I have a third-party library which depends on libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll.
My own program is compiled under MSYS2 (mingw-w64) and it depends on libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll.
Please note that the third-party library is pure binaries (no source). Please also note that both libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll and libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll are 32-bit, so I don't think it's an issue related to architecture.
The outcome is apparent, programs compiled based on libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll can't work with third-party libraries based on libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll. What I get is a missing entrypoint __gxx_personality_sj0.
I can definitely try to adapt my toolchain to align with the third-party's libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll, but I do not know how much effort I need to go about doing it. I find no such variant of libgcc dll under MSYS2 using this setjmp/longjmp version. I am even afraid that I need to eliminate the entire toolchain because all the binaries I had under MSYS2 sits atop this libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll module.
My goal is straightforward: I would like to find a solution so that my code will sit on top of libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll instead of libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll. But I don't know if I am asking a stupid question simply because this is just not possible.
The terms dw2 and sjlj refer to two different types of exception handling that GCC can use on Windows. I don't know the details, but I wouldn't try to link binaries using the different types. Since MSYS2 does not provide an sjlj toolchain, you'll have to find one somewhere else. I would recommend downloading one from the "MingW-W64-builds" project, which you can find listed on this page:
https://mingw-w64.org/doku.php/download
You could use MSYS2 as a Bash shell but you can probably not link to any of its libraries in your program; you would need to recompile all libraries yourself (except for this closed source third-party one).
I have a sticky problem that I am not quite sure how to solve. The situation is as follows:
We have a common 32bit perl 5.10.0
It is used by both 32bit and 64bit linux machines
Now the problem is that I need to install Crypt::OpenSSL::AES module for the Perl, however since it builds a shared library a lot of problems appear:
If built on 64bit machines the module is not usable with "wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64" error for the generated AES.so
If built on a 32bit machine the module is not usable on the 64bit with undefined symbol: AES_encrypt
The problem I'm guessing is that the different machines have different versions of OpenSSL installed and they are not compatible with each other.
My question is given that I cannot change any of the machine configurations, what should I do to get the AES module working on all the machines?
Thanks!
I solved the problem with a combination of staticperl and building statically linked Crypt::OpenSSL::AES so that I have a single perl executable that is fully statically linked.
Given that I am not able to modify the environment, this is the best I can come up with.
Perl's default configuration very intentionally puts platform-specific things in a separate directory; you appear to have broken that model. Consider restoring it.
I assume you built your perl on a 32 bit machine, so during the build process, Configure didn't include any of the 'make this 32 bit' compiler switches. If you build on a 64 bit machine now, the build process will use exactly the same switches, so you get a 64 bit binary that cant't be loaded from 32 bit perl - not even on the 64 bit machines, beacuse the 32 bit perl binary you're running there can't load a 64 bit shared library either.
You might try building your shared perl on a 64 bit machine, explicitly stating you want a 32 bit perl. There should be some configure parameters for this. That way, you have a perl that sets the "use 32 bit" compiler flag when building modules. Then, you can use that version of perl on each of the machines to build the module. The modules won't be identical, but each of them will run on its bit size, and your software distribution process could pull the correct module when distributing to a specific machine.
However, the real problem is somewhat behind. I assume someone in your company at some point said "We don't want to be dependent on what the distributions provide, let's build our own perl that we can copy everywhere". This sounds like a good idea, but it is NOT. Different Linux versions use different versions of shared libraries, default directories for configuration files, default path variables etc. The configure process takes care of that and creates a perl binary for exactly your machine. If you copy this to a different machine, it might not find symbols in other versions of shared libraries. It might try to read lib from directories that don't exist there. It might not include a workaround for some bug that was corrected on the machine where you built it, but need the workaround on the older system you copied it to. Or, it might provide a workaround for something that has long been fixed on the newer system, thus wasting CPU time.
So, essentially, creating one perl to copy everywhere will ONLY work well if you build a static perl that includes everything and doesn't need any shared libraries. The standard, shared-library-using perl you compile on one machine, does NOT meet the "behaves the same everywhere i copy it to" request you probably had, because it depends way too much on stuff "around" it.
I work from 2 different machines. One is Windows and the other is Linux. If I alternately work on the same project but switch between both OSes, will I eventually run into compiling errors? I ask because maybe there are standards supported by one but not by the other.
That question is a pretty broad one and it depends, strictly speaking, on your tool chain. If you were to use the same tool chain (e.g. GCC/MinGW or Clang), you'd be minimizing the chance for this class of errors. If you were to use Visual Studio on Windows and GCC or Clang on the Linux side, you'd run into more issues alone because some of the headers differ. So once your program leaves the realm of strict ANSI C (C89) you'll be on your own.
