I would like to start using boost in an embedded environment. I can live without boost libraries that require compilation for quite sometime. I suppose just moving boost directory into appropriate place in our code base will do the trick
Am I right about it or it is more involved than that?
How to get rid of header files for the libraries that are not being used?
Are there any gcc version dependencies in boost libraries. E.g. can use gcc-4.1.1 with the latest?
Am I right about it or it is more involved than that?
That will do it.
How to get rid of header files for the libraries that are not being used?
Why bother? They're not going to be compiled into the program. When you deploy your distribution won't be any different whether you remove them or not.
Are there any gcc version dependencies in boost libraries. E.g. can use gcc-4.1.1 with the latest?
vOv - That's a very old version. Boost takes things a lot further than most, more that I think they should most of the time, trying to make sure it works with old and/or broken compilers. You're really pushing it though.
I have not tried it myself, but if you compile Boost with a directory prefix, then I suppose you could move the directory later. I can't see a big problem with that or at least one that can't be fixed quickly.
As for getting rid of header files for libraries that aren't use, look into the bcp utility for the version with which you are using:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/tools/bcp/doc/html/index.html
It is "a tool for extracting subsets of Boost" -- exactly what you are looking for.
As for your last question, I think it depends on what version of Boost you are using. I've never had a problem with gcc dependencies...it seems their requirements are fairly liberal. I don't think you need to be worried too much about it unless you plan to use a version of gcc that is "much" older (than the Boost you plan to use). I would guess 'old' here is old enough that you don't need to worry -- any number that I would say would be merely a guess...
Hope this helps!
Related
I'm new to C++ and wonder if it is good practice to include a library by source code. If it is, what would be the best way to achieve this? Just copying in a subfolder and using include?
In my special case, I have written a small library and I'm going to use it on two different microprocessors. Compiling the library separately, copying all headers and using this "package" seems to be overkill for me.
Compiling the library separately is what should be done.
It's not that overkill either : you're just compiling the .o files for your library, then wrapping them in an archive and handling that archive around.
Normally libraries are used as libraries because it is much easier and comfortable that way. If you are using dynamic libraries (.dll or .so) things get even better because you can replace libraries on the fly and things should continue to work smoothly.
You decided to use code repositories instead of libraries which means probably more work for you. If you are happy this way that's OK, but just make sure you do not break any license, some lgpl packages (like Qt) clearly
require their libraries to be linked dynamically.
The best way to do this: hard to say but in your place I would probably use git and include the libraries as submodules.
Just #includeing source code is a bad idea since it means just to copy the code into your own, things can go wrong that way. For example if there is a static variable somewhere in the library code and the same named static variable in your code you will have a conflict.
Instead you should probably compile the library separately and link it, possibly the same way as you would do anyway (ie you build the library and then you link with that library). But the light weight alternative would be just to compile the additional C++ files and then link the object files together to an executable. Details on how you do that is compiler specific.
There's valid reasons for including the library source in this way, for example if your project needs to modify the library during development it would be easier to do so if the rebuilding of the library is done as a part of the build process of the project. With a well designed build process the library shouldn't have to be rebuilt unless there are actual changes to it.
The value of a library is in part that you link it more often than you compile it, leading to a net saving.
If you control all the source, then whatever build process works best for you is fine.
I agree with πάντα ῥεῖ but I'll also add that the reason it is bad practice is because the compiled library can be stored in your computer in a common location and used by tons of different programs, thereby reducing the amount of data your computer has to store, in memory as well as RAM(if more than one running program uses the same library). An example is openGL which is a library that many games use and is probably already in your system somewhere. If you use windows, software installers link up these libraries to their programs and add them if you don't have them. If you use linux, you will be notified if libraries are missing and prompted to install them. All of that aside, you can, technically use un-compiled libraries but that introduces a number of potential licensing problems as well as additional problems with THEIR dependencies.
By copying source code to other projects and "mixing" it with other source code will stop this library from being a "library". Later on you will be tempted to make a small change in one copy (for CPU) or fix a bug and forget to do the same in the other copy.
There might be additional consideration but you should try to keep the code in one place. Do not Repeat Yourself (DRY) is a very strong and fundamental principal of software engineering with many benefits.
