Just googling or duckduckgo'ing
unresolved external symbol IID_ICallbackWithNoReentrancyToApplicationSTA
Only brings up a single direct hit and that doesn't even help the person reporting the problem, so I'm hoping some C++/WinRT people run across this question.
While I can't share all the source (tons of interweaved proprietary files) I can share the scenario and a breakdown of what the code changes were; also, there's very little mention of IID_ICallbackWithNoReentrancyToApplicationSTA anywhere. Coincidentally, it appears on GitHub for some Kenny Kerr stuff. The project I'm having problems with is a C++/WinRT project, so that seems like a relevant trapping, especially since there are mentions of xlang which is supposed to be an abstraction of C++/WinRT.
Scenario: A C++/WinRT library is being consumed by a One Core UAP C++/WinRT application/service. The build breaks when trying to use the lib created by the library when building the app/service.
Code Changes: I implemented some PPL tasks into the library, specifically some concurrency::task<void> that do some I/O on a new thread used in the C++/WinRT lib that is being consumed by the app/service. It's an std::thread that uses a lambda that takes copies of objects and performs I/O. Something like this:
std::thread writer([content_vector, json_string, content_file_name, json_file_name]() {
auto write_content = Helper_IO::Overwrite_Lines_Concurrent(content_file_name, content_vector);
auto write_json = Helper_IO::Overwrite_File_Concurrent(json_file_name, json_string);
write_content.get();
write_json.get();
});
Helper_IO::Overwrite_*_Concurrent are both static and both return a concurrency::task<void>
I've tried using writer.detach() and writer.join(), but the results are the same.
Use Project > Properties > Linker > Input > "Additional Dependencies" setting, add uuid.lib.
Some background, identifiers whose names start with "IID" are {guids}. Data, not code. The MSDN documentation is often inadequate to tell you what library you need to link, too focused on documenting functions. My favorite technique is to use a grep-like tool (I use the Far file manager, a bit to obscure to recommend) and search the SDK's lib directory for the string.
Related
How can one programmatically determine which type libraries (GUID and version) a given native, VB6-generated DLL/OCX depends on?
For background: The VB6 IDE chokes when opening a project where one of the referenced type libraries can't load one of its dependencies, but it's not so helpful as to say which dependency can't be met--or even which reference has the dependency that can't be met. This is a common occurrence out my company, so I'm trying to supplement the VB6 IDE's poor troubleshooting information.
Relevant details/attempts:
I do have the VB source code. That tells me the GUIDs and versions as of a particular revision in the repo, but when analyzing a DLL/OCX/TLB file I don't know which version of the repo (if any--could be from a branch or might never have been committed to a branch) a given DLL/OCX corresponds to.
I've tried using tlbinf32.dll, but it doesn't appear to be able to list imports.
I don't know much about PE, but I popped open one of the DLLs in a PE viewer and it only shows MSVBVM60.dll in the imports section. This appears to be a special quirk of VB6-produced type libraries: they link only to MSVBVM60 but have some sort of delay-loading mechanism for the rest of the dependencies.
Even most of the existing tools I've tried don't give the information--e.g., depends.exe only finds MSVBVM60.dll.
However: OLEView, a utility that used to ship with Visual Studio, somehow produces an IDL file, which includes the importlib directives. Given that VB doesn't use IDL files, it's clearly generating the information somehow. So it's possible--I just have no idea how.
Really, if OLEView didn't do it I'd have given it up by now as impossible. Any thoughts on how to accomplish this?
It turns out that I was conflating basic DLL functionality and COM. (Not all DLLs are COM DLLs.)
For basic DLLs, the Portable Executable format includes a section describing its imports. The Optional Header's directory 1 is about the DLL's imports. Its structure is given by IMAGE_IMPORT_DESCRIPTOR. This is a starting point for learning about that.
COM DLLs don't seem to have an equivalent as such, but you can discover which other COM components its public interface needs: for each exposed interface, list out the types of their properties and their method arguments, and then use the Registry to look up where those types come from. tlbinf32.dll provides some of the basic functionality for listing members, etc. Here's and intro to that.
Does anyone know where I can find a Firebreath sample (either Mac OS X or Windows) that illustrates how to create a plugin that includes 1 or more other libraries (.DLLs or .SOs) that each rely on other sub-projects built as static libraries (LIBs)?
For example, let's say that the Firebreath plugin is called PluginA, and that PluginA calls methods from DLL_B and DLL_C. DLL_B and DLL_C are C++ projects. DLL_B calls methods from another project called LIB_D, and DLL_C calls methods from a project called DLL_E.
