I'm involved in C++ project targeted for Windows and Linux (RHEL) platforms. Till now the development was purely done on Visual Studio 2008. For Linux compilation we used 3rd party Visual Studio plugin, which read VS solution/perojects files and remotely compiled on Linux machine.
Recently the decision was to abandon the 3rd party plugin.
Now my big concern is a build system. I was looking around for cross platform build tools. This way I don't need to maintain two set of build files (e.g. vcproj/solution for Windows and make files for Linux).
I found the following candidates:
a. Scons
b. cmake
What do you think about the tools for cross-platfrom development?
Yet another point that bothers me is that Visual Studio (+ Visual Assist) will loose a lot functionality without vcproj files - how you handle the issue with the tools?
Thanks
Dima
PS 1: Something that I like about Scons is that it
(a) uses python and hence it's flexible, while cmake uses propriety language (I understand that it's not a winner feature for a build-system) (b) self contained (no need to generate makefiles on Linux as with cmake).
So why not Scons? Why in your projects the decision was to use cmake?
CMake will allow you to still use Visual Studio solutions and project files. Cmake doesn't build the source code itself, rather it generated build-files for you. For Linux this can be Code::Blocks, KDevelop or plain makefiles or still other more esoteric choices . For Windows it can be among others Visual Studio project files and still others for MacOS.
So Visual Studio solutions and projects are created from your CMakeLists.txt. This works for big projects just fine. E.g. current Ogre3d uses CMake for all platforms (Windows, Linux, MacOS and IPhone) and it works really well.
I don't know much about scons in that regard though, I only used to build one library and only in Linux. So I can't compare these two on fair ground. But for our multi-platform projects CMake is strong enough.
I haven't used Scons before, so can't say how that works, but CMake works pretty well.
It works by producing the build files needed for the platform you're targeting.
When used to target VC++, it produces solution and project files so from VS, it appears as if they were native VS projects. The only difference is, of course, that if you edit the project or solution directly through VS, the changes will be erased the next time you run CMake, as it overwrites your project/solution files.
So any changes have to be made to the CMake files instead.
We have a big number of core libraries and applications based on those libraries. We maintain a Makefile based build system on Linux and on Windows using the Visual Studio solution for each project or library.
We find it works well for our needs, each library or app is developed either on linux or windows with cross compilation in mind (e.g. don't use platform specific api's). We use boost for stuff like file paths, threads and so on. In specific cases we use templates/#defines to select platform specific solution (for example events). When is ready we move to the other system (linux or windows), recompile, fix warnings/errors and test.
Instead of spending time figuring out tools that can cross compile on both platforms we use system that is best for each platform and spend time fixing specific issues and making the software better.
We have GUI apps only on Windows atm. so there's no GUI to cross compile. Most of our development that is shared between Windows and Linux is server side networking (sockets, TCP/IP, UDP ...) and then client side tools on Linux and GUI apps on Windows.
Using with perforce for source code version management we find in quite many cases that the Linux Makefile system is much more flexible for what we need then Windows VS. Especially for using multiple workspaces (views of source code versions) where we need to point to common directories and so on. On Linux this can be done automatically running a script to update environment variables, on Visual Studio referencing environment variables is very inflexible because it's hard to update automatically between views/branches.
Re sync question:
I assume you are asking how to make sure that the two build systems get synchronized between linux and windows. We are actually using Hudson on Linux and CruiseControl on Windows (we had windows first with cruise control, when I went to setup linux version I figured Hudson is better so now we have mixed environment). Our systems are running all the time. When something is updated it is tested and released (either windows or linux version) so you would know right away if it does not work. During testing we make sure all the latest features are there and fully functional. I guess that's it, no dark magic involved.
Oh you mean build scripts ... Each application has it's own solution, in solution you setup up dependencies. On Linux side I have a makefile for each project and a build script in project directory that takes care of all dependencies, this mostly means build core libraries and couple of specific frameworks required for given app. As you can see this is different for each platform, it is easy to add line to build script that changes to directory and makes required project.
It helps to have projects setup in consistent way.