I have compiled a C++ program that need libboost-system1.46. I'm using Ubuntu 14.04 so I have libboost-system1.54. When I run the program it says that libboost_filesystem.so.1.46.1 was not found. How can I (if it is possible) to make the program work with libboost-system1.54. Perhaps there's a place where we specify which version to use. Is what I thinking is correct?
You need to recompile against the newer version of library. AFAIK boost libraries are not binary compatible between versions, so simple . You could do tricks, to use the other version (symbolic links or other magic), but it would most probably not work.
So you either need to provide the version that is required or change the requirement - recompilation.
If you wrote the program, or built it, you just need to repeat the whole build procedure, with all the configures before the make or compilation. Technically, just relinking should work, but some systems like CMake cache the configuration options evaluated at this step, and simply, calling make again would not work. So I would suggest to repeat whole process.
Whatever the procedure looked, it should suffice just to repeat it.
You may be able to create a symbolic link which points the name libboost-system1.46 to libboost-system1.54.
This will work as long as the interfaces for the functionality you're using hasn't changed, though is probably not a good idea. It may work just get your code going and tested, but would never be appropriate for any sort of release software.
You should try to recompile your program with the newer version of boost.
Boost is meant to be the standard non-standard C++ library that every C++ user can use. Is it reasonable to assume it's available for an open source C++ project, or is it a large dependency too far?
Basically your question boils down to “is it reasonable to have [free library xyz] as a dependency for a C++ open source project.”
Now consider the following quote from Stroustrup and the answer is really a no-brainer:
Without a good library, most interesting tasks are hard to do in
C++; but given a good library, almost any task can be made easy
Assuming that this is correct (and in my experience, it is) then writing a reasonably-sized C++ project without dependencies is downright unreasonable.
Developing this argument further, the one C++ dependency (apart from system libraries) that can reasonably be expected on a (developer's) client system is the Boost libraries.
I know that they aren't but it's not an unreasonable presumption for a software to make.
If a software can't even rely on Boost, it can't rely on any library.
Take a look at http://www.boost.org/doc/tools.html. Specifically the bcp utility would come in handy if you would like to embed your boost-dependencies into your project. An excerpt from the web site:
"The bcp utility is a tool for extracting subsets of Boost, it's useful for Boost authors who want to distribute their library separately from Boost, and for Boost users who want to distribute a subset of Boost with their application.bcp can also report on which parts of Boost your code is dependent on, and what licences are used by those dependencies."
Of course this could have some drawbacks - but at least you should be aware of the possibility to do so.
I used to be extremely wary of introducing dependencies to systems, but now I find that dependencies are not a big deal. Modern operating systems come with package managers that can often automatically resolve dependencies or, at least,make it very easy for administrators to install what is needed. For instance, Boost is available under Gentoo-Postage as dev-libs/boost and under FreeBSD ports as devel/boost.
Modern open source software builds a lot on other systems. In a recent study, by tracking the dependencies of the FreeBSD packages, we established that the 12,357 ports packages in our FreeBSD 4.11 system, had in total 21,135 library dependencies; i.e., they required a library, other than the 52 libraries that are part of the base system, in order to compile. The library dependencies comprised 688 different libraries, while the number of different external libraries used by a single project varied between 1 and 38, with a mode value of 2. Furthermore, 5,117 projects used at least one external library and 405 projects used 10 or more.
In the end the answer to your question will come from a cost versus benefit analysis. Is the benefit of re-using a mature, widely used, reviewed, and tested library like Boost and larger than the low and falling cost of a dependency? For any non-trivial use of Boost's facilities the answer is that you should go ahead and use Boost.
It depends. If you're using a header file only defined class template in Boost - then yes go ahead and use it because it doesn't suck in any Boost shared library, as all the code is generated at compile time with no external dependencies. Versioning problems are a pain for any shared c++ library, and Boost is not immune from this, so if you can avoid the problem altogether it's a good thing.
The benefits of using boost when writing C++ code that they significantly outweigh the extra complexity of distributing the open source code.
