I am developing part of my R package in C++ using Rcpp and I need to use a Linear Programming Solver.
After comparing some benchmarks using the solvers implementation into R (lpSolveAPI, Rglpk, Rsymphony and so on) I have decided to use GLPK. However, I have found no good way to use it in my C++ code developing under Windows.
Simply put, there is no simple way to just install GLPK and call it using something like
#include <glpk.h>
and I have found no implementations in R packages so that I can use a shortcut using Rcpp attributes like
// [[Rcpp::depends(package)]]
Any ideas?
I'm sure you are aware of the Rglpk package and its predecessor glpk. Often in these cases, it's helpful to stand on the shoulders of those that came before us. Having said that, we gleam from the package sources the following:
The source of Rglpk requires a pre-existing system install, does not enable linking, and is specific to Linux.
The source of glpk installs the library headers directly in R and it seems to also provide direct wrappers into the library.
Given the current implementations and your requirements, you would basically have to create an RcppGLPK package. This is primarily because no one really has a solution for what you need. I would highly suggest that you look at how RcppGSL is structured.
Heads up, this is going to be confusing:
I customized 9 files from Qt5.2: qquicktextdocument.cpp qquicktextdocument.h qquicktextedit.cpp qquicktextedit_p.h qquicktextedit_p_p.h qquicktextnode.cpp qquicktextnodeengine.cpp qquicktextnodeengine_p.h qquicktextnode_p.h
Each file is simply prefixed with a letter and still inside /qtdeclarative/src/quick/items/. I am 100% happy with the modifications I made being put under GPL etc. I somewhat want my end application (discussed below) to be Apache or MIT, but, I'm flexible.
My modifications work fine. When I modify a few additional files I am able to compile them along with the rest of Qt (at the same time, using the same make command). But these modifications are going into another Qt application that I am making which I want other people to be able to use, and requiring general consumers to have a custom compiled version of Qt would be obviously absurd.
I want to package/compile/do something, that will enable me to include the modifications in my final project as a shared library, or something.
As a web developer writing C++ and Qt, I am very confused about linking shared libraries, header files, etc.
To recap, I modified Qt 5.2 and made a custom compilation of it for an application I am building, and I want people to be able to run that application without having to have a custom compilation of Qt. I need a way to decouple my Qt modifications from Qt.
I realize this might be a big topic, I'm not expecting a step by step guide, just some general guidance. So far I have tried compiling my modified files as a library, then including that library in my actual project, but I am getting undefined references and missing files all over the place. (I don't know if I did anything right)
I am also currently looking at subclassing the classes I want but I'm unsure about this. It might require copy pasting some code, which could have licensing issues?
end goal: be able to have a wavy underline (in qml) for incorrectly spelt words.
Thank You.
My 5 cents.
If your changes can be useful (in general) to other people you can try to push them to upstream via codereview.
If you want your application to run only in windows everything become obvious: in windows it is normal to provide your application with shared libraries (to avoid DLL HELL). Btw, have you heard about static linking?
Qt has some plugin mechanism. You can compile your code into shared object (dynamic library) and install it with your application. For example, QML FolderListModel do this. You can look at code in $qt5_src/qtdeclarative/src/imports/folderlistmodel.
I have some C++ code (exposing a C-only interface through a header) which I will use for an iOS project.
I can either create a static library and link to this from my app project, or add the source files directly to the app project - which option is best?
All answers appreciated!
Add the sources if you expect them to change often. Otherwise a library will be more suitable and will make your project cleaner (however, you will have to put only the header files in your project)
I've used OpenCV in one of my app projects which is mostly written in C++. I've found that adding the source files to the app project worked better for me because I made some minor changes to the code wherever appropriate. Comes down to the use case basically.
I always prefer to add the source if I have it, simply because it makes debugging easier. If you're making a call into a library routine and getting back an unexpected result (or crashing, or whatever), it's much easier to step into the library code with the debugger and figure out what's going on. If you just have a static library, it's a black box and you can't see what's going on inside. It also allows you to change the library code more easily if you encounter a bug or a missing feature (just be careful if the library is shared among other projects, to make sure you keep the library code up to date in its own repository).
Xcode is good about letting you keep your project organized, so use those features to your advantage. Keep the library code and headers separate from your main application and link it in as needed.
I suppose by code you don't mean a well formed library, so I expect this code could get any kind of modification pressure in the future. The best way is then wrapping it. here is one very nice example, but you might do it differently: http://robnapier.net/blog/wrapping-cppfinal-edition-759
I have written and tested a library in C++. The code even works in my Android application if I add the source files directly. While I do have experience compiling static and dynamic libraries for common operating systems, I have zero experience compiling for a mobile system like this. I've done some research, and I'm still a bit lost as to exactly how to approach this. For example, I am unsure of whether to build a makefile for use with ndk-build or to just invoke one of the Android's compilers directly.
