source file.
Related
I am developing a project in which I have a vendor library, say vendor.h, for the specific Arduino-compatible board I'm using which defines class HTTPClient that conflicts with an Arduino system library, HTTPClient.h, which also defines class HTTPClient.
These two classes are unrelated other than having the same name, and the vendor implementation of an HTTP client is far less capable than the Arduino system library's implementation, so I'd prefer to use the latter. But I can't omit including the former, because I need quite a bit from the vendor.h. Essentially, I have the problem posed here, but with classes rather than functions. I have the full code of both, but given that one is a system library and the other is a vendor library, I'm reluctant to fork and edit either, as that adds lots of merging work down the road if either of them are updated, so my preference would be to find a tidy solution that doesn't edit either header.
I've tried a variety of solutions posted in other SO questions:
I do not want to leave out either header, as I need vendor.h for quite a few things and need the capabilities of HTTPClient.h's client implementation
Proper namespaces in the headers would solve the problem, I would prefer to avoid editing either header
I tried wrapping the #include <HTTPClient.h> in a namespace in my main.cpp, but that caused linking errors, as it's not a header-only library, so the header & cpp weren't in the same namespace
I tried a simple wrapper as proposed for the function in the above linked SO question in which the header contained just a forward declaration of my wrapper class & the associated cpp contained the actual class definition. This gave a compiler error of error: aggregate 'HTTP::Client client' has incomplete type and cannot be defined (Code sample of this attempt below)
main.cpp:
#include <vendor.h>
#include "httpclientwrapper.h"
HTTP::Client client;
httpclientwrapper.h:
#ifndef INC_HTTPCLIENTWRAPPER_H
#define INC_HTTPCLIENTWRAPPER_H
namespace HTTP {
class Client;
}
#endif
httpclientwrapper.cpp:
#include "httpclientwrapper.h"
#include <HTTPClient.h>
namespace HTTP {
class Client : public ::HTTPClient {};
}
In that example, I can't inherit from HTTPClient in a class definition in my header, as that will reintroduce the duplicate class name to the global namespace in my main program (hence the perhaps misguided attempt to see if a forward declaration would do the trick). I suspect that I can resolve the issue by completely duplicating the class definition of HTTPClient in my wrapper class above rather than trying to use inheritance. I would then add member definitions to my wrapper cpp which pass the call to HTTPClient's members. Before I go through the trouble of rewriting (or more likely, copy/pasting) the entire HTTPClient definition from HTTPClient.h into my own wrapper, I was wondering if there was a better or more proper way to resolve the conflict?
Thanks for you help!
As a solution was never proposed, I'm posting an answer that summarizes my research and my ultimate resolution. Mostly, I encourage the use of namespaces, because proper uses of namespaces would have eliminated the conflict. However, Arduino environments try to keep things simple to lower the barrier of entry, eschewing "complicated" features of C++, so more advanced use cases will likely continue to run into issues like this. From other SO answers and forum posts (cited where I could), here are some methods for avoiding name conflicts like this:
If you can edit the source
Edit the source code to remove the conflict or add a namespace to one of both libraries. If this is an open source library, submit a pull request. This is the cleanest solution. However, if you can't push your changes back upstream (such as when one is a system library for some hardware), you may end up with merge issues down the road when the maintainer/developer updates the libraries.
If you can't edit the source
Credit for part of this: How to avoid variable/function conflicts from two libraries in C++
For libraries that are header only libraries (or all functions are inline)
(ie, they have only a .h file without a .o or .cpp)
Include the library inside a namespace. In most code, this is frowned upon as poor form, but if you're already in a situation where you are trying to cope with a library that doesn't contain itself nicely, it's a clean and simple way to contain the code in a namespace and avoid name conflicts.
main.cpp
namespace foo {
#include library.h
}
int main() {
foo::bar(1);
}
For libraries with functions
The above method will fail to link at compile time, because the declarations in the header will be inside the namespace, but the definitions of those functions are not.
