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).
here is an interesting question that, if answered positively, would make cross compiling a whole lot easier.
Since gcc is written in C++, would it be possible to recompile the Linux gcc compiler on Windows MinGW G++ or VSC++ compiler, so that the resulting Windows executable would be able to compile c code to linux programs?
If so, what would be needed to do that?
So to simplify, here is what I want to do.
mingw32-g++ gcc.cpp -o gcc.exe
The command will probably not work because it would probably have been done before if it were that easy. What I ask is if this concept would be even possible.
Edit: thanks and expanding the question to NVCC
fvu was able to answer the question for the gcc compiler (please use the answer button next time), so if you had the same question you can thank him (or her) .
As an extention to the question, would it be possible to edit or recompile nvcc or the things it uses so that nvcc.exe can create a linux program from CUDA C code? I read that the windows variant of nvcc can only use the Visual Studio cl.exe and not MinGW or CygWin.
Is it possible to create linux programs with cl.exe? And if so, could that be used to generate linux programs with nvcc.exe?
Read the chapter on cross compiling in the gcc manual, gcc's architecture makes it quite easy to set up a toolchain where the target is different from the development machine.
I never went the exact route you describe, but I have built toolchains under Windows that target ARM9 embedded Linux machines, works like a charm - using cygwin btw. Look here for a gentle introduction. Also very useful info here.
I am not going to comment on what can be done with respect to nvcc, CUDA is somewhere on my (long) list of stuff to tinker with...
Now, can cl generate Linux binaries? The answer to this question is "sort of" : as long as the target processor is from a processor family that's supported by cl, the object files generated by it should probably not contain anything that would inhibit its execution on Linux, as they'll just contain machine code. That's the theory. However:
as Linux uses another executable format, you will need a Windows-hosted linker that understands Windows style object files (afaik, COFF), and links them together to a Linux style (ELF) executable. I never heard of such a beast, although in theory it could exist
the startup code (a tiny program that wraps around your main function) will also be different and needs to be written
and some more, eg library related issues
So, the practical answer is no, although it might be a nice summer project for a bored student :)
I am trying to compile a piece of software written in Fortran 77. I should point out that I don't know much at all about Fortran, and would really rather not start modifying the code for this software - particularly as I'm not sure what the licensing of the software is, and I don't know if I would be able to redistribute my modified version.
The code compiles fine on OS X and Windows using the g77 compiler that is (fairly easily) available for these systems. However, I cannot get it to work on my Ubuntu distribution, as I can't seem to get hold of g77 for Ubuntu anymore, and if I try and install an old version of it, it seems to muck up my entire GCC installation. I have tried compiling the code with both gfortran and g95, but it doesn't work with either as:
The code uses real variables as loop indices (yes, I know, bad idea). g95 supports this with the -freal-loops option, but gfortran doesn't.
The code uses real variables to index into arrays, which gfortran will support (with a warning), but g95 won't support.
Can anyone suggest a way to compile this code with those two 'dodgy' features using a modern and easily-available compiler such as g95 or gfortran?
Pass the argument -std=legacy to gfortran. Features removed in F95, like real loop and array indices, should compile (perhaps with a warning) in legacy mode.
I'm porting an old version of a software that is partly a linux kernel module to EL5, after doing the relevant hacks, the horrible GNU autotools mess that is used to compile the thing (no, it does not compile the kernel module via kbuild :( ) I keep getting lots of warnings 'Including config.h is deprecated' - I am told by google search results that I should be using -I flags instead, but cannot seem to find what flags and where I should put them.
The software is proprietary, so can not link to it as it is not publicly available.
The version I am porting had support up to and including 2.6.16 (and I need 2.6.18-164 el5). The kernel space code is in the ballpark of 100k lines in dozens of files (and the compilation spans over a few Makefiles)
What is the proper way of fixing this?
Found it out eventually, I had to add "-include $LINUX_KERNEL_INCLUDE/linux/autoconf.h" to CPPFLAGS
I wonder if someone managed to compile the Linux kernel with some other compiler than gcc. Or if someone have ever tried? Question may seem to be silly or academic, but it arose when I thought about answers to: Are C++ int operations atomic on the mips architecture
It seems that the atomicity of some operations depends not only on the cpu architecture, but also on used compiler. So, I wonder if in Linux world some compiler other than gcc even exists.
Linux explicitly depends on some gcc extensions, so any other compiler must be compatible with the needed extensions, in that case.
This is not a "no", since it's of course not impossible for a separate compiler vendor/developer to track gcc's extensions, just a data point that might help you search.
At some point tcc would process and run the linux kernel source. SO that would be a yes, I guess.
::Hat tip to ephemient in the comments.::
The LLVM developers are trying to compile it with clang. The meta-bug on compiling the Linux kernel with clang has more details (the dependency tree for that meta-bug shows how little seems to be left).
There have been some efforts (and patches) to compile an early version of the 2.6 kernel with icc.
Yup. I've done this. See [cfe-dev] Clang builds a working Linux Kernel (Boots to RL5 with SMP, networking and X, self hosts).
IBM's compiler was able to do it some Linux versions ago, but I'm not sure about now, nor am I sure of how well IBM optimized the kernel as instructed. All I know is, they got it to build.
As Linux is self hosting (with its own libc) and has been developed from the start with gcc (and gcc cross compilers), its sort of silly to use anything else.
I think mainly, playing nice with preprocessor macros and instructed optimizations is the biggest obstacle (not even getting into a departure from gas), as GNU has basically written the book on the above, and extended it. Beyond that, Linux tunes its optimizations to work with gcc, for instance, don't get caught using 'volatile' in the kernel without a damn good reason. Using inline and actually having the compiler agree is another challenge.
Linus is the first one to call GCC an &*#$ hole, which makes for a better compiler.
This is why we have the great GNU/Linux debate.
Many, many, many years ago, it was actually possible to compile the kernel with g++, and as far as I remember part of the motivation was because C++ had stronger type check, not necessarily to have g++ to produce object files. But as Neil Butterworth have pointed out, Linus is not particular fond of C++, and there is zero chance that this ever will be possible again.
EKOPath 4 Compiler, not now. but probably with some minor patches
https://github.com/path64/repositories
http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath-compiler-suite
I am just now working on compile Linux kernel using Open64 for MIPS archtecture, and some other guys are now just working for make Open64 can build for X86 arch. Now the kernel can partly run, and still have Run fail errors.
However for the atomic problem, at least i have not come up with it. And I do not think it is really a problem.The reasons are:
The Linux kernel have already been a collection of source code, which can successfully build with GCC, so it is only the compiler's problem if it can not build it, or the built kernel runs fail.
If a compiler want to successfully build Linux kernel, it should obide the GNU C Extension, and this extension will give a clear discription of what a atomic operation is, so such a compile only need to generate code according to this extension.
My non-technical guess: The Linux Kernel can't currently (2009) be compiled with any compiler other than the GNU compiler, gcc.
I say this on the basis that I've heard Richard Stallman, with some conviction, say Linux should be called GNU/Linux because the kernel is "only 1 part of the operating system" and I'm guessing he would not be able to say this if the kernel was non-dependant on GNU (e.g. a tonne of embedded devices run a Linux OS without any GNU software).
As I said, just a guess, let me know if I'm wrong...