On Windows you open project and add dependency project. Again no magic involved. I see this kind of tasks as development related, for example you added new functionality to a project and have to link in the frameworks and headers. So from my point of view there is no reason to automate these - as they are part of what developers do when they implement features.
Another options is premake. It's like cmake in that it generates solutions from definition files. It's open source and the latest version is very highly customizable using Lua scripting. We were able to add custom platform support without too much trouble. For your situation it has support for both Visual Studio and GNU makefiles standard.
See Premake 4.0 Homepage
CruiseControl is a good choice for continuous integration. We have it running on Linux using Mono with success.
Here is an article about the decision made by KDE developers to choose CMake over SCons. However I've to point that this article is almost three years old, so scons should have improved.
Here is comparison of SCons with other building tools.
Had to do this a lot in the past. What we did is use gnu make for virtually everything including windows at times.
You can use the project files under windows if you prefer and use gnu make for Linux.
There isn't really a nice way to write cross platform makefiles because the target file will
be different among other things (and pathname issues, \ vs / etc). In general, you'll probably be tweaking the code across the various platforms to take subtle differences into account, so a tweak to a make file and checking on the other platforms would have to happen
anyway.
Many OS projects maintain Makefiles for different platforms such as zlib where they are named like Makefile.win, Makefile.linux etc. You could follow their lead.
Related
I am creating a very large project (a few thousand lines) and so would rather not use Notepad++. An IDE would make it so much easier. I have experience with Microsoft Visual Studio and love it. Is there some easy way to use Cygwin's GCC from within Microsoft Visual Studio?
Alternately, are there any other good Windows IDEs for GCC besides NetBeans and Eclipse? (I hate both of them with a passion.)
There are several ways to go here:
Option 1: Create a Custom Build Tool
Visual Studio 2005 and newer will let you register custom build tools. They tell the IDE how to transform files of one form (e.g. a .cpp file) into another form (e.g. an .obj file).
So far as I know, no one has done this yet for GCC. And, doing it yourself requires writing COM code, which is probably too deep a pool to dive into just for a single project. You'd have to have a compelling reason to take this project on.
You then have to manually adjust each project to tell it to use the custom build tool instead of the default, since you're using a file name extension (.cpp, probably) that Visual C++ already knows about. You'll run into trouble if you try to mix the VC++ and g++ compilers for a single executable built from multiple modules.
On the plus side, if you were looking to start an open source project, this sounds like a good one to me. I expect you'd quickly gather a big user base.
Option 2: Makefile Project
Start Visual Studio and say File > New Project.
In the Visual C++ section, select Makefile Project
Fill out the Makefile Project Wizard:
Build command line: make
Clean commands: make clean
Rebuild command line: make clean all
You can leave the Output (for debugging) field alone if you've named your executable after the project name and it lands where Visual Studio expects to find it.
Leave the rest of the fields alone unless you know what they are and why you want to change them. As an example, you might choose to pass a -D flag on the Preprocessor definitions line to get separate debug and release outputs. If you know you want this, you know how to set it up, so I'm not going to make this long answer even longer in order to explain it.
You'll be asked the same set of questions for the Release build. If you want to bother with separate debug and release builds, you'd make any changes here.
Having done all this, you still have to create the Makefile, and add a make.exe to your PATH. As with the debug vs. release question, going into that level of detail would push this answer off topic.
As ugly as this looks, it's still easier than creating custom build tools. Plus, you say you need to port to Unix eventually, so you're going to need that Makefile anyway.
Option 3: Cross-Platform Development
You say you want to port this program to Unix at some point, but that doesn't mean you must use GCC on Windows now. It is quite possible to write your program so that it builds under Visual C++ on Windows and GCC/Makefiles on *ix systems.
There are several tools that make this easier. One very popular option is CMake, which is available as an installation time option in newer versions of Visual Studio. There are many alternatives such as SCons and Bakefile.
Clang
You can use the Clang compiler with Visual Studio to target Android, iOS, and Windows.
If you are targeting Android, you can use the Clang/LLVM compiler that ships with the Android NDK and toolchain to build your project. Likewise, Visual Studio can use Clang running on a Mac to build projects targeting iOS. Support for Android and iOS is included in the “Mobile Development with C++” workload. For more information about targeting Android or iOS check out our posts tagged with the keywords “Android” and “iOS”.
