Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
For many years I have used two great tools BoundsChecker & Purify, but the developers of these applications have let me down, they no longer put effort into maintaining them or developing them. We have corporate accounts with both companies, and they both tell me that they have no intention of producing versions to support 64 bit applications.
Can anyone recommend either open source or commercial alternatives that support 64 bit native C++/MFC applications?
Viva64 (http://www.viva64.com/viva64-tool/) tool provides detection of errors typical of 64-bit Windows applications. Viva64 is a lint-like static analyzer of C/C++ code. Viva64 integrates into Visual Studio 2005/2008 environment and provides user-friendly interface to test your software projects.
Parasoft has a tool called Insure++ (link: http://www.parasoft.com/jsp/products/quick_facts.jsp?product=Insure) which says it'll do that.
I've used Insure++ on 32-bit and 64-bit apps on Linux and it worked okay. It sometimes got confused when it was trying to parse template/stl code and would fall over.
That url says it works on 32- and 64-bit windows, good luck!
BoundsChecker 9.01 now supports VC2008 and x64 bit, at last.
insure++ only workse if you instrument your code. I once tried it. It took about 5 minutes to compile about 1000 lines of code. Since the project that I needed to compile was huge, I quickly determined that Insure++ was not going to work.
Not to mention their reporting, or output from Insure++ is pretty archaic. also the runtime performance penalty was attrocious.
Note about boundschecker from numega/compuware/other_new_company: Don't buy it. It's only profiles 32 bit apps. It does NOT do 64 bit apps. It can be installed on a 64 bit OS though. I stopped using it years ago on our app. I do use it on CppUnit Tests though... sometimes.
In general I'm completely disgusted with all the native memory leak tools out there. They all don't work, or just lock up your application on shutdown.
FYI: BoundsChecker 10.0 runs on Windows XP through Windows 7, on both 32 and 64 bit versions. It supports WOW64 applications, and it also supports Visual Studio 2010. In fact, we released VS2010 support within 30 days of Microsoft's release.
We are catching up with our backlog. We were very late getting the VS2005 and VS2008 support out (with BC 9.0, Fall 2008), but there were a variety of reasons why this happened. The miracle was that we got it out at all.
BoundsChecker 10.5, when it comes out, should have some more goodies. Stay tuned.
Disclosure: I work for MicroFocus.
Intel(R) Parallel Inspector (http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-parallel-inspector/) is a threading and memory-checking plugin tool to Microsoft* Visual Studio; it supports 32-bit and 64-bit C/C++ on Windows. It's a commercial application with a 30-day free evaluation.
Disclosure: I work for Intel.
I've used bounds checking and other dynamic analysis tools, and while the architectures are different it's the code that you're checking - in theory you could run bounds checking on any backend and the result would be the same - the code either steps outside its bounds or it does not.
The only complications are addressing more than 4GB of memory space, dealing with pieces of code you can't cross-compile to a 32-bit architecture (64 bit object files for which you have no source, etc), and general 64 bit migration issues (platform specific code such as checking for 0xFFFFFFFF instead of -1)
What other problems are you running into doing bounds checking on your program? Are you unable to compile a 32 bit version?
It's not your ideal solution, certainly, and one should always check the code they're going to run, but in this case you might not have a choice, unless you want to do your own bounds checking (which is a good idea in any case...).
-Adam
it is my understanding that BC 9.0 will support WOW64
Application verifier, for x64 and x86, detects heap corruption
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=20028
From IBM PurifyPlus support for 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows:
Technote (FAQ)
Question
Is IBM Rational PurifyPlus supported on 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows?
Cause
64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows are getting popular.
Answer
Beginning with version 7.0.1 iFix 003, PurifyPlus supports testing 64 bit applications on Windows.
More information about iFix 003 can be found in the following technote IBM Rational PurifyPlus for Windows v7.0.1.0-003
You install this version of Purify and you get a "Purify (for 64-bit applications)" entry in your start menu.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am the lead developer in a small business which is just starting. We are developing a cross platform C library which is intended to run on as wide an array of architectures and operating systems as possible. We have extensive unit tests, so if these tests pass on a new platform then we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the library works reliably on that platform.
