Thinking of using MinGW as an alternative to VC++ on Windows, but am worried about compatibility issues. I am thinking in terms of behaviour, performance on Windows (any chance a MinGW compiled EXE might act up). Also, in terms of calling the Windows API, third-party DLLs, generatic and using compatible static libraries, and other issues encountered with mixing parts of the same application with the two compilers.
First, MinGW is not a compiler, but an environment, it is bundled with gcc.
If you think of using gcc to compile code and have it call the Windows API, it's okay as it's C; but for C++ DLLs generated by MSVC, you might have a harsh wake-up call.
The main issue is that in C++, each compiler has its own name mangling (or more generally ABI) and its own Standard library. You cannot mix two different ABI or two different Standard Libraries. End of the story.
Clang has a specific MSVC compatibility mode, allowing it to accept code that MSVC accepts and to emit code that is binary compatible with code compiled with MSVC. Indeed, it is even officially supported in Visual Studio.
Obviously, you could also simply do the cross-DLL communication in C to circumvent most issues.
EDIT: Kerrek's clarification.
It is possible to compile a large amount of C++ code developed for VC++ with the MinGW toolchain; however, the ease with which you complete this task depends significantly on how C++-standards-compliant the code is.
If the C++ code utilizes VC++ extensions, such as __uuidof, then you will need to rewrite these portions.
You won't be able to compile ATL & MFC code with MinGW because the ATL & MFC headers utilize a number of VC++ extensions and depend on VC++-specific behaviors:
try-except Statements
__uuidof
throw(...)
Calling a function without forward-declaring it.
__declspec(nothrow)
...
You won't be able to use VC++-generated LIB files, so you can't use MinGW's linker, ld, to link static libraries without recompiling the library code as a MinGW A archive.
You can link with closed-source DLLs; however, you will need to export the symbols of the DLL as a DEF file and use dlltool to make the corresponding A archive (similar to the VC++ LIB file for each DLL).
MinGW's inclusion of the w32api project basically means that code using the Windows C API will compile just fine, although some of the newer functions may not be immediately available. For example, a few months ago I was having trouble compiling code that used some of the "secure" functions (the ones with the _s suffix), but I got around this problem by exporting the symbols of the DLL as a DEF, preparing an up-to-date A archive, and writing forward declarations.
In some cases, you will need to adjust the arguments to the MinGW preprocessor, cpp, to make sure that all header files are properly included and that certain macros are predefined correctly.
What I recommend is just trying it. You will definitely encounter problems, but you can usually find a solution to each by searching on the Internet or asking someone. If for no other reason, you should try it to learn more about C++, differences between compilers, and what standards-compliant code is.
Related
I'm trying out the clang32 compiler coming with C++ builder 10.2. Builder don't yet have any good support for CMake, so a great number of 3rd party libraries are (very) hard to compile using it.
Anyone knowing if there is any binary compatibility between clang32 and Visual Studio compiler?
There are essentially three different levels of compatibility you need to worry about:
File formats for object code and debug data, which allow you to use clang to build part of your project and Visual C++ cl.exe to build a library and then link them together and debug both.
Ability to write code and structure data that conforms to a portable binary interface, so it can be called across a mix of compilers.
Binary compatibility of the C++ standard library, so that standard library objects can be shared across a mix of compilers.
I can definitely say that (2) is supported and (3) absolutely is not; you can't even share standard library objects between different patchlevels of the same compiler. For (1) I don't know. A common way to bypass the issues with (1) is to build a DLL using each compiler, so they dynamically interface but no static linking nor merging of debug data is necessary.
If your concern is about cmake though, I think your problem is not the compiler (clang is available for Linux and cmake supports it well -- you should find the make scripts are capable of configuring all the compiler options). Whether it can generate project files for C++Builder is a different story, but perhaps you should consider using a different IDE. There are many with clang support, even Microsoft's Visual Studio has some ability to use clang for the compile step, and it's getting better with each release.
I have searched Google but haven't found quite a direct answer to my queries.
I have been reading C++ Primer and I'm still quite new to the language, but despite how good the book is it discusses the use of the standard library but doesn't really describe where it is or where it comes from (it hasn't yet anyway). So, where is the standard library? Where are the header files that let me access it? When I downloaded CodeBlocks, did the STL come with it? Or does it automatically come with my OS?