If you are targeting Windows, you have a few options:
Use Clang/LLVM; “Clang for Windows” includes instructions to install Clang/LLVM as a platform toolset in Visual Studio.
Use Clang to target Windows with Clang/C2 (Clang frontend with Microsoft Code Generation).
GCC
If your project targets Linux or Android, you can consider using GCC. Visual Studio’s C++ Android development natively supports building your projects with the GCC that ships with the Android NDK, just like it does for Clang. You can also target Linux – either remotely or locally with the Windows Subsystem for Linux – with GCC.
Check out our post on Visual C++ for Linux Development for much more info about how to use Visual Studio to target Linux with GCC. If you are specifically interested in targeting WSL locally, check out Targeting WSL from Visual Studio.
Source: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/use-any-c-compiler-with-visual-studio/
I'm from the future.
I keep (poking at) a C/C++ toolchain using Visual Code on Win/Lin/Mac and MinGW installed from Choclatey.
(This was done for my sanity - install GDB and GCC however you want)
I've run it with GCC and GDB with IntelliSense using MS's own weird JSON makefiles.
Someday, someone (you?) will write a Gradle or Python script to generate these; for now the examples online in the docs seem to work.
It seems to require three types of JSON thing;
a single IntelliSense configuration for the whole workspace
a Debugging Configuration entry for each binary you want to debug
these can invoke the build tasks
a Build Task per-artifact
I don't think that there's a "require" or "dependency" thingie-mah-bob; sorry
We have a complex C++ codebase targeting multiple mobile platforms. We currently have Windows CE (4.2 to 6.5 both raw CE and Mobile based on those), Android (2.1+), iPhone (4+), almost working Bada (2.0+) and if anything comes of the new C++/CX thing, are likely to add Windows Phone (8+). Plus a testing version on Win32 and service application on Win64 that shares some code. We also already tried to compile unit tests on Linux and questions already came (too small business volume so far, but that might change) to get it working on some other Linux platforms.
We currently compile the code with native tools for each platform. Each of them is pretty complex and has some hacks in or around it to achieve reasonably single-click builds. And for Bada, we didn't solve builds outside of the Samsung-tweaked Eclipse yet, which we'll have to do for production.
So far it works, but is becoming more and more of a maintenance problem. The biggest problem currently is the iPhone build, because unlike Visual Studio project files and plain makefiles, it's not possible to add/remove/rename files in XCode project by hand and only two people have MacOS boxen and any experience with XCode (while everybody has Windows and knows Visual Studio). We also need to create some makefiles for the Bada target (it's plain GNU toolchain, so anything capable of cross-compiling with those should do) and I wouldn't mid getting rid of some of the kludges in Android build: fix for bug in dependency handling when building under cygwin, some hacks on top of the ant build script and shell glue to massage manifest and hold it all together.
So I am looking for advice on ways to unify the build process for this set of diverse platforms.
It absolutely has to handle building the iPhone and Bada executables and the native part of the Android build (because nobody has all three platforms to test separately).
Has to handle large project consisting of several shared libraries, one main binary, one test binary for the same platforms and some auxiliary binaries built only on some platforms (well, currently Win32 only).
Has to be able to generate build configuration header and Java file with version from version control system and some user-defied variables, since we do 18 and counting slightly different builds for various customers.
And of course it has to automatically handle dependencies (header files) and generally be reliable.
For the other things I am prepared to hack around any deficiencies, but I would obviously like to keep the amount of shell duct tape and spit to minimum, so it should:
Be able to integrate with Visual Studio, Eclipse and XCode enough that each environment can trigger build, upload the build product to the respective target and attach debugger to it there.
Be able to build Java and call the custom packaging tools for Android, so we don't have to hack around the ant build script that Google gratuitously and incompatibly changed twice in last two years already (and old SDK can't be downloaded).
Be able to install various data files and call random packagers and random other scripts and tools and stuff, so it does not have to be mixed with too much shell script.