However, if you aren't careful you may run into a lot of other more profane errors, such as the compiler on Linux choking on the line endings if you didn't tell your editor on the Windows side to use these.
Ah, and also keep in mind that if you want to actually cross-compile, GCC may be the best choice and therefore the first part I mentioned in my answer becomes a moot point. GCC is a proven choice on both ends. And given your question it's unlikely that you are trying to write something like a kernel mode driver - which would be fundamentally different.
That may be only if your application use some specific API.
It is entirely possible to write code that works on both platforms, with no issues to compile the code. It is, however, not without some difficulties. Compilers allow you to use non-standard features in the compiler, and it's often hard to do more fancy user interfaces (even if it's still just text) because as soon as you start wanting to do more than "read a line of text as it is entered in a shell", it's into "non-standard" land.
If you do find yourself needing to do more than what the standard C library can do, make sure you isolate those parts of the code into a separate file (or a couple of files, one for Linux/Unix style systems and one for Windows systems).
Using the same compiler (gcc) would help avoiding problems with "compiler B doesn't compile code that works fine in compiler A".
But it's far from an absolute necessity - just make sure you compile the code on both platforms and with all of your "suppoerted" compilers often enough that you haven't dug a very deep hole that is hard to get out of before you discover that "it's not working on the other system". It certainly helps if you have (at least) a virtual machine running the other OS, so you can easily try both variants.
Ideally, you want to set up an automated system, such that when you change the code [and feel that the changes are "complete"], it automatically gets built on both platforms and all compilers you want to use. And if possible, also automatically tested!
I would also seriously consider using version control - that way, when something breaks on one or the other side, you can go back and look at what the code looked like before it stopped working, and (hopefully) find the reason it broke much quicker than "Hmm, I think it's the change I made to foo.c, lets take that out... No, not that one, ok how about the change here..." - at least with version control, you can say "Ok, so version 1234 doesn't work, let's try version 1220 - ok, that works. Now try 1228, still works - so change between 1229 and 1234 - try 1232, ah, it's broken..." No editing files and you can still go to any other version you like with very little difficulty. I have used Mercurial quite a bit, git a little bit, some subversion, and worked on a project in Perforce for a few years. All of these are good - personally, I think I prefer mercurial.
As a side-effect: Most version control systems also deal with filename and line endings in the saner way than doing this manually.
If you combine your version control system with a "automated build and test-system", such as Jenkins, you can get everything very automated. Jenkins is free and runs on both Windows and Linux, and you can use it to automatically build and test your code as and when you submit the code to the version control system.
It will not create a problem until you recompile the source code in the respective OS. If you wanna run your compiled file generated by windows(.exe or .obj), into linux or vice-versa then it will definitely create a problem and wont be possible. But you can move you source code (file with extension .c/.c++) into any of the os. And sometimes it also create problems with different header files, so take care of that also. Best practice is to use single OS for you entire project, avoid multiple os until it is extremely necessary.
I was reading an article about cross-compiling for OSX on linux, but it was quite hard to understand.
What tools do I need? And what configurations are necessary?
Are there any tools for creating packages too?
First you need odcctools, which contains assembler and linker and such (like binutils but capable of handling the Mach-O object format). Then you need the system libraries from the official SDK. You can download it from Apple, but must agree to some stuff and become a member to do so. And finally good old gcc. Quite easy in theory, but in reallity a horrible mess. The easiest way to go (that I know of) is to use I'm Cross!.
Update: I found a newer and better updated method called xchain. It requires more manual work than I'm Cross! thou.
Recently, I switched my development environment from Windows to Linux. So far, I have only used Visual Studio for C++ development, so many concepts, like make and Autotools, are new to me. I have read the GNU makefile documentation and got almost an idea about it. But I am kind of confused about Autotools.
As far as I know, makefiles are used to make the build process easier.
Why do we need tools like Autotools just for creating the makefiles? Since all knows how to create a makefile, I am not getting the real use of Autotools.
What is the standard? Do we need to use tools like this or would just handwritten makefiles do?
You are talking about two separate but intertwined things here:
Autotools
GNU coding standards
Within Autotools, you have several projects:
Autoconf
Automake
Libtool
Let's look at each one individually.
Autoconf
Autoconf easily scans an existing tree to find its dependencies and create a configure script that will run under almost any kind of shell. The configure script allows the user to control the build behavior (i.e. --with-foo, --without-foo, --prefix, --sysconfdir, etc..) as well as doing checks to ensure that the system can compile the program.
