I have an embedded project for ARM platform, specifically aarch64.
Up until now I was using Make. I recently set up CMake with no particular issues.
I moved to CMake because I was under the impression it was a more modern build tool that would have allowed a smarter configuration.
For example, I can compile my project using different toolchains (aarch64-elf-gcc-linaro, aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc,...) and I would like CMake to try if any of those are installed on the system and use whichever is found first by default.
Is this possible (or meant to)? I'd expect it to be an easy feat for the tool, but after searching for a while I can't seem to find the right track.
Yes, you can make your CMake project to search for available tool-chains installed in your OS, choose one and compile your project. I also write a CMake program for ARM embedded project, because now it is universal transferable between different OS system Windows and Unix. On Linux there is ARM ToolChain installed and on Windows there is Keil-MDK. If you have different tool-chains to choose between, you can write CMake script which will find paths with command like find_path() and then call correct "toolchianxx.cmake" script with right compiler flags for chosen compiler.
In your particular problem just use find_path commands and use hits to find installed compilers in "pre-set" known paths.
Related
Is it possible generate build systems on one platform for another using cmake? For example, and the case I'm most interested in, is it possible to generate a set of Visual Studio solution files, or mingw32-make Makefiles, or nmake files, for a project from Linux?
The intention is to make something analogous to what the make dist target produces in automake. However, I don't need it to do as much as make dist does, i.e. I just want to generate the solution files as though I'd run cmake in Windows.
Users can then build the package using the created build system on their own machines.
If it is possible, how do I do it? Cmake doesn’t report the Windows based generators as being available on Linux.
After further research I believe the answer to my question is no. The reason is that the makefiles and solution files etc. produced by cmake depend on cmake itself, the path to which is hard-coded into the files.
One solution for windows might be to bundle the cmake executable with your files and replace the definition of CMAKE_COMMAND (for instance) added to makefiles with the path to your bundled version of cmake somehow. This is just a suggestion though, I haven't tried or even researched it much. If you do, please post the process as a comment or answer here.
I'm doing some experiments with an evaluation version of the WindRiver dcc diab compiler. I would like to do some testing on my Windows PC.
However I think I have the wrong target setup.
I've got as far as using the 'dctrl -t' command to get the list of target architectures, but selecting options so far hasn't produced anything i can run on windows.
I'm simply doing:
dcc main.c -o main.exe
Am I missing a step?
do I have the wrong target?
or is it simply not possible to create windows binaries?
I believe that the Diab compiler targets a free-standing environment, so would not produce a Windows executable. Moreover x86 is not a supported target processor in any case; see the product brief.
The compiler is intended for use with VxWorks, though can be separately licensed. The toolchain includes an instruction-set simulator for executing target code in a simulated environment, and if you are using VxWorks, that includes a VxWorks simulator.
If you want to build your code as a native Windows application; you will have to use a Windows targeted compiler. I suggest MinGW/GCC since WindRiver support both their own WindRiver/Diab compiler and GCC for Vxworks development, and they share a great deal of commonality with respect to compiler switches and extension syntax.
I want to use KDL (Kinematics and Dynamics Library) in robot control box. But robot control box uses SCons as their build system while KDL uses CMake.
It turned out that the control box doesn't have CMake installed. Should I install CMake in the control box? Or write SCons file for compiling KDL?
====================================================
My question is ambiguous. Sorry for that. And unfortunately, I cannot show the link of Control Box, it's not public. Here is link of KDL installation manual.
http://www.orocos.org/kdl/installation-manual
Let me make it more clear.
Forget all of previous question above and all about Control box, KDL. Let's say that you want to use one library. But the library can be built using CMake according to installation manual. Your PC doesn't have CMake installed but it has SCons, and unfortunately you should not install CMake on your PC.
If you can only use SCons, what can you do?
I know this situation is not usual, I want to know your opinion.
To answer your initial question: Yes, you should always try to install CMake, if that is a build requirement for you library and if you need to build that library from the sources.
To answer your later question: Replacing or rewriting the build system scripts is a major effort and not advisable. In general there is no script to convert build-systems. Such script might help to make the manual transformation. If you have a look at LLVM's effort to replace Autotools by CMake or Boost replacing it's own build system by CMake, you find out it takes several people several years and still not everybody is satisfied.
Often you don't need to build the library yourself. Either there are already built packages from the project directly of from your distribution (Debian etc. packages) or third party packagers like Mac Ports or NuGet.
In your case KDL provides Debian/Ubuntu packages.
Additional KDL is part of ROS, which is experimental in Homebrew for OS X.
Can cmake configuration files also be used to automatically extend the system PATH variable to include the directory paths to all the installed executable applications and if it is possible (and a standard practice), how can I do this?