I did see this question, but it does not quite match my situation. I just want to run build and have it spit out libfoo.a (I'd like to produce libfoo.so as well, but libfoo.a is of greater interest to me right now.) The example in that question's winning answer implied that it would build the library as one step/module for building the final application. I tried doing it that way just to see, but I had no luck.
Can anyone please guide me in this endeavor?
CLARIFICATION -- I do not want to build the library and immediately pipe it into an application. I want a .a or .so file that I can link against in multiple future Android applications.
Create a dummy java file with empty code and make sure there is a android_main function in your C++ code. Build using ndk-build. the resulting apk will make your library an application.
See the samples from the android-ndk-r5/samples directory, see the sample native-bitmap to get some idea.
If I understand it correctly that a shared library is not acceptable and you want to be static (but why is that so important?), probably the easiest way to do so is to simply supply source code that can be added to a project.
Ultimately there is nothing special about the ndk build system other than it knowing the right commands to issue to build the necessary files for the assortment of curent android architectures. If you really want to do something different, you can log the operation of the android build system in creating a shared library, and then write your own Makefile that performs the analogous steps to create a static library. HOWEVER, you will have to update your Makefile any time the underlying assumptions or target collections change in a new android version.
We have a handful of developers working on a non-commercial (read: just for fun)
cross-platform C++ project. We've already identified all the cross-platform libraries we'll need. However, some of our developers prefer to use Microsoft Visual C++ 2008, others prefer to code in Emacs on GNU/Linux. We're wondering if it is possible for all of us to work more or less simultaneously out of both environments, from the same code repository. Ultimately we want the project to compile cleanly on both platforms from the start.
Any of our developers are happily willing to switch over to the other environment if this is not possible. We all use both Linux and Windows on a regular basis and enjoy both, so this isn't a question of trying to educate one set devs about the virtues of the other platform. This is about each of us being able to develop in the environment we enjoy most yet still collaborate on a fun project.
Any suggestions or experiences to share?
Use CMake to manage your build files.
This will let you setup a single repository, with one set of text files in it. Each dev can then run the appropriate cmake scripts to build the correct build environment for their system (Visual Studio 2008/2005/GNU C++ build scripts/etc).
There are many advantages here:
Each dev can use their own build environment
Dependencies can be handled very cleanly, including platform specific deps.
Builds can be out of source, which helps prevent accidentally committing inappropriate files
Easy migration to new dev. environments (ie: when VS 2010 is released, some devs can migrate there just by rebuilding their build folder)
I've done it and seen it done without too many problems.
You'll want to try an isolate the code that is different for the different platforms. Also, you'll want to think about your directory structure. Something like
project/src <- .cc and .h files
project/src/linux|win <- code that is specific to one platform or the other
project/linux <- make files and other project related stuff
project/win <- .sln and .csproj files
Basically you just want to be really clear what is specific to each system and what is common.
Also, unit tests are going to be really important since there may be minor difference and you want to make it easy for the windows guys to run some tests to make sure the linux code works as expected and the other way around.
as mentioned in previous posts, Qt is a very easy method to do real simultaneous multi-platform development - independent of your IDE and with many different compilers (even for Symbian, ARM, Windows CE/Mobile...).
In my last and current company I work in mixed Linux- and Windows-developer teams, who work together using Subversion and Qt (which has a very easy and powerful build-system "QMake", which hides all the different platform/compiler specific build environments - you just have to write one build file for all platforms - so easy!).
And: Qt contains nearly everything you need:
simple string handling, with easy translation support and easy string conversion (utf8, utf16, asci...)
simple classes for file i/o, images, networking etc.
comfortable gui classes
graphical designer for the gui layout/design
graphical translation tool to create dynamic translations for your apps (you can run one binary with different selectable languages - even cyrillic, asian fonts...)
integrated testing framework (unit tests)
So Qt is a full featured and very reliable environment - I use it for 10 years.
And: Qt integrates seamlessly into IDEs like VC++, Eclipse or provides its own IDE "QtCreator".
see: http://www.trolltech.com + http://doc.trolltech.com
Best Regards,
Chris
I had such experience working in Acronis. We had the same codebase used to build binaries (fully packaged installers, actually) targetting Win32/64, Linux, and OS X (and a bunch of other more exotic platforms, such as EFI), with everyone working in their IDE of choice. The trick here is to avoid compiler- and IDE-specific solutions, and make your project fully buildable from clean cross-platform make files. Note that you can perfectly well use any make system together with VC++, so it isn't a problem (we used Watcom make for historical reasons, but I wouldn't recommend it).
One other trick you can do is add a make script that automatically produces project files from the input lists in your makefiles, for all IDEs you use (e.g. VS and Eclipse CDT). That way, every developer generates that stuff for himself, and then opens those projects in IDE to edit/build/debug, but the source repository only has makefiles in it.