Up until now, I have been using Windows 32 bit (which is my development machine), as well as a Linode VPS to make sure the library works under Linux with GCC. Now, I am looking to deploy for other platforms as well (namely more Linux distribution flavors, Mac OS X, and preferably some of the smartphones if at all possible). I want to avoid virtualizing all of these platforms if I can. Are there any services that will allow me to deploy the library on many operating systems and architectures? For all of the platforms I mentioned above, I would like to make both 32 and 64 bit builds available and also for different processors as needed. I would like to be able to build the library for all of these platforms, and run the unit tests. The unit tests are written using Boost.test.
Does anyone have any recommendations? The best way would be if there was some sort of convenient cross compiler for the various platforms that I could install on my Linode VPS (Ubuntu 13.04), but a third party solution to which I should upload the code would also work.
The only cross platform compile (which has a tradition, is free and has the support of a large community) is gcc. Of course, there is Intel Compiler and many others (and even the newer, free clang which seems to be used by llvm, but it is still young). You can find a good list here (for C++, but you can scroll on the page and find for any other language):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compilers#C.2B.2B_compilers
If you want to build for Mac from Linux please check this:
http://www.bpiwowar.net/2012/06/cross-compiling-for-os-x-with-distcc-on-linux/
And for windows from Linux:
Manual for cross-compiling a C++ application from Linux to Windows?
Regarding the mobile platforms:
for Android, there is native support for Linux/Windows/Mac so you can use any of these platforms to build apps for it
for Windows Phone: Not so, maybe you manage to run Visual Studio using wine and then you're set, but otherwise there is no way that I know of. You can try CodeWeaver which is the "Wine for money" which seems to support Visual Studio 2008:
http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/company/?letter=m;company_sort%5Bcompany_name%5D=ASC;company_curPos=200;company_id=1;sort%5Bapp_name%5D=ASC;curPos=400
Furthermore, you can try this application to develop programs in .NET:
http://monodevelop.com/
for Iphone: well, it is not straightforward but you can try this link:
http://www.saurik.com/id/4
I'm a Linux user myself, so the links above are "concentrated" on Linux as the primary dev system. Hope this helps! Good luck with your business!
I develop unmanaged C++ applications in MSVC2008. And occasionally the application crashes at the customer site. I found an article on this. But it was written in 2002 for Visual Studio .NET. Has things changed since? Can the same technique be used? Is there a newer method?
If you are debugging C and C++ apps for Windows, you want to learn how to use WinDBG (distributed as "debugging tools for Windows"). It has a bit of a learning curve, but the documentation is really good and it really is the best the platform has to offer.
As to your question, you can view a crash dump with windbg -z <dump filename>.
Usually release mode binaries (which typically run at customer site) are built with optimization (for speed/memory etc). Troubleshooting optimized binaries is usually not as easy.
So, first check if the crash is reproducible with release mode binaries built without optimization. If yes, then the job is easy (ier).
Here is some info.
Also look at a tool called ADPlus from microsoft
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 14 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there anyway to build a solution to target 64 bit environment in vs2003? My solution is native c++ not visual c++. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
cheers,
RWendi
This page on 2003's lack of 64-bit targeting seems to address your issue: http://www.toymaker.info/Games/html/64_bit.html.
The first step was to set up my development environment for 64 bit development. I use Visual Studio 2003 which has little built in support for 64 bit development.
In order to create 64 bit applications you need to install the latest Platform SDK from Microsoft (Microsoft Platform SDK for Windows Server 2003). The SDK, as well as having libraries for 32 bit programming, has 64 bit versions for AMD64 and IA64 (Intel) development.
Getting the correct library and header file paths set up in Visual Studio proved surprisingly difficult. I wanted the choice of developing 32 bit or 64 bit projects. While the platform SDK comes with command files to set up the correct paths they wipe out any other paths. Since T2 uses DirectX I also needed the DirectX paths setting correctly.
Upgrading to a newer edition of Visual Studio looks like the safer, non-hackish solution, if possible.
As Warren points out, this isn't easy with VS2003. You need to install the x64 compiler from the platform SDK.
