I'm looking to run clang's static analyser on files that are part of a larger project. I don't want to compile the entire project, only a subset of files. Is that at all possible?
Related
I'm creating an desktop app on Golang with Muon UI (using Ultralight instead of Chromium) and cross-build my app for Linux and Windows. For now the app work fine but it required Ultralight libraries (*.dll for Windows and *.so for Linux). But I wanna distribution my app as single executable file. How I can create two executable files? First file for Linux, it's should include main executable file for Linux and only *.so libraries. And second file should include main executable file for Windows and only *.dll libraries. How I can to do this?
Are there any CLI utils for this? (for using in gitlab CI inside Docker for example) Or maybe I can to do this via Golang (for example using embed package. Can I embedded libraries into exe file, that it is can run)?
Or can I use cgo for link dynamic libs as static into binary file?
The honest answer would be: "With great difficulty, lots of pain, blood and tears."
The somewhat longer answer is, that a precompiled DLL/.so may contain slightly more than a mere static library. It it possible to "convert" a DLL/.so into a static library? Somewhat. It boils down to dumping its contents into object files, reverting all the relocation entries, possibly dealing with versioned symbols and weak symbols. No, there are no kitchen sink utilities out there, doing all that for you on an executable binary level.
If you can limit yourself to Linux, you may want to look into Flatpak. What this does is wrapping everything up into a sort of "self extracting archive", which upon launch will transparently and invisibly unpack itself into an in-situ temporary mount point (which you won't see from the rest of the system).
Now, one option would be to build all the dependencies of your program yourself, and arranging for those builds to be created as static libraries. In that case you're no longer dealing with DLLs. However some libraries do not want to be built for static linking, so your mileage may vary there.
Truth to be told: Why is distributing multiple files any issue at all? On Linux/*BSD you must ship separate icon and .desktop files anyway, so that stuff shows up in the Desktop application menus. Yes, it'd be nice if instead of dealing with XDG desktop entry files we had the option to place all of that information into a special – let's call it .xdgdata – readonly section, with some well known symbol names, so that we could have truly single file distributable executables.
My honest suggestion: Don't sweat about it. Just ship the whole bunch of files and don't worry too much about "how this looks".
After much struggling with attempting to link a C++ project to a 3rd party static library (.lib), I think I have solved the issue by verifying that I compile my project using the same compiler in which the .lib file was compiled (MSVC11).
Until this point, I assumed all .obj files were equivalent, thus I could take a .lib file (containing various .objs), and use that with any other project I might want to develop in the future. However, this was an incorrect assumption.
So I'm curious as to why (in the context of MSVC) .obj files differ from one version of the compiler to the next. Assuming you're targeting an x86 application, shouldn't the obj files be comprised of the same types of instructions regardless of whether or not you compiled using MSVC11/12/14?
TLDR; Why can't I link a project to an .obj that was created using a different MSVC compiler?
That's because it could be linked to another version of Visual C++ runtime libraries, which is incompatible with the version you are using.
This problem could be even with DLLs if you try to expose C++ objects from it.
I'm currently trying to incorporate some libraries into a Windows C++ project. Now I used to assume that .lib files were used for static libraries and .dll were used for dynamic libraries. Feel free to correct this thought.
However, after trying to actually use libraries (whether that be static or dynamic), it seems like you are required for provide a .lib. So that makes me think that .libs are not associated with just static libraries, but also dynamic libraries.
So how exactly are .lib files structured? How can your project determine whether or not a .lib file is associated with a static library or dynamic library? I assume there must be some information encoded into the .lib file that states whether or not this .lib file actually contains compiled classes/functions, or if it doesn't (in the case of dyanmic library).
I know how to get the program to build using one, but I'm not quite sure how to do get it to full build using two .IDE files.
Hey Stackoverflowers: one comment and one question.
Comment: You guys/girls are great, thanks for taking a look.
Question:
Can Bjam, Scons, or Cmake easily install a .pc file for library projects?
I find it really annoying that I have to maintain the same library dependency list in my scons/bjam/make file, the .pc file (for libraries), and rpm/deb package config files.
It would be nice if a build tool could manage the build and installation meta-data.
Thoughts?
Because SCons is such a flexible environment, yes you can in fact use it to manage the entire process from building to deliverable package.
Our build goes through several phases with SCons:
Build - resulting .o, .os, generated files, etc under ./build
Assembly - resulting exe, so/dll, binarys, etc under ./delivery
Packing & configuration - a set of deb/rpm/msi + configuration, etc under ./package
It isn't all out of the box, and requires you to write some python code, find tools etc, but it does work for us pretty well.
Our project is C, C++, Java, & Python building dozens of binary targets for a distributed system with multiple delivery targets for different machine installs on Windows, Ubuntu and Redhat Linux.
Again, be prepared to have to customize your scripts and write custom builders though to wrap different processes.