I work on Programmer's Notepad and the code takes a dependency on boost for test, smart pointers, and python integration. There have been a couple of complaints due to the requirement, but most will just get on with it if they want to work on the code. Taking the boost dependency was a decision I have never regretted.
To make the complexity slightly less for others, I include versioned pre-built libraries for boost python so that all they need to do is provide boost in their include directories.
KDE also depends on Boost.
However it mostly depends on your goals, and even more so on your target audience, rather than the scope of your project. for example TinyJSON (very small project), is almost 100% Boost, but thats fine because the API it provides is Boost-like and targeted at Boost programmers that need JSON bindings. However many other JSON libraries don't use Boost because they target other audiences.
On the other hand I can't use Boost at work, and I know lots of other developers (in their day jobs) are in the same boat. So I guess you could say if your Target is OpenSource, and a group that uses Boost, go ahead. If you target enterprise you might want to think it over and copy-paste just the necessary parts from Boost(and commit to their support) for your project to work.
Edit: The reason we can't use it at work is because our software has
to be portable to about 7 different
platforms and across 4 compilers. So
we can't use boost because it hasn't
been proven to be compatible with
all our targets, so the reason is a
technical one. (We're fine with the
OpenSource and Boost License part,
as we use Boost for other things at
times)
I would say yes. Both Mandriva (Red Hat based) and Ubuntu (Debian based) have packages for the Boost libriaries.
I think the extensive functionality that Boost provides and, as you say, it is the standard non-standard C++ library justifies it as a dependency.
Unfortunately yes, for ubuntu they're readily available but for RHEL 4&5 I've almost always ended up making them from tarballs. They're great libraries, just really big... like using a rail spike when sometimes all you really need is a thumbtack.
It all depends on the way you're going to use Boost. As Diomidis said, if you're going to use some non-trivial facilities from Boost, just go ahead. Using libraries is not a crime.
Of course, there are many people who prefer not to use Boost, because introducing new dependencies has always some cons and extra worries, but in an open source project... in my opinion it's even alright to use them if you just want to learn them or improve your skills on them.
I have an annoying problem which I might be able to somehow circumvent, but on the other hand would much rather be on top of it and understand what exactly is going on, since it looks like this stuff is really here to stay.
Here's the story: I have a simple OpenGL app which works fine: never a major problem in compiling, linking, or running it. Now I decided to try to move some of the more intensive calculations into a worker thread, in order to possibly make the GUI even more responsive — using Boost.Thread, of course.
In short, if I add the following fragment in the beginning of my .cpp file:
#include <boost/thread/thread.hpp>
void dummyThreadFun() { while (1); }
boost::thread p(dummyThreadFun);
, then I start getting "This application has failed to start because MSVCP90.dll was not found" when trying to launch the Debug build. (Release mode works ok.)
Now looking at the executable using the Dependency Walker, who also does not find this DLL (which is expected I guess), I could see that we are looking for it in order to be able to call the following functions:
?max#?$numeric_limits#K#std##SAKXZ
?max#?$numeric_limits#_J#std##SA_JXZ
?min#?$numeric_limits#K#std##SAKXZ
?min#?$numeric_limits#_J#std##SA_JXZ
Next, I tried to convert every instance of min and max to use macros instead, but probably couldn't find all references to them, as this did not help. (I'm using some external libraries for which I don't have the source code available. But even if I could do this — I don't think it's the right way really.)
So, my questions — I guess — are:
Why do we look for a non-debug DLL even though working with the debug build?
What is the correct way to fix the problem? Or even a quick-and-dirty one?
I had this first in a pretty much vanilla installation of Visual Studio 2008. Then tried installing the Feature Pack and SP1, but they didn't help either. Of course also tried to Rebuild several times.
I am using prebuilt binaries for Boost (v1.36.0). This is not the first time I use Boost in this project, but it may be the first time that I use a part that is based on a separate source.
Disabling incremental linking doesn't help. The fact that the program is OpenGL doesn't seem to be relevant either — I got a similar issue when adding the same three lines of code into a simple console program (but there it was complaining about MSVCR90.dll and _mkdir, and when I replaced the latter with boost::create_directory, the problem went away!!). And it's really just removing or adding those three lines that makes the program run ok, or not run at all, respectively.