Therefore, the final package should contain the following files:
PluginA.dll
DLL_B.dll (which also incorporates LIB_D)
DLL_C.dll
DLL_E.dll
I am currently forced to dump all source files in the pluginA solution, but this is just a bottleneck (for example I cannot call libraries written in other languages, such as Objective-C on Mac OS X).
I tried following the samples on Firebreath, but couldn't get them to work, and I found no samples from other users that claimed they were able to get it to work. I tried using CMAKE, and also running the solutions directly from X-Code, but the end result was the same (received linking errors, after deployment DLL_C couldn't find DLL_E etc.)
Any help would be appreciated - thank you,
Mihnea
You're way overthinking this.
On windows:
DLLs don't depend on a static library because if they did it would have been compiled in when they were built.
DLLs that depend on another DLL generally just need that other DLL to be present in the same location or otherwise in the DLL search path.
Those two things taken into consideration, all you need to do is locate the .lib file that either is the static library or goes with the .dll and add a target_link_library call for each one. There is a page on firebreath.org that explains how to do this.
On linux it's about the same but using the normal rules for finding .so files.
I’ve spent some time researching this and though I’ve found some relevant info,
Here’s what I’ve found:
SO question: “What is the clojure equivalent of the Python idiom if __name__ == '__main__'?”
Some techniques at RosettaCode
A few discussions in the Cojure Google Group — most from 2009
but none of them have answered the question satisfactorily.
My Clojure source code file defines a namespace and a bunch of functions. There’s also a function which I want to be invoked when the source file is run as a script, but never when it’s imported as a library.
So: now that it’s 2012, is there a way to do this yet, without AOT compilation? If so, please enlighten me!
I'm assuming by run as a script you mean via clojure.main as follows:
java -cp clojure.jar clojure.main /path/to/myscript.clj
If so then there is a simple technique: put all the library functions in a separate namespace like mylibrary.clj. Then myscript.clj can use/require this library, as can your other code. But the specific functions in myscript.clj will only get called when it is run as a script.
As a bonus, this also gives you a good project structure, as you don't want script-specific code mixed in with your general library functions.
EDIT:
I don't think there is a robust within Clojure itself way to determine whether a single file was launched as a script or loaded as a library - from Clojure's perspective, there is no difference between the two (it all gets loaded in the same way via Compiler.load(...) in the Clojure source for anyone interested).
Options if you really want to detect the manner of the launch:
Write a main class in Java which sets a static flag then launched the Clojure script. You can easily test this flag from Clojure.
Use AOT compilation to implement a Clojure main class which sets a flag
Use *command-line-args* to indicate script usage. You'll need to pass an extra parameter like "script" on the command line.
Use a platform-specific method to determine the command line (e.g. from the environment variables in Windows)
Use the --eval option in the clojure.main command line to load your clj file and launch a specific function that represents your script. This function can then set a script-specific flag if needed
Use one of the methods for detecting the Java main class at runtime
I’ve come up with an approach which, while deeply flawed, seems to work.
I identify which namespaces are known when my program is running as a script. Then I can compare that number to the number of namespaces known at runtime. The idea is that if the file is being used as a lib, there should be at least one more namespace present than in the script case.
Of course, this is extremely hacky and brittle, but it does seem to work:
(defn running-as-script
"This is hacky and brittle but it seems to work. I’d love a better
way to do this; see http://stackoverflow.com/q/9027265"
[]
(let
[known-namespaces
#{"clojure.set"
"user"
"clojure.main"
"clj-time.format"
"clojure.core"
"rollup"
"clj-time.core"
"clojure.java.io"
"clojure.string"
"clojure.core.protocols"}]
(= (count (all-ns)) (count known-namespaces))))
This might be helpful: the github project lein-oneoff describes itself as "dependency management for one-off, single-file clojure programs."
This lets you define everything in one file, but you do need the oneoff plugin installed in order to run it from the command line.
Here is what I'm looking for:
I'd like to separate pieces of functionality into modules or components of some sort to limit visibility of other classes to prevent that each class has access to every other class which over time results in spaghetti code.
In Java & Eclipse, for example, I would use packages and put each package into a separate project with a clearly defined dependency structure.