We have so far started trying CMake (didn't have much time, so didn't get far, but will have to do something shortly) and also thought about SCons. However I have already tried building with SCons for Windows CE a few years ago, but since it generates makefile-type projects for Visual Studio and those didn't work for embedded platforms in VS2005, I gave up. CMake can generate native makefiles, but a custom, bit out of date, branch is needed for CE. So I'd like to ask whether there are any other tools we might want to look into or any known stumbling blocks with these tools we should be aware of.
Updates: I've found instructions for android native binaries in several places and pixellight even has cmake script to generate apk by directly calling the packaging tools. Also this shell script shows it. iPhone usage seems to be documented here.
The same CMake build files can be used to generate and build projects across platforms for atleast Win32 (VS2005), Linux(ubuntu), and OS X (10.5.8 Leopard), in my personal experince. There are multiple projects for using CMake in the android app build process, eg http://code.google.com/p/android-cmake/. With all these options, I would consider CMake a good option. Further CMake is easy to pick up, and even easier if you have prior experience with writing configure.ac and Makefile.ac files.
Note: How CMake works:
Developer/Maintainer creates CMakefile.
Builder runs cmake, which uses the CMakefile to generate platform specific build files.(linux makefiles/OSX makefiles/VS project files)
Builder fires off the build command.
CMake is the best choise.
Starting with CMake 2.8.11 Windows CE is supported out of the box. Until the release of that version a Nightly Binary of CMake can be used.
I have a C++ eclipse project that I would like to easily compile In Windows and OSX.
The project is currently using an automatically generated makefile.
The libraries that I need vary depending on the platform.
In osx I'm using the CoreMidi, CoreAudio, and CoreFoundation frameworks.
In Windows I'm using the winmm.lib and multithreaded libraries.
What's the simplest way to link different libraries/frameworks depending on the current platform?
I'm currently using the gcc toolchain on OSX. Should I start using the cross compile toolchain?
Should I have two projects. One for working in windows, and one for osx, checking them both in to version control?
Should I write a custom makefile instead of using the automatically generated option that has different g++ arguments depending on the platform?
I personally had the same goal for a project and came to the conclusion the Qt framework was the best thing for me. It handles multiple languages, unicode strings, XML, network communications, native looking user interfaces, console applications: it can do an AWFUL lot.
However, as Paul pointed out, you really have to plan it from the start.
Qt does a good job of abstracting the platform away (in a module called QtCore) allowing you to write vanilla C++ code, or you can chose to include some Qt C++ language extensions which a Qt helper application called the moc (meta object compiler) creates vanilla C++ from, which can then be compiled by most common C++ compilers.
It also has a nifty cross-platform makefile generator called qmake which works on project files to create normal make files for the platform its running on.
Off the top of my head at least Windows XP & 7, OSX 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 are supported currently. But note that OSX Lion is (as of writing) not officially supported but I suspect it will be in the next release.
Based on your description, I am not sure you can easily make it cross-platform. Even without using third-party library, you have to provide separate code for osx and windows. Most of time, they design the system as cross-platform first. It's really hard to make an existing project on single-platform to cross-one. If you have the cross-platform requirement, you'd better design in that way first and rewrite from scratch.
Even though Eclipse can run fine on both OS X and Windows, it is not designed to be used in this way.
The best way to do it is to use separate IDE projects for each platform. This this is the easiest way to have unique compilation settings for multiple platforms.
Yes, you can use two eclipse projects. Alternatively, it's not unusual to have a X-Code project for OSX, and a Visual Studio Project for MS Windows.
I'm working on a cross-platform C/C++ code base that has Visual C++ (super majority) & XCode developers. It also needs to compile on Linux, because that's where it's deployed. We are currently using a complicated Unix makefile that's called from Visual C++, XCode, & Unix command line.
However, the makefile project causes several productivity losses for Visual C++ developers:
Slower build times
Intellisense & text search don't work well for files not directly referenced in project
No .h dependency generation (not clear how to do on Windows)
Adding a native Visual C++ project has the following downsides:
lots of work to manage all those separate platform configuration as mentioned here Maybe VC++ 2010's hierarchical property sheets will help.
more work due to syncing makefile with native project
Currently, I'm considering to add a native project for Windows developers. Can anyone offer their experience on what's best or suggest how those problems with either approach can be reduced.