Somewhat related, but what exactly is MinGW that came with Cobeblocks? Here it says
MinGW is a C/C++ compiler suite which allows you to create Windows executables without dependency on such DLLs
So at the most basic level is it just a collection of "things" needed to let me make C++ programs?
Apologies for the quite basic question.
"When I downloaded CodeBlocks, did the STL come with it?"
Despite it's not called the STL, but the C++ standard library, it comes with your c++ compiler implementation (and optionally packaged with the CodeBlocks IDE).
You have to differentiate IDE and compiler toolchain. CodeBlocks (the Integrated Development Environment) can be configured to use a number of different compiler toolchains (e.g. Clang or MSVC).
"Or does it automatically come with my OS?"
No, usually not. Especially not for Windows OS
"So, where is the standard library? Where are the header files that let me access it?"
They come with the compiler toolchain you're currently using for your CodeBlocks project.
Supposed this is the MinGW GCC toolchain and it's installed in the default directory, you'll find the libraries under a directory like (that's what I have)
C:\MinGW\lib\gcc\mingw32\4.8.1
and the header files at
C:\MinGW\lib\gcc\mingw32\4.8.1\include\c++
"So at the most basic level is it just a collection of "things" needed to let me make C++ programs?"
It's the Minimalist GNU toolchain for Windows. It usually comes along with the GCC (GNU C/C++ compiler toolchain), plus the MSYS minimalist GNU tools environment (including GNU make, shell, etc.).
When you have installed a C++ implementation you'll have something which implements everything necessary to use C++ source files and turn them into something running. How that is done exactly depends on the specific C++ implementation. Most often, there is a compiler which processes individual source file and translates them into object files which are then combined by a linker to produce an actual running program. That is by no means required and, e.g., cling directly interprets C++ code without compiling.
All this is just to clarify that there is no one way how C++ is implemented although the majority of contemporary C++ implementations follow the approach of compiler/linker and provide libraries as a collection of files with declarations and library files providing implementations of these declarations.
Where the C++ standard library is located and where its declarations are to be found entirely depends on the C++ implementations. Oddly, all C++ implementations I have encountered so far except cling do use a compiler and all these compilers support a -E option (although it is spelled /E for MSVC++) which preprocesses a C++ file. The typically quite large output shows locations of included files pointing at the location of the declarations. That is, something like this executed on a command line yields a file with the information about the locations:
compiler -E input.cpp > input.ii
How the compiler compiler is actually named entirely depends on the C++ implementation and is something like g++, clang++, etc. The file input.cpp is supposed to contain a suitable include directive for one of the standard C++ library headers, e.g.
#include <iostream>
Searching in the output input.ii should reveal the location of this header. Of course, it is possible that the declarations are made available by the compiler without actually including a file but just making declarations visible. There used to be a compiler like this (TenDRA) but I'm not aware of any contemporary compiler doing this (with modules being considered for standardization these may come back in the future, though).
Where the actual library file with the objects implementing the various declarations is located is an entirely different question and locating these tends to be a bit more involved.
The C++ implementation is probably installed somehow when installing CodeBlocks. I think it is just one package. On systems with a package management system like dpkg on some Linuxes it would be quite reasonable to just have the IDE have a dependency on the compiler (e.g., gcc for CodeBlocks) and have the compiler have a dependency on the standard C++ library (libstdc++ for gcc) and have the package management system sort out how things are installed.
There are several implementations of the C++ standard library. Some of the more popular ones are libstdc++, which comes packaged with GCC, libc++, which can be used with Clang, or Visual Studio's implementation by Microsoft. They use a licensed version of Dinkumware's implementation. MinGW contains a port of GCC. CodeBlocks, an IDE, allows you to choose a setup which comes packaged with a version of MinGW, or one without. Either way, you can still set up the IDE to use a different compiler if you choose. Part of the standard library implementation will also be header files, not just binaries, because a lot of it is template code (which can only be implemented in header files.)