Things I have considered:
Using separate folders for source files and using Groups in Xcode:
Pros: simple to do, almost no Xcode configuration needed
Cons: no compile-time separation of functionality, i.e. access to everything is only one #import statement away
Using Frameworks:
Pros: Framework code cannot access access classes outside of framework. This enforces encapsulation and keeps things separate
Cons: Code management is cumbersome if you work on multiple Frameworks at the same time. Each Framework is a separate Xcode project with a separate window
Using Plugins:
Pros: Similar to Frameworks, Plugin code can't access code of other plugins. Clean separation at compile-time. Plugin source can be part of the same Xcode project.
Cons: Not sure. This may be the way to go...
Based on your experience, what would you choose to keep things separate while being able to edit all sources in the same project?
Edit:
I'm targeting Mac OS X
I'm really looking for a solution to enforce separation at compile time
By plugins I mean Cocoa bundles (http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/LoadingCode/Concepts/Plugins.html)
I have worked on some good-sized Mac projects (>2M SLOC in my last one in 90 xcodeproj files) and here are my thoughts on managing them:
Avoid dynamic loads like Frameworks, Bundles, or dylibs unless you are actually sharing the binaries between groups. These tend to create more complexity than they solve in my experience. Plus they don't port easily to iOS, which means maintaining multiple approaches. Worst, having lots of dynamic libraries increases the likelihood of including the same symbols twice, leading to all kinds of crazy bugs. This happens when you directly include some "helper" class directly in more than one library. If it includes a global variable, the bugs are awesome as different threads use different instances of the global.
Static libraries are the best choice in many if not most cases. They resolve everything at build time, allowing code stripping in your C/C++ and other optimizations not possible in dynamic libraries. They get rid of "hey, it loads on my system but not the customer's" (when you use the wrong value for the framework path). No need to deal with slides when computing line numbers from crash stacks. They catch duplicate symbols at build time, saving many hours of debugging pain.
Separate major components into separate xcodeproj. Really think about what "major" means here, though. My 90-project product was way too many. Just doing dependency checking can become a very non-trivial exercise. (Xcode 4 can improve this, but I left the project before we ever were able to get Xcode 4 to reliably build it, so I don't know how well it did in the end.)
Separate public from private headers. You can do this with static libs just as well as you can with Frameworks. Put the public headers in a different directory. I recommend each component have its own public include directory for this purpose.
Do not copy headers. Include them directly from the public include directory for the component. Copying headers into a shared tree seems like a great idea until you do it. Then you find that you're editing the copy rather than the real one, or you're editing the real one, but not actually copying it. In any case, it makes development a headache.
Use xcconfig files, not the build pane. The build pane will drive you crazy in these kinds of big projects. Mine tend to have lines like this:
common="../../common"
foo="$(common)/foo"
HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS = $(inherited) $(foo)/include
Within your public header path, include your own bundle name. In the example above, the path to the main header would be common/foo/include/foo/foo.h. The extra level seems a pain, but it's a real win when you import. You then always import like this: #import <foo/foo.h>. Keeps everything very clean. Don't use double-quotes to import public headers. Only use double-quotes to import private headers in your own component.
I haven't decided the best way for Xcode 4, but in Xcode 3, you should always link your own static libraries by adding the project as a subproject and dragging the ".a" target into your link step. Doing it this way ensures that you'll link the one built for the current platform and configuration. My really huge projects haven't been able to convert to Xcode 4 yet, so I don't have a strong opinion yet on the best way there.
Avoid searching for custom libraries (the -L and -l flags at the link step). If you build the library as part of the project, then use the advice above. If you pre-build it, then add the full path in LD_FLAGS. Searching for libraries includes some surprising algorithms and makes the whole thing hard to understand. Never drop a pre-built library into your link step. If you drop a pre-built libssl.a into your link step, it actually adds a -L parameter for the path and then adds -lssl. Under default search rules, even though you show libssl.a in your build pane, you'll actually link to the system libssl.so. Deleting the library will remove the -l but not the -L so you can wind up with bizarre search paths. (I hate the build pane.) Do it this way instead in xcconfig:
LD_FLAGS = "$(openssl)/lib/libssl.a"
If you have stable code that is shared between several projects, and while developing those projects you're never going to mess with this code (and don't want the source code available), then a Framework can be a reasonable approach. If you need plugins to avoid loading large amounts of unnecessary code (and you really won't load that code in most cases), then bundles may be reasonable. But in the majority of cases for application developers, one large executable linked together from static libraries is the best approach IMO. Shared libraries and frameworks only make sense if they're actually shared at runtime.
My suggestion would be:
Use Frameworks. They're the most easily reusable build artifact of the options you list, and the way you describe the structure of what you are trying to achieve sounds very much like creating a set of Frameworks.