Configure generates a config.h file (from a template) which programs can include to work around portability issues. For example, if HAVE_LIBPTHREAD is not defined, use forks instead.
I personally use Autoconf on many projects. It usually takes people some time to get used to m4. However, it does save time.
You can have makefiles inherit some of the values that configure finds without using automake.
Automake
By providing a short template that describes what programs will be built and what objects need to be linked to build them, Makefiles that adhere to GNU coding standards can automatically be created. This includes dependency handling and all of the required GNU targets.
Some people find this easier. I prefer to write my own makefiles.
Libtool
Libtool is a very cool tool for simplifying the building and installation of shared libraries on any Unix-like system. Sometimes I use it; other times (especially when just building static link objects) I do it by hand.
There are other options too, see StackOverflow question Alternatives to Autoconf and Autotools?.
Build automation & GNU coding standards
In short, you really should use some kind of portable build configuration system if you release your code to the masses. What you use is up to you. GNU software is known to build and run on almost anything. However, you might not need to adhere to such (and sometimes extremely pedantic) standards.
If anything, I'd recommend giving Autoconf a try if you're writing software for POSIX systems. Just because Autotools produce part of a build environment that's compatible with GNU standards doesn't mean you have to follow those standards (many don't!) :) There are plenty of other options, too.
Edit
Don't fear m4 :) There is always the Autoconf macro archive. Plenty of examples, or drop in checks. Write your own or use what's tested. Autoconf is far too often confused with Automake. They are two separate things.
First of all, the Autotools are not an opaque build system but a loosely coupled tool-chain, as tinkertim already pointed out. Let me just add some thoughts on Autoconf and Automake:
Autoconf is the configuration system that creates the configure script based on feature checks that are supposed to work on all kinds of platforms. A lot of system knowledge has gone into its m4 macro database during the 15 years of its existence. On the one hand, I think the latter is the main reason Autotools have not been replaced by something else yet. On the other hand, Autoconf used to be far more important when the target platforms were more heterogeneous and Linux, AIX, HP-UX, SunOS, ..., and a large variety of different processor architecture had to be supported. I don't really see its point if you only want to support recent Linux distributions and Intel-compatible processors.
Automake is an abstraction layer for GNU Make and acts as a Makefile generator from simpler templates. A number of projects eventually got rid of the Automake abstraction and reverted to writing Makefiles manually because you lose control over your Makefiles and you might not need all the canned build targets that obfuscate your Makefile.
Now to the alternatives (and I strongly suggest an alternative to Autotools based on your requirements):
CMake's most notable achievement is replacing AutoTools in KDE. It's probably the closest you can get if you want to have Autoconf-like functionality without m4 idiosyncrasies. It brings Windows support to the table and has proven to be applicable in large projects. My beef with CMake is that it is still a Makefile-generator (at least on Linux) with all its immanent problems (e.g. Makefile debugging, timestamp signatures, implicit dependency order).
SCons is a Make replacement written in Python. It uses Python scripts as build control files allowing very sophisticated techniques. Unfortunately, its configuration system is not on par with Autoconf. SCons is often used for in-house development when adaptation to specific requirements is more important than following conventions.
If you really want to stick with Autotools, I strongly suggest to read Recursive Make Considered Harmful (archived) and write your own GNU Makefile configured through Autoconf.
The answers already provided here are good, but I'd strongly recommend not taking the advice to write your own makefile if you have anything resembling a standard C/C++ project. We need the autotools instead of handwritten makefiles because a standard-compliant makefile generated by automake offers a lot of useful targets under well-known names, and providing all these targets by hand is tedious and error-prone.
Firstly, writing a Makefile by hand seems a great idea at first, but most people will not bother to write more than the rules for all, install and maybe clean. automake generates dist, distcheck, clean, distclean, uninstall and all these little helpers. These additional targets are a great boon to the sysadmin that will eventually install your software.
Secondly, providing all these targets in a portable and flexible way is quite error-prone. I've done a lot of cross-compilation to Windows targets recently, and the autotools performed just great. In contrast to most hand-written files, which were mostly a pain in the ass to compile. Mind you, it is possible to create a good Makefile by hand. But don't overestimate yourself, it takes a lot of experience and knowledge about a bunch of different systems, and automake creates great Makefiles for you right out of the box.
Edit: And don't be tempted to use the "alternatives". CMake and friends are a horror to the deployer because they aren't interface-compatible to configure and friends. Every half-way competent sysadmin or developer can do great things like cross-compilation or simple things like setting a prefix out of his head or with a simple --help with a configure script. But you are damned to spend an hour or three when you have to do such things with BJam. Don't get me wrong, BJam is probably a great system under the hood, but it's a pain in the ass to use because there are almost no projects using it and very little and incomplete documentation. autoconf and automake have a huge lead here in terms of established knowledge.