I can't say I understand Side-by-Side (don't even know if this is related but that's what I assume for now), and to be honest, I am not super-interested either — as long as I can just build, debug and deploy my app...
Edit 1: While trying to build a stripped-down example that anyway reproduces the problem, I have discovered that the issue has to do with the Spread Toolkit, the use of which is a factor common to all my programs having this problem. (However, I never had this before starting to link in the Boost stuff.)
I have now come up with a minimal program that lets me reproduce the issue. It consists of two compilation units, A.cpp and B.cpp.
A.cpp:
#include "sp.h"
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
mailbox mbox = -1;
SP_join(mbox, "foo");
return 0;
}
B.cpp:
#include <boost/filesystem.hpp>
Some observations:
If I comment out the line SP_join of A.cpp, the problem goes away.
If I comment out the single line of B.cpp, the problem goes away.
If I move or copy B.cpp's single line to the beginning or end of A.cpp, the problem goes away.
(In scenarios 2 and 3, the program crashes when calling SP_join, but that's just because the mailbox is not valid... this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.)
In addition, Spread's core library is linked in, and that's surely part of the answer to my question #1, since there's no debug build of that lib in my system.
Currently, I'm trying to come up with something that'd make it possible to reproduce the issue in another environment. (Even though I will be quite surprised if it actually can be repeated outside my premises...)
Edit 2: Ok, so here we now have a package using which I was able to reproduce the issue on an almost vanilla installation of WinXP32 + VS2008 + Boost 1.36.0 (still pre-built binaries from BoostPro Computing).
The culprit is surely the Spread lib, my build of which somehow requires a rather archaic version of STLPort for MSVC 6! Nevertheless, I still find the symptoms relatively amusing. Also, it would be nice to hear if you can actually reproduce the issue — including scenarios 1-3 above. The package is quite small, and it should contain all the necessary pieces.
As it turns out, the issue did not really have anything to do with Boost.Thread specifically, as this example now uses the Boost Filesystem library. Additionally, it now complains about MSVCR90.dll, not P as previously.
Boost.Thread has quite a few possible build combinations in order to try and cater for all the differences in linking scenarios possible with MSVC. Firstly, you can either link statically to Boost.Thread, or link to Boost.Thread in a separate DLL. You can then link to the DLL version of the MSVC runtime, or the static library runtime. Finally, you can link to the debug runtime or the release runtime.
The Boost.Thread headers try and auto-detect the build scenario using the predefined macros that the compiler generates. In order to link against the version that uses the debug runtime you need to have _DEBUG defined. This is automatically defined by the /MD and /MDd compiler switches, so it should be OK, but your problem description suggests otherwise.
Where did you get the pre-built binaries from? Are you explicitly selecting a library in your project settings, or are you letting the auto-link mechanism select the appropriate .lib file?
I believe I have had this same problem with Boost in the past. From my understanding it happens because the Boost headers use a preprocessor instruction to link against the proper lib. If your debug and release libraries are in the same folder and have different names the "auto-link" feature will not work properly.
What I have done is define BOOST_ALL_NO_LIB for my project(which prevents the headers from "auto linking") and then use the VC project settings to link against the correct libraries.
Looks like other people have answered the Boost side of the issue. Here's a bit of background info on the MSVC side of things, that may save further headache.
There are 4 versions of the C (and C++) runtimes possible:
/MT: libcmt.lib (C), libcpmt.lib (C++)
/MTd: libcmtd.lib, libcpmtd.lib
/MD: msvcrt.lib, msvcprt.lib
/MDd: msvcrtd.lib, msvcprtd.lib
The DLL versions still require linking to that static lib (which somehow does all of the setup to link to the DLL at runtime - I don't know the details). Notice in all cases debug version has the d suffix. The C runtime uses the c infix, and the C++ runtime uses the cp infix. See the pattern? In any application, you should only ever link to the libraries in one of those rows.