Use a separate project for each Framework. You'll never be able to get the compiler to enforce the kind of access restrictions you want if everything is dumped into a single project. And if you can't get the compiler to enforce it, then good luck getting your developers to do so.
Upgrade to XCode4 (if you haven't already). This will allow you to work on multiple projects in a single window (pretty much like how Eclipse does it), without intermingling the projects. This pretty much eliminates the cons you listed under the Frameworks option.
And if you are targeting iOS, I very strongly recommend that you build real frameworks as opposed to the fake ones that you get by using the bundle-hack method, if you aren't building real frameworks already.
I've managed to keep my sanity working on my project which has grown over the past months to fairly large (number of classes) by forcing myself to practice Model-View-Control (MVC) diligently, plus a healthy amount of comments, and the indispensable source control (subversion, then git).
In general, I observe the following:
"Model" Classes that serialize data (doesn't matter from where, and including app's 'state') in an Objective-C 1 class subclassed from NSObject or custom "model" classes that inherits from NSObject. I chose Objective-C 1.0 more for compatibility as it's the lowest common denominator and I didn't want to be stuck in the future writing "model" classes from scratch because of dependency of Objective-C 2.0 features.
View Classes are in XIB with the XIB version set to support the oldest toolchain I need to support (so I can use a previous version Xode 3 in addition to Xcode 4). I tend to start with Apple provided Cocoa Touch API and frameworks to benefit from any optimization/enhancement Apple may introduce as these APIs evolve.
Controller Classes contain usual code that manages display/animation of views (programmatically as well as from XIBs) and data serialization of data from "model" classes.
If I find myself reusing a class a few times, I'd explore refactoring the code and optimizing (measured using Instruments) into what I call "utility" classes, or as protocols.
Hope this helps, and good luck.
This depends largely on your situation and your own specific preferences.
If you're coding "proper" object-oriented classes then you will have a class structure with methods and variables hidden from other classes where necessary. Unless your project is huge and built of hundreds of different distinguishable modules then its probably sufficient to just group classes and resources into folders/groups in XCode and work with it that way.
If you've really got a huuge project with easily distinguishable modules then by all means create a framework. I would suggest though that this would only really be necessary where you are using the same code in different applications, in which case creating a framework/extra project would be a good way to effectively copy code between projects. In practically all other cases it would probably just be overkill and much more complicated than needed.
Your last idea seems to be a mix of the first two. Plugins (as I understand you are describing - tell me if I'm wrong) are just separated classes in the same project? This is probably the best way, and should be done (to an extent) in any case. If you are creating functionality to draw graphs (for example) you should section off a new folder/group and start your classes and functionality within that, only including those classes into your main application where necessary.
Let me put it this way. There's no reason to go over the top... but, even if just for your own sanity - or the maintainability of your code - you should always endeavour to group everything up into descriptive groups/folders.
What is the meaning of building a dll as export library ? I just googled it.I found its a dynamic link library.Can anyone please explain what actually dll is ? and why do we need to add these statement in the .dll file
extern "c" _declspec(dllexport)
I studied the static and shared libraries but Im not sure why do we go for dll files.I learnt .dll is used for the run time. But can you help me and give me more information.Thank you in advance
I may have been a bit harsh in my comments. I am not an authority on dlls, but I have a bit of working knowledge of them, so I will try to give a short explanation.
The difference between static and shared libraries should be easy to find in a web search, but basically the code in a static library gets included into the final executable, so after the linking stage, the actual library file is not needed anymore to run the program; on the other hand, code in a shared library doesn't get included in the main program - the two parts remain separate, so the shared library (called dll on windows) will be needed every time the program is run.
"Building a dll as export library" is a bit of a confusing term. I had not heard of it before, and during a short search could only find it on a cygwin page, which you might have read, considering your initial tags. A dll can export some or all of its functions and data. Exporting means that they are available for other programs and dlls to use. Which names get exported can be controlled in various ways. One of those is inserting _declspec(dllexport) in the declaration of the function. Another way is by using a definition file with an exports section.
When creating a dll, an import library can be created. This is a file that can then be used when building an executable that uses the dll, during the linking stage, to let it know which names are exported from the dll, so the program knows how to resolve references to those functions; in other words: how to import them. (This is not always necessary. Many linkers allow you to directly link against the dll itself, thereby removing the need for an import library.)
I realize it can be confusing, but try to find a tutorial and some small examples to see how it works, and play with it a bit.