So, even though I'm a bit late with this advice for this question: Do yourself a favor and use the autotools and automake. The syntax might be a bit strange, but they do a way better job than 99% of the developers do on their own.
For small projects or even for large projects that only run on one platform, handwritten makefiles are the way to go.
Where autotools really shine is when you are compiling for different platforms that require different options. Autotools is frequently the brains behind the typical
./configure
make
make install
compilation and install steps for Linux libraries and applications.
That said, I find autotools to be a pain and I've been looking for a better system. Lately I've been using bjam, but that also has its drawbacks. Good luck finding what works for you.
Autotools are needed because Makefiles are not guaranteed to work the same across different platforms. If you handwrite a Makefile, and it works on your machine, there is a good chance that it won't on mine.
Do you know what unix your users will be using? Or even which distribution of Linux? Do you know where they want software installed? Do you know what tools they have, what architecture they want to compile on, how many CPUs they have, how much RAM and disk might be available to them?
The *nix world is a cross-platform landscape, and your build and install tools need to deal with that.
Mind you, the auto* tools date from an earlier epoch, and there are many valid complaints about them, but the several projects to replace them with more modern alternatives are having trouble developing a lot of momentum.
Lots of things are like that in the *nix world.
Autotools is a disaster.
The generated ./configure script checks for features that have not been present on any Unix system for last 20 years or so. To do this, it spends a huge amount of time.
Running ./configure takes for ages. Although modern server CPUs can have even dozens of cores, and there may be several such CPUs per server, the ./configure is single-threaded. We still have enough years of Moore's law left that the number of CPU cores will go way up as a function of time. So, the time ./configure takes will stay approximately constant whereas parallel build times reduce by a factor of 2 every 2 years due to Moore's law. Or actually, I would say the time ./configure takes might even increase due to increasing software complexity taking advantage of improved hardware.
The mere act of adding just one file to your project requires you to run automake, autoconf and ./configure which will take ages, and then you'll probably find that since some important files have changed, everything will be recompiled. So add just one file, and make -j${CPUCOUNT} recompiles everything.
And about make -j${CPUCOUNT}. The generated build system is a recursive one. Recursive make has for a long amount of time been considered harmful.
Then when you install the software that has been compiled, you'll find that it doesn't work. (Want proof? Clone protobuf repository from Github, check out commit 9f80df026933901883da1d556b38292e14836612, install it to a Debian or Ubuntu system, and hey presto: protoc: error while loading shared libraries: libprotoc.so.15: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory -- since it's in /usr/local/lib and not /usr/lib; workaround is to do export LD_RUN_PATH=/usr/local/lib before typing make).
The theory is that by using autotools, you could create a software package that can be compiled on Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and other operating systems. The fact? Every non-Linux system to build packages from source has numerous patch files in their repository to work around autotools bugs. Just take a look at e.g. FreeBSD /usr/ports: it's full of patches. So, it would have been as easy to create a small patch for a non-autotools build system on a per project basis than to create a small patch for an autotools build system on a per project basis. Or perhaps even easier, as standard make is much easier to use than autotools.
The fact is, if you create your own build system based on standard make (and make it inclusive and not recursive, following the recommendations of the "Recursive make considered harmful" paper), things work in a much better manner. Also, your build time goes down by an order of magnitude, perhaps even two orders of magnitude if your project is very small project of 10-100 C language files and you have dozens of cores per CPU and multiple CPUs. It's also much easier to interface custom automatic code generation tools with a custom build system based on standard make instead of dealing with the m4 mess of autotools. With standard make, you can at least type a shell command into the Makefile.
So, to answer your question: why use autotools? Answer: there is no reason to do so. Autotools has been obsolete since when commercial Unix has become obsolete. And the advent of multi-core CPUs has made autotools even more obsolete. Why programmers haven't realized that yet, is a mystery. I'll happily use standard make on my build systems, thank you. Yes, it takes some amount of work to generate the dependency files for C language header inclusion, but the amount of work is saved by not having to fight with autotools.
I dont feel I am an expert to answer this but still give you a bit analogy with my experience.
Because upto some extent it is similar to why we should write Embedded Codes in C language(High Level language) rather then writing in Assembly Language.
Both solves the same purpose but latter is more lenghty, tedious ,time consuming and more error prone(unless you know ISA of the processor very well) .
Same is the case with Automake tool and writing your own makefile.
Writing Makefile.am and configure.ac is pretty simple than writing individual project Makefile.