I recommend you read the documentation for the respective technologies because they contain a lot of information, more than a tutorial or book would:
libstdc++ faq
MinGW faq
MSDN
I've been looking into some of the features of the "newer" C++ standards (C++11 and C++14), and that got me thinking about something. I'm currently using the VC++2008 compiler for my projects (for various reasons), which means that the newest standard I have access to is C++03, plus TR1. TR1 has some nice things in it, but there are features in C++11 and C++14 that would be nice to have.
My question is this: Would there be any way that I could build some code using a newer compiler (say MSVC2012 or 2013) to build libraries or DLLs using the newer C++11 and C++14 functionality and then link that into my project that's running the '08 compiler?
The only thing that I could think of that wouldn't work would be anywhere I had to have a C++11 or C++14 feature in a header included by my '08 compiler project. However as long as everything "new" were hidden behind my interface, shouldn't this work?
Yes but its going to get ugly.. since the ABI is not compatible you'll have to go down to the "extern "C" {}" ABIness.
That means you can't pass C++ objects at all.. like I said, painful. It also means it must be a DLL since you won't be able to link in a static lib with another ABI.
Its up to you if its worth wrapping up a DLL in a C API just to use a couple of new features or not, I would recommend just upgraded the whole project though.
I almost forgot, you probably can't link the import lib either, so you'll have to have some code that uses LoadLibrary, GetProcAddress and FreeLibrary (did I mention this is ugly/painful?).
Unfortunately, what you're trying to do is not possible with MSVC. They intentionally break binary compatibility with every major release as stated in MSDN documentation:
To enable new optimizations and debugging checks, the Visual Studio implementation of the C++ Standard Library intentionally breaks binary compatibility from one version to the next. Therefore, when the C++ Standard Library is used, object files and static libraries that are compiled by using different versions can't be mixed in one binary (EXE or DLL), and C++ Standard Library objects can't be passed between binaries that are compiled by using different versions. Such mixing emits linker errors about _MSC_VER mismatches. (_MSC_VER is the macro that contains the compiler's major version—for example, 1800 for Visual C++ in Visual Studio 2013.) This check cannot detect DLL mixing, and cannot detect mixing that involves Visual C++ 2008 or earlier.
Your options are to then only pass around POD types, or implement COM interfaces to interop between the DLLs compiled using different version of the VC compiler, neither of which is particularly palatable.
My advice would be, if you must stick with VS2008 for certain legacy applications, suck it up and deal with the feature set it supports (at least you have TR1). For newer projects, try and talk your team into using newer versions of VC.
I am confused about the binary compatibility of compiled libraries between VS2010 and VS2012. I would like to migrate to VS2012, however many closed-source binary-only SDKs are only out for VS2010, for example SDKs for interfacing hardware devices.
Traditionally, as far as I know Visual Studio was extremely picky about compiler versions, and in VS2010 you could not link to libraries which have been compiled for VS2008.
The reason I'm confused now, is that I'm in the process of migrating to VS2012, and I have tried a few projects, and for my biggest surprise, many of them work cross-versions with no problems.
Note: I'm not talking about the v100 mode, which as far as I know is just a VS2012 GUI over the VS2010 compiling engine.
I'm talking about opening a VS2010 solution in VS2012, click update, and seeing what happens.
When linking to some bigger libraries, like boost, the compiling didn't work, as there are checks for compiler version and they raise an error and abort compilation. Some other libraries just abort at missing functions. This is the behaviour what I was expecting.
On the other hand, many libraries work fine with no errors or additional warnings.
How is it possible? Was VS2012 made in a special way to keep binary compatibility with VS2010 libraries? Does it depend on dynamic vs. static linking?
And the most important question: even though there is no error raised at compile time, can I trust the compiler that there won't be any bugs when linking a VS2012 project to VS2010 compiled libraries?
“Many libraries work fine. How is it possible?”
1) the lib is compiled to use static RTL, so the code won't pull in a second RTL DLL that clashes.
2) the code only calls functions (and uses structures, etc.) that is completely in the header files
so doesn't cause a linker error, or
calls functions that are still present in the new RTL so doesn't cause a linker error,
3) doesn't call anything with structures that have changed layout or meaning so it doesn't crash.