Instead, create a wrapper header and implementation file. In the header, declare your namespace and functions you wish to use, but do not import the original library. In the implementation file, import your library, and use the functions inside your new namespaced functions. That way, the one conflicting library is not imported into the same place as the other.
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
int bar(int a);
}
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
int bar(int a) {
return ::bar(a);
}
}
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::bar(1);
}
You could also, for the sake of consistency, wrap both libraries so they're each in their own namespace. This method does mean that you will have to put in the effort to write a wrapper for every function you plan to use. This gets more complicated, however, when you need to use classes from the library (see below).
For libraries with classes
This is an extension of the wrapper function model from above, but you will need to put in more work, and there are a few more drawbacks. You can't write a class that inherits from the library's class, as that would require importing the original library in your wrapper header prior to defining your class, so you must write a complete wrapper class. You also cannot have a private member of your class of the type from the original class that you can delegate calls to for the same reason. The attempt at using a forward declaration I described in my question also did not work, as the header file needs a complete declaration of the class to compile. This left me the below implementation, which only works in the cases of a singleton (which was my use case anyway).
The wrapper header file should almost completely duplicate the public interface of the class you want to use.
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
Class Bar() {
public:
void f(int a);
bool g(char* b, int c, bool d);
char* h();
};
}
The wrapper implementation file then creates an instance and passes the calls along.
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
::Bar obj;
void Bar::f(int a) {
return obj.f(a);
}
bool Bar::g(char* b, int c, bool d) {
return obj.g(b, c, d);
}
char* Bar::h() {
return obj.h();
}
}
The main file will interact with only a single instance of the original class, no matter how many times your wrapper class in instantiated.
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::Bar obj;
obj.f(1);
obj.g("hello",5,true);
obj.h();
}
Overall, this strikes me as a flawed solution. To fully wrap this class, I think the this could be modified to add a factory class that would be fully contained inside the wrapper implementation file. This class would instantiate the original library class every time your wrapper class is instantiated, and then track these instances. In this way, your wrapper class could keep an index to its associated instance in the factory and bypass the need to have that instance as its own private member. This seemed like a significant amount of work, and I did not attempt to do so, but would look something like the code below. (This probably needs some polish and a real look at its memory usage!)
The wrapper header file adds a constructor & private member to store an instance id
wrapper.h
namespace foo {
Class Bar() {
public:
Bar();
void f(int a);
bool g(char* b, int c, bool d);
char* h();
private:
unsigned int instance;
};
}
The wrapper implementation file then adds a factory class to manage instances of the original library's class
wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "library.h"
namespace foo {
class BarFactory {
public:
static unsigned int new() {
instances[count] = new ::Bar();
return count++;
}
static ::Bar* get(unsigned int i) {
return instances[i];
}
private:
BarFactory();
::Bar* instances[MAX_COUNT]
int count;
};
void Bar::Bar() {
instance = BarFactory.new();
}
void Bar::f(int a) {
return BarFactory.get(i)->f(a);
}
bool Bar::g(char* b, int c, bool d) {
return BarFactory.get(i)->g(b, c, d);
}
char* Bar::h() {
return BarFactory.get(i)->h();
}
}
The main file remains unchanged
main.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
int main() {
foo::bar obj;
obj.f(1);
obj.g("hello",5,true);
obj.h();
}
If all of this seems like a lot of work, then you're thinking the same thing I did. I implemented the basic class wrapper, and realized it wasn't going to work for my use case. And given the hardware limitations of the Arduino, I ultimately decided that rather than add more code to be able to use the HTTPClient implementation in either library, I wrote my own HTTP implementation library in the end, and so used none of the above and saved several hundred kilobytes of memory. But I wanted to share here in case somebody else was looking to answer the same question!
OK folks. I have fixed the error by moving the variable definition, but I do not understand why there is a problem.