Ensuring that code is compilable for everyone can be a problem, mostly because VC++ is generally more lax in applying the rules than g++ (for example, it will let you bind an rvalue to a non-const reference, albeit with a warning). If you compile with treat warnings as errors, and highest warning levels (with perhaps a few hand-picked warnings disabled), you will mostly avoid this. Having contiguous rolling build set up is another way to catch those early. One other approach we've used in Acronis is to have the Windows build environment have Cygwin-based cross-compilation tools in it, so any Windows dev could do a build targeting Linux (with the same g++ version and all) from his box, and see if that fails, to verify that his changes will compile in g++.
I personally use cmake/mingw32/Qt4 for all my C++ needs.
QtCreator is a crossplatform IDE which is somewhat optimized for qt4 programming.
We're working on a cross-platform project as well. We're using Emacs to code, SCons to build and Visual Studio 2008 to debug. It's my 1st time using Emacs + SCons and I must say that It's very very nifty once you figure out how does the SConstruct and SConscripts work.
I'm late to this question, and there are a lot of good answers here, but I haven't seen anyone enumerate all the issues I've run into (most of my work in C++ is and has been cross-platform), so:
Cross-platform compilation. Everyone has covered this quite well. CMake, and SCons are useful among others.
Platform differences. These aren't actually limited to Linux v Windows. Different versions of Windows have plenty of subtle issues. If you ever want to jump from Linux to OS X you'll find the same. So do processor architecture differences: 32 v 64 bit doesn't usually matter - until it does and things break on you very badly. This is something C++ programmers face more than in most other languages, whose implementations are working hard to hide this sort of thing from programmers.
Test everything. Alan mentions unit tests but let me emphasize them. The real problem with cross-platform programming is not code that won't compile: it's code that compiles just fine and does the wrong thing in subtle cases. Unit tests matter here much more than they do when you are working on a single platform.
Use portable libraries whenever possible. Getting this right is full of subtle gotchas. It's better to take advantage of someone else's work than to roll your own. Qt is useful here, as are NSPR and APR (the latter two are C, but wrappers exist if you don't want to mess with them directly.) These are the libraries that explicitly target platform abstraction as a goal, but most other libraries you use should be checked for this. Be reasonably wary of cool libraries that don't have a track record of portability. I'm not saying don't use them: just test first. Doing this right saves you enormous effort on testing.
Pavel mentions continual integration. This may not matter if there are only a handful of you. But I've found that the number of platforms you get when you consider all of the OS, OS variant, and processor differences means that without some form of continuous build-test cycle you will always be missing some edge case. If your project gets bigger than a handful of people consider doing this.
Version control. The most obvious issue is handling newlines and filename case-sensitivity but there are others. Most of the well-known open source VCSes do this right by now, but it's notable that it usually takes them several years to find all their bugs related to portability. As an example Mercurial, which has had portability as one of its selling points, has a series of fixes spanning three or four releases dealing with Windows filenames in uncommon situations. Make sure you can check out what the others check in early on.
Scripts. Use Perl/Python/Ruby (or something like them) for your scripting. Trying to keep Linux shell and Windows batch scripts in sync is painfully tedious.
Despite all of the above: overall cross-platform is quite doable, and there's no real reason to avoid it. My experience is that the problems tend to crop up sporadically, but when they do they take more than there fair share of time. If you've been programming a while though you won't find that unusual.
The issue is not really editing the C++ source files, but the build process itself. VS doesn't use the same Makefile architecture as Linux development typically does. A radical suggestion, but both groups could actually use the same C++ IDE and build process - see Code::Blocks for more info.
This is possible (I do that to earn my daily money :-) ).
But you have to keep in mind the differences in the OS supplied libraries which could be very annoying.
Two good options to get around that are BOOST and QT.
Both supply you with platform independent functions of useful stuff that isn't handled by the C lib and the STL.
I've done this in two ways:
Each platform has its own build system. Whenever someone changes something (adding a source file), they either adapt the other platform too, or they mail a notification and someone more familiar with the other platform adapts it accordingly.
Use CMake.
I can't say I really liked CMake, but a cross-platform tool certainly has its advantages.
Generally, using different compilers to compile your code from the very first few lines is always a good idea, as it helps improving code quality.
Another vote for cmake.
One thing to watch out for, filenames are cased but not case sensitive on Windows. They are case sensitive on most unix filesystems.
This is generally a problem with #include
eg. given a file FooBar.h
#include "foobar.h" // works on Windows, fails on Linux.
I do agree with everyone here that has suggested cmake for cross platform development in C++. It is an excellent tool.
Another thing I would suggest is to use eclipse CDT as development environment. It works in any place where you can run Java an gcc and that unifies your development environment.
I think that was Alan Jackson who gave emphasis to the unit test. For doing so yo would need some cross platform unit test libraries. I read this post time ago regarding C++ unit test frameworks. It is a bit outdated but thoughtful. The one missing that also works in both platforms is googletest.
Finally if you want to run those test automatically in both platforms cmake has another tool called ctest that is very good for doing so.
Check out premake... It is pretty similar to CMake but written using lua.
I have used this on a number of development projects and find it easy to learn and integrate into existing company and project structures.
Give it a try!
http://industriousone.com/premake