Sometimes (as in your case), you find yourself linking to someone else's static library that is configured to use the wrong version of the C or C++ runtimes (via the awfully annoying #pragma comment(lib)). You can detect this by turning your linker verbosity way up, but it's a real PITA to hunt for. The "kill a rodent with a bazooka" solution is to use the /nodefaultlib:... linker setting to rule out the 6 C and C++ libraries that you know you don't need. I've used this in the past without problem, but I'm not positive it'll always work... maybe someone will come out of the woodwork telling me how this "solution" may cause your program to eat babies on Tuesday afternoons.
This is a classic link error. It looks like you're linking to a Boost DLL that itself links to the wrong C++ runtime (there's also this page, do a text search for "threads"). It also looks like the boost::posix::time library links to the correct DLL.
Unfortunately, I'm not finding the page that discusses how to pick the correctly-built Boost DLL (although I did find a three-year-old email that seems to point to BOOST_THREAD_USE_DLL and BOOST_THREAD_USE_LIB).
Looking at your answer again, it appears you're using pre-built binaries. The DLL you're not able to link to is part of the TR1 feature pack (second question on that page). That feature pack is available on Microsoft's website. Or you'll need a different binary to link against. Apparently the boost::posix::time library links against the unpatched C++ runtime.
Since you've already applied the feature pack, I think the next step I would take would be to build Boost by hand. That's the path I've always taken, and it's very simple: download the BJam binary, and run the Boost Build script in the library source. That's it.
Now this got even a bit more interesting... If I just add this somewhere in the source:
boost::posix_time::ptime pt = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::universal_time();
(together with the corresponding #include stuff), then it again works ok. So this is one quick and not even too dirty solution, but hey — what's going on here, really?
From memory various parts of the boost libraries need you to define some preprocessor flags in order to be able to compile correctly. Stuff like BOOST_THREAD_USE_DLL and so on.
The BOOST_THREAD_USE_DLL won't be what's causing this particular error, but it may be expecting you to define _DEBUG or something like that. I remember a few years ago in our boost C++ projects we had quite a few extra BOOST_XYZ preprocessor definitions declared in the visual studio compiler options (or makefile)
Check the config.hpp file in the boost thread directory. When you pull in the ptime stuff it's possibly including a different config.hpp file, which may then define those preprocessor things differently.
Is Boost the only way for VS2005 users experience TR2? Also is there a idiot proof way of downloading only the TR2 related packages?
I was looking at the boost installer provided by BoostPro Consulting. If I select the options for all the threading options with all the packages for MSVC8 it requires 1.1GB. While I am not short of space, it seems ridiculous that a library needs over a gigabyte of space and it takes BPC a long time to catch up with the current release.
What packages do I need? I'm really only interested in those that comprise std::tr2 and can find that out by comparing those on offer to those in from the TR2 report and selecting those from the list but even then it isn't clear what is needed and the fact that it is a version behind annoys me.
I know from previous encounters with Boost (1.33.1) that self compiling is a miserable experience: A lot of time wasted to get it started and then a hoard of errors passes across your screen faster than you can read, so what you are left with is an uneasy feeling that something is broken but you don't quite know what.
I've never had these problems with any Apache library but that is another rant...
I believe you're actually referring to TR1, rather than TR2. The call for proposals for TR2 is open, but don't expect to see much movement until the new C++ standard is out. Also, although boost is a provider of an implementation of TR1, dinkumware and the GNU FSF are other providers - on VC2005 boost is probably the easiest way to access this functionality.
The libraries from boost which are likely to be of most importance are
reference
smart pointer
bind
type traits
array
regular expressions
The documentation for building boost has been gradually improving for the last few releases, the current getting started guide is quite detailed. smart pointer and bind, should work from header files, and IMO, these are the most useful elements of TR1.
Part of the beauty of Boost is that all code is in header files. They have to for template reasons. So probably downloading the code and including it in your project will work. There are some libraries in Boost that do need compiling, but as long as you don't need those...
The libraries I am most interested in from TR1/TR2 are threads and the related atomics.
Compiling the boost libraries for yourself is actually quite simple, if not that well documented. The documentation is in the jamroot file. Run bjam --help in the boost root directory for a detailed list of options. As an example I used the following command line to build my current set up with boost 1.36.0:
bjam --build-type=complete --toolset=msvc --build-dir=c:\boost\build install
It ran for about a half hour on my machine and put the resulting files into c:\boost