Simplified Background: I have an object and I want to track all instances of that object in a list, so I simply created a List<> static member of the class. Below was a simple representation that allowed me to play with it. If I have the line marked as "this line" in the static library. I get a run time error. The object is defined in a header file and is the same header file in both places. If I move "this line" to the code in my final application and it works.... Why? I just don't understand why it is different.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <list>
using namespace std;
class someobject
{
public:
someobject()
{
// do some stuff.
theStaticList.push_back(this);
}
void func()
{
printf("Made it!!\n");
}
static list<someobject*> theStaticList;
};
list<someobject*> someobject::theStaticList; //*** This line
someobject global;
int main()
{
someobject initial;
initial.func();
global.func();
list<someobject*>::iterator iter;
printf("\n\nLoop the Static List\n");
for (iter = someobject::theStaticList.begin(); iter != someobject::theStaticList.end (); iter++)
(*iter)->func();
return 0;
}
If you put that line in a header file, then include the header into two or more source files, you're defining the list object in each source file where the header gets included.
This violates the one definition rule, so the linker will quite rightly give you an error when you do it.
You want to define the object in one (and only one) source file. For a library, that should be some object file in the library, not the user's source file though (at least as a general rule).
consider a fun.cpp file :
class fun
{
public:
void sum();
void dispaly();
};
Class fun2
{
public:
void subtract();
};
Now consider another c++ file execute.cpp where i want to access only subtract method of fun.cpp file..
i dont want to include "fun.cpp" file into my execute.cpp as it will increase the size(in larger projects)..
so, how can i access any particular method wihtod including the file????
i dont want to include "fun.cpp" file into my execute.cpp
Nor should you, as it would break the one definition rule (assuming the implementations are also in the cpp file).
The usual way to do this is to have the class definition in a header, and include only the header file.
To answer your question, you can, but it's fugly.
C++ allows us to define a class multiple times, as long as the definition is identical. So, in execute.cpp you can simply write:
//execute.cpp
class fun2 //note lower-case 'c'
{
public:
void subtract();
};
// use fun2 here
before you use it. But, again, the usual way is to break the class definition and implementation in a .h file and a .cpp file.
Mandatory advice: read a good introductory C++ book.
You need to include the header file which defines the class fun(and has the declaration of subtract()) in the cpp file where you want to use the function subtract().
Note that the function must be defined though.
fun2.h
#ifndef FUN2_H
#define FUN2_H
Class fun2
{
public:
void subtract();
};
#endif // FUN2_H
fun2.cpp
#include "fun2.h"
void func2::subtract()
{
}
execute.cpp
#include "fun2.h"
//use subtract() through object of `fun2`
Note that, to use a member function in a particular source file, the definition of the class which declares that function should be visible to the compiler, the actual job of linking to the particular definition is done at the linking stage and as long as you follow the above format the linker shall link the appropriate function for you.
Even though you include the file, the linker will only include code that is actually used. This is why using static libraries is sometimes preferable to a dynamic library that has to include everything.
You can't. You need to actually include the file that links to the code that defines the function if you want to include the function. If you just need the interface and aren't going to use the function, you could simply declare the class in execute.cpp as follows
class fun
{
public:
void subtract();
};
But you couldn't use subtract there.
Okay, so this is really werid. I've never encountered anything like this.
Part of my program (Fails to compile) contains three namespaces as following:
// namespaceA.h
namespace A {
enum Kind { jimmy, david };
}
// end of namespaceA.h
// namespaceB.h
#include "namespaceA.h"
namespace B {
class Tree {
public:
Tree *prev;
Tree *next;
Tree *down;
A::Kind kind;
Tree();
~Tree();
};
}
// end of namespaceB.h
// Implementation details of the class are placed in namespaceB.cc
// Constructor / Desctructor defined in the namespaceB.cc file!
// Something like this,
#include "namespaceB.h"
namespace B {
inline Tree::Tree() { ... }
inline Tree::~Tree() { ... }
}
// namespaceC.cc
#include "namespace.B"
namespace C {
void run() {
B::Tree *tree; // FINE
B::Tree tree; // Fail to compile!?
}
}
// end of namespaceC.cc
Now, g++ went along just fine but the linker ld complains:
"namespaceC.cc: undefined reference to `B::Tree::Tree()'
"namespaceC.cc: undefined reference to `B::Tree::~Tree()'
I have never ever encountered anything like this before... This just seems really weird, I don't even know any words/terms to describe this problem.