We ran this way for a couple of years (starting with even earlier versions and the IA64 compiler). There were separate project configurations for X64 builds, so in addition to the normal DEBUG and RELEASE configurations we had DEBUG_X64 and RELEASE_X64.
But you have to launch VS studio with the paths set up for either the x86 or x64 compilers & libraries. You couldn't switch between them on the fly. I believe there was a command line switch /useenv that told VS to set its various paths from environment variables. We had bat files to set this all up.
It is messy, and every now and then we'd build the wrong project configuration for the environment which always took a while to sort out. You are much better off upgrading to VS2005/VS2008 where the target architecture is exposed directly in the GUI.
Sounds like a viable solution... going to try it before accepting the answer. votes up!
RWendi
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm aspiring to work in real-time 3D graphics. I work almost exclusively in C++, with a healthy smattering of win32. Realistically, do I have any sane alternatives?
You can use the MSVC compiler without the IDE. That's probably your best bet. It's a good compiler, and it is the de facto standard for Windows development.
There is definitely nothing wrong with ditching the IDE and simply using the compiler.
I believe the MSVC compiler can be used from the Code::Blocks IDE with no problems.
Alternatively, invoking the compiler from the command-line is a tried and true approach too.
Eclipse: http://www.eclipse.org/
Code::Blocks is pretty cool: http://www.codeblocks.org/
Depends...
Cygwin/Mingwin gives you a compiler. Qt or wxWidgets gives you a GUI toolkit that's easy to use and both are portable.
I agree with the question though. Visual Studio is a pig. Its debugger is pretty nice, but the rest is a pig to work with (particularly coming from a OSS background where the tools don't generally try to lock you in).
You could also look at nmake and calling the VC++ compiler tools directly from the command line.
We use VC++ as a compiler / linker but use Jam to drive the builds. The actual Visual Studio is only used as a debugger. The benefit is that once we set up Jam to build a project in Windows, it takes minimal effort (frequently none) to get it working for Unix.
The Zeus IDE works just fine as a MSVC alternative. It can even import MSVC project and solution files.
A bit late to the party, but I'd like to add that in 2018 there finally begins to show up a viable alternative that is good enough to promise emancipation from the monopoly of VS on Windows C++ development:
Sublime Text as editor, with the following plugins:
EasyClangComplete, a decent (like, just working) replacement for Intellisense;
[optionally] Clang Format, for much more flexible source formatting experience than MS would ever come up with;
Clang-cl as a wrapper around Clang compiler aimed for maximum MSVC compatibility.
Unfortunately, Microsoft Build Tools are still needed for standard library headers, but the download size is nothing compared to the whole VS behemoth. The upside is that Clang-cl picks them up automagically and Build Tools somehow don't mandate that you let their executables go online to sign in and activate your free license yet!
Setting this all up to a working configuration is a bit more complicated than slapping together a VS project/solution, but it's totally worth it. As a bonus, setting things up manually might give you a better understanding of what goes on under the hood of an IDE.
One thing to miss might be the superb VS debugger... Well, if you're ready to break habits, the open source x64dbg might come to the rescue, ability to view and step through source code via .pdb files included (and yes, Clang can generate them now!).
Update: As of 2019, a much better and future-proof alternative to EasyClangComplete is using Clangd via LSP plugin.
Absolutely, but it's just a lot easier to use Microsoft's IDE to develop for a Microsoft operating system. When in Rome...
Eclipse is a good alternative.
The Code::Blocks IDE comes with the MinGW C++ compiler and support for wxWidgits. The IDE is pretty minimalist which may or may not be what you are looking for - I really like it.
Dev-C++ I have found very useful, and free :)
Very possible, Qt is your friend. Qt Creator is in RC stage too so something to look forward to. Until then you can use it with something like Code::Blocks. Code::Blocks itself is a great environment alone, and also has a lot of support for wxWidgets. If you're just looking for an IDE change, as previously mentioned, Code::Blocks can use compilers from other IDE's as well.
-John
SlickEdit (or a number of other editors that support ctags or something similar) makes for a pretty decent 'IDE'.
You can use these editors with makefiles (or other build tools) to drive pretty much whatever compiler you want (MVCS, mingw, Comeau, Digital Mars, whatever).