#3 is the one to worry about. You can use imports to see what it uses and make a complete list, but there is no documentation or guarantee as to which ones are compatible. Just because it seems to run doesn't mean it doesn't have a latent bug.
There is also the possibility of
4) the driver SDK or other code that's fairly low level was written to avoid using standard library calls completely.
also (not your situation I think) DLLs can be isolated and have their own RTL and not pass stuff back and forth (like memory allocation and freeing) between different regimes. In-proc COM servers work this way. DLLs can do this in general if you're careful about what you pass and return and what you do with things like pointers. Crypto++ for example is initialized with the memory routines from the enclosing program and doesn't expose malloc'ed memory from the RTL version it was compiled with.
I know that if I link my c++ program to a dynamic library (DLL) that was built with a different version of Visual Studio, it won't work because of the binary compatibility issue.
(I have experienced this with Boost library and VS 2005 and 2008)
But my question is: is this true for all versions of MSVS? Does this apply to static libraries(LIB) as well? Is this an issue with GCC & Linux as well? and finally how about linking in VS to a DLL built with MinGW?
By the way aside from cross-platform or cross-compiler, why can't two version of the same compiler(VS) be compatibile?
Hi. I know that if I link my c++ program to a dynamic library (DLL) that was built with a different version of Visual Studio, it won't work because of the binary compatibility issue. (I have experienced this with Boost library and VS 2005 and 2008)
I do not remember ever seeing MS changing the ABI, so technically different versions of the compiler will produce the same output (given the same flags (see below)).
Therefore I don't think this is not incompatibilities in Dev Studio but changes in Boost.
Different versions of boost are not backwards compatible (in binary, source they are backward compatible).
But my question is: is this true for all versions of MSVS?
I don't believe there is a problem. Now if you use different flags you can make the object files incompatible. This is why debug/release binaries are built into separate directories and linked against different versions of the standard run-time.
Does this apply to static libraries(LIB) as well?
You must link against the correct static library. But once the static library is in your code it is stuck there all resolved names will not be re-resolved at a later date.
Is this an issue with GCC & Linux as well?
Yes. GCC has broken backwards compatability in the ABI a couple of times (several on purpose (some by mistake)). This is not a real issue as on Linux code is usually distributed as source and you compile it on your platform and it will work.
and finally how about linking in VS to a DLL built with MinGW?
Sorry I don't know.
By the way aside from cross-platform or cross-compiler, why can't two version of the same compiler(VS) be compatibile?
Well fully optimized code objects may be compressed more thus alignment is different. Other compiler flags may affect the way code is generated that is incompatible with other binary objects (changing the way functions are called (all parameters on the stack or some parameters in registers)). Technically only objects compiled with exactly the same flags should be linked together (technically it is a bit looser than that as a lot of flags don't affect the binary compatibility).
Note some libraries are released with multiple versions of the same library that are compiled in different ways. You usually distinguish the library by the extension on the end. At my last job we used the following convention.
libASR.dll // A Sincgle threaded Relase version lib
libASD.dll // A Single threaded Debug version
libAMR.dll // A Multi threaded Release version
libAMD.dll // A Multi threaded Debug version
If properly built, DLLs should be programming-language and version neutral. You can link to DLLs built with VB, C, C++, etc.
You can use dependency walker to examine the exported functions in the dll.
To answer part of your question, GCC/Linux does not have this problem. At least, not as often. libstdc++ and glibc are the standard C++/C libraries on GNU systems, and the authors of those libraries go to efforts to avoid breaking compatibility. glibc is pretty much always backward compatible, but libstdc++ has broken ABI several times in the past and probably will again in the future.
It is very difficult to write stable ABIs in C++ compared to C, because the automatic features in C++ take away some of the control you need to maintain an ABI. Especially once you get into templates and inline functions, where some of the code gets embedded in your application rather than staying contained in the shared library. That means that the object's structure can't ever change without requiring a recompilation of the application.
In practice, it isn't a huge deal on Windows. It would be fantastic if Microsoft just made the MSI installer know how to grab Microsoft-provided DLLs from Windows Update when an app is installed that needs them, but simply adding the redistributable to an InnoSetup-generated installer works well enough.