I would much appreciate any help.
Thanks,
namespaceC.cc: undefined reference to `B::Tree::Tree()'
namespaceC.cc: undefined reference to `B::Tree::~Tree()'
Those are not compiler errors, they are linker errors. The problem is that you declared the constructor and destructor, but never defined them. So the compiler finds the declarations and accepts them, but the linker cannot find the definitions to link the references to.
See this answer for what is a declaration and what is a definition and what they are good/needed for.
Your definitions of B::Tree::Tree() and B::Tree::~Tree() are declared inline. This means they are only available in that source file, not any others.
Either removing inline from the definitions, or moving the inline definitions into a header file included by all source files that need them, should fix the link errors.
You have to write the constructor and destructor for B::Tree somewhere either inline or in namespaceB.cc. By creating an instance of B, you are requiring the existence of the constructor and destructor.
The pointer compiles fine because all pointers are the same. It's just the semantics allowed for different object types differ.
It would have compiled find up until the point you tried to use it.
But to create an actual object, you need the actual definition.
To use definitions from another namespace, you either used scopes, or use using:
#include "namespace.B"
using namespace B;
namespace C {
void run() {
Tree *tree; // FINE
Tree tree; // Fail to compile!?
}
}
or:
#include "namespace.B"
namespace C {
void run() {
B::Tree *tree; // FINE
B::Tree tree; // Fail to compile!?
}
}
You declare the Tree constructor & destructor, but you don't show us where you define them (you just say you implement Tree in namespaceB.cc)
Assuming you have defined them, you must ensure you are including both namespaceC.o and namespaceB.o on your link line.
That's not a namespace problem, neither a compiler error. The compiler is happy, but linker fails to find the definition of B::Tree::Tree(). You need to supply the source file for implementation, or use -c flag to "just compile".
First, you declared constructor and destructor of class Tree yourself so compiler didn't provide default implementation - you need to implement them yourself! (Or just remove those declarations...).
It is not enough to include headers but you need to explicitly say that you're using namespaces from those headers:
In namespaceC.cc add using namespace B; after you include namespace.B or, even better, prepend types with a namespace qualifier:
B::Tree *tree;
B::Tree tree;
I tried the codes in Visual studio 2005. If I remove the "inline" in namespaceB.cc for the constructor and destructor, it can link without errors.
Then I found this post: G++ won't accept inline constructors in C++
it says that for inline functions you must have its definition in every file that calls the function. So it is recommended to put inline definition in header file.
I have this definition of the function in my class.
The .hpp file:
class SomeClass
{
public:
static string DoStuff(string s);
};
The .cpp file:
#include "header.hpp"
string SomeClass::DoStuff(string s)
{
// do something
}
Compiler says:
**error C2039: 'DoStuff' : is not a member of 'SomeClass'**
Can somebody help?
EDIT:
actual offending code
header definition
class DDateTime{
public:
static string date2OracleDate(DATE Date);
}
string DDateTime::date2OracleDate(DATE Date)
{
string s;
s="TO_DATE('" + DDateTime::DateFormat("%d/%m/%Y",Date) + "','dd/MM/YYYY')";
return s;
}
Usually, .cpp files must include the matching .h or .hpp file.
Is it the case here ?
You can also have namespace issue (missing namespace in .cpp file or static method definition outside of the namespace, and so on.).
Actually, it is difficult to answer until we have the real breaking code.
Moreover, I don't know if this is sample code, but it seems you used something like using std::string or using namespace std in your header file.
This is a bad idea because it will polute every file in which your header is included. What If someone wants to use your header file but don't want to "use" std because string is the name of one of its classes ?
Have you included the header file in your cpp file?
Maybe a namespace issue? You could have a SomeNamespace::SomeClass with a static member function and a ::SomeClass in the outer namespace without the static member function.
Are you missing
#include<string>
in your header file?
Are you trying to call DoStuff from a double pointer to your instance? Example:
SomeClass **class;
class->DoStuff();
If so do this:
SomeClass **class;
(*class)->DoStuf();