A couple employers ago, that's exactly what we did. We used MS compilers driven by makefiles and the main editor used was SlickEdit. We used the Debugging Tools for Windows package for debugging (a lot of what we did was kernel-mode). Worked out pretty well.
Wascana Desktop Developer is a distribution of Eclipse CDT configured specifically for developing on Windows.
I would recommend giving Notepad++, MSBuild, and the Windows SDK a look over. You could also use XBuild, but that is more MONO specific. Mind you, MSBuild, and XBuild are just automation tools, so you'd be spending more time with Windows SDK.
I'm sure to receive a lot of flak for this, but I find C++Builder to be a much easier IDE/compiler to develop Windows C++ apps with than MSVC. It may not be the cheapest solution, or have all the same bells+whistles, or be the most language-compliant (its 32bit compiler does not support C++11 yet, but its 64bit compiler does), but you can't really beat its visual UI designer and 3rd party component market.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for a tool which can generate a Makefile for a C/C++ project for different compilers (GCC, Microsoft Visual C++, C++Builder, etc.) and different platforms (Windows, Linux, and Mac).
Other suggestions you may want to consider:
Scons is a cross-platform, cross-compiler build library, uses Python scripting for the build systems. Used in a variety of large projects, and performs very well.
If you're using Qt, QMake is a nice build system too.
CMake is also pretty sweet.
Finally, if all else fails...
Try Automatic Makefile Generator.
It has support for the following compilers:
Borland 3.1
Borland 5.0
Borland 5.0, 16 bit
Borland 5.5
Borland 5.6
Borland 5.8
CC
GNU g++
GNU g++, dynamic library
Intel 5, 6, 7 for Linux
Intel 5, 6, 7 for Linux, dynamic library
Intel 5, 6, 7 for Windows
Intel 8,9,10 for Linux
Intel 8,9,10 for Linux, dynamic library
Intel 8,9 for Windows
Intel 10 for Windows
Visual C++ 5
Visual C++ 6, 7, 7.1
Visual C++ 8
Open Watcom
Watcom 10A
Watcom 10A, 16 bit
I've used Bakefile before with some success. It's fairly simple and seems to work well.
CMake is the only tool which can actually generate real Visual Studio projects (i.e., not "Makefile"-projects which call out to an external tool), and which automatically recreates the projects when the build input file (CMakeLists.txt) changes.
SCons performance issues are well-known and a thoroughly debated topic on the SCons mailing lists.
I would vote for OMake. It fixes all complains I had with GNU make:
it's a full-blown language.
uses MD5 instead of timestamps.
provides a minimal shell which implements the most useful Unix commands on all platforms: find, sed, AWK, etc.
works with either Unix or DOS style pathnames.
extensively documented.
supports parallel builds.
fast.
I'll also second CMake. I've been using it for quite a while on a multi-platform project and I'm very satisfied with it.
Automatic generation of (M|m)akefiles makes me worry about what you're trying to do here.
Do you understand what goes on under the covers when you type make? Or gmake? I'm only asking because if you don't when things break, such as new code changes not being incorporated into the build, you'll have difficulties trying to work what has happened.
To start to understand make, can I suggest having a read of "Managing Projects with GNU Make" by Robert Mecklenberg. The early chapters cover how make is working. Getting your heard around the fact that make is backward chaining is one of the biggest things you can do.
If you don't, and your system appears to work, then you'll be, to use The Pragmatic Programmers' term, "programming by coincidence". (-:
BTW Great articles available at their site! And I'm not involved with them. YMMV. Yada-yada...
One issue to consider is do you want a "makefile" creator or a replacement build system? The problem with replacement build systems is that you typically don't get good IDE integration for platforms whose users expect this (Visual C++).
If you do want a makefile creator instead of a replacement build system, take a look at MPC. It's free and open source.
A recent addition to the list of make replacements is waf. From personal experience, SCons does the job pretty well.
I am working on a similar Makefile auto-generator projection called CodeMate, developed by using Ruby. Maybe it is not that mature for large applications right now, but I will keep working on it to make it better.
Users should not need to edit any configuration file to build the software, or at least it is supposed to be. The learning curve should be minimized.