I have considered CMake and personally would use it, but it's going to be hard to convince other people to learn cmake & syncing it with the native projects would be an issue.
I have considered CMake and personally would use it, but it's going to be hard to convince other people to learn cmake & syncing it with the native projects would be an issue.
The nice thing about CMake is that it builds ALL of the configurations for you. You would setup a single CMake project, and then use it to generate VS solutions, XCode projects, and unix makefiles for you.
It's a huge improvement - everybody gets to work in their "native" environment, whether they're on Windows, Mac, or Unix.
I've handled this by writing my own converter that would synch scripts for various embedded development environments. If something like the above answer of using CMake does all that for you, then that would be the way to go. But if its too complex, rolling your own custom tool is not that hard. Just has to synch both ways.
Also, if you don't have it. Visual Assist for visual studio is awesome :)
I am not a fan of makefile generators, cmake, qmake and the like.
I am a fan of make. We have a single makefile (well, several actually but they include each other and there is no recursive make involved) which knows all of the project dependencies on all platforms (windows, wince, linux, mac, ...). This gives:
Makefile is really no more than a list of sources (include dependencies are auto-generated during the build)
Same build command on each platform, apart from specifying the tool chain
Build uses all my CPUs
Very short time-to-do-nothing
Developers can use whatever IDE they fancy
vim, emacs, qtcreator, eclipse, XCode all in use
I often use VC++ when on Windows (for the debugger)
Scriptable. Great way to automate your tests
Nice.
I am starting to write a moderately sized project in C++ requiring a fairly large amount of files and dependencies on other projects.
Do you think manually maintaining a Makefile for this project is the best approach?
Are there other better alternatives for C++ that make build management and dependency management of files really easy to handle?
Also, what IDE is good for C++ development on Linux? I am comfortable with Vim, but do you think there are good IDEs for C++ (like Eclipse for Java) that provide code-completion etc?
Thanks!
Ajay
Others have already recommended using CMake. To my mind you should manage your project with CMake then decide on your favourite IDE.
CMake allows you to describe the project to be built, instead of how to build it. For example: I want to create a shared library called foo with source files a.cpp, b.cpp and c.h and it requires these link dependencies. Then on unix you get libfoo.so and on windows you get foo.dll and foo.lib. All common project settings can be abstracted up to higher levels in the build tree, this keeps most files very simple. More complicated requirments can be refactored into macros.
Once your project is described like this CMake will generate makefiles and/or IDE projects. This means each developer can choose their own IDE, as well as allowing you to mandate an IDE if appropriate.
My company use CMake to build the c++ in our product on windows and solaris. It contains 600 projects and 1.5 million lines of source code. We originally chose it as a cross platform build utility when porting to solaris, however for a large project like ours it is much easier to manage the build with CMake than with Visual Studio project files. I would recommend it as a build utility for any c++ project of any size
We use the eclipse cdt on solaris and are very happy with it. Most of our development is with visual studio on windows. cmake also works well with other ides I use it with KDeveloper4 on linux at home without a hitch.
KDevelop4 (from subversion or rc1 from their site) + CMake makes life so much easier, automake should just die.
If you want a cross-platform solution, netbeans + the c++ plugin are pretty decent, not as good as kdevelop4 though.
I like CMake a lot for the whole building process (but I have almost no experience with scons or Jam).
I use vim or qtcreator. Qtcreator is still in developpment, but very promising I think.
I suggest you Code::Blocks. I use it on Debian and works gracefully.
http://www.codeblocks.org/
Edit: Added another link
http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=The_build_process_of_Code::Blocks
Eclipse does C++ as well - through eclipse CDT - not as comprehensive as Java but pretty good.
Manually maintaining Makefiles in larger Projects becomes quite painful. If you start using automake/autoconf, you will - after a while of learning all the facets - appreciate the powerful possibilities these tools can offer.
And as IDE simply use Emacs. It's quick, powerful and supports Code completion etc.
There's also Code::Blocks as an IDE with its own building system. But I would encourage you to try out other build tools (CMake, Boost.Build, SCons) if you want to be able to build your software "anywhere" without having a fancy schmancy IDE installed. ;-)
I found Emacs + Scons works pretty well for me.