This way, as soon as I configure all the CMakeLists.txt files and everything compiles (and hopefully runs) nicely, I can start using the applications, and the path configuration would be packaged together with the build process. I am working with Linux and my code is written in C++, but since cmake is cross-platform, the question extends to other systems as well.
I'm unaware of any capability in CMake to do this. However, we based what we do what Cantera does. They upgraded to SCONS recently instead of their old build system, but the idea still applies.
Anyway, there's a script that CMake configures with the paths during the configure step and then installs somewhere. So once built on Linux, one would run make install then source ~/setup_cantera and it sets up all the variables needed.
We do the same thing for our libraries built with CMake. It's possible to detect which shell the user is running and configure an appropriate template script.
I am a newbie to embedded developement, as figure shown. I have a small ARM board, AT91SAM7-EX256. I have also a JTAG programmer dongle, too. I am using Linux (Ubuntu x86_32) on my notebook and desktop machine. I'm using CodeSourcery Lite for cross-compiling to ARM-Linux.
Am I right that I can't use this Linux-target cross-compiler to make binary or hex files for the small ARM board (it comes without any operating system)? Should I use the version called ARM EABI instead?
As I see, it's a "generic" ARM compiler. I've read some docs, and there're lot of options to specify the processor type and instruction set (thumb, etc.), there will be no problem with it. But how can I tell the compiler, how should the image (bin/hex) looks like for the specific board (startup, code/data blocks etc.)? (In assemblers, there're the org and load directives for it.)
What software do I need to capture some debug messages from the board on my PC? I don't want to on-board debugging, I just need some detailed run-time signal, more than just blinking leds.
I have an option to use MS-Windows, I can get a dedicated machine for it. Do you recommend it, is it much easier?
Can I use inline assembly somehow in my C code? I dunno anything about that. Can I use C++ or just C?
I have also a question, which don't need to answer: are there really 4096 kind of GNU compilers and cross-compilers (from Linux_x86_32 -> Linux_x86_32, Linux_x86_32 -> Linux_ARM, OSX -> Linux_ARM, PPC_Linux -> OSX) and 16 different GNU compiler sources (as many target platforms/processors exists) around? The signs says "yes", but I can't believe it. Correct me, and show me the GNU compiler which can produce object file for any platform/processor, and the universal linker which can produce executable for any platform.
While Windows is not a "better" platform do this kind of embedded development on, it may be easier to start with since you can get a pre-built environment to work with. For example, Yagarto (which I would recommend).
Setting up an embedded development environment on Linux can require a considerable amount of knowledge, but it's not impossible.
To answer your questions:
Your Linux cross-compiler comes with libraries to build executables for a Linux environment. You have hinted that you want to build a bare-metal executable for this board. While you can do this with your compiler, it will just confuse things. I recommend building a baremetal cross-compiler. Since you're building your own baremetal executable (and thus you are the operating system, the ABI doesn't matter since you're generating all of the code and not interoperating with other previously built code.
There are several versions of the ARM instruction set (and Thumb). You need to generate code for your particular processor. If you generate the code for a newer version of the instruction set, you will likely generate code which generates a reserved instruction exception. Most prebuilt gcc cross-compiler toolchains for ARM are "multilib" and will build for a variety of architectures in both ARM and Thumb.
Not sure exactly what you're looking for here. This is a bare metal platform. You can use the debugger channel to send messages if you're debugging on target, or you'll need to build your own communication channel into the firmware you write (i.e. uart support).
See above.
Yes. See here for details on gcc's extended inline assembly syntax. You can do this in C++ and C. You can also simply link pure assembly files.
There is no universal gcc compiler / linker. You need a uniquely built compiler for each host / target combination you use.
Finally, please take a look at Atmel's documentation. They have a wealth of information on developing for this target as well as a board package with the needed linker directives and example programs. Note of course the package is for Atmel's own eval board, but it will get you started.
http://sam7stuff.blogspot.com/
I use either of the codesourcery lite versions. But I have no use for the gcc library nor a C library, I just need a compiler.
In the gcc 3 days newlib was great, modify two files worth of system support (simple open, close, read, putc type stuff) and you could compile just about anything, but with gcc 4.x you cannot even go back and cross compile gcc 3.x, you have to install an old linux distro in a virtual machine.
To get the gcc library yes you probably want to use the eabi version not the version with linux gnueabi in the file names.
You might also consider llvm (if you dont need a C library, and you will still need binutils), hmm, I wonder if newlib compiles with llvm.
I prefer to avoid getting trapped in sandboxes, learn the tools and how to manipulate the linker, etc to build your binaries.