Single CMakeLists.txt enough for my project? - cmake

I am trying to port my old CMake to modern CMake (CMake 3.0.2 or above). In the old design I had multiple CMakelists.txt, each directory contained a CMakeLists.txt file.
My current project's directory structure looks like :
.
├── VizSim.cpp
├── algo
├── contacts
│   ├── BoundingVolumeHierarchies
│   │   └── AABBTree.h
│   └── SpatialPartitoning
├── geom
│   └── Geometry.h
├── math
│   ├── Tolerance.h
│   ├── Vector3.cpp
│   └── Vector3.h
├── mesh
│   ├── Edge.h
│   ├── Face.h
│   ├── Mesh.cpp
│   ├── Mesh.h
│   └── Node.h
├── util
| |__ Defines.h
| |__ Math.h
|
└── viz
└── Renderer.h
What I was planning to do was just use a single CMakelists.txt and place all the cpp files in SOURCE and all the headers in HEADER and use add_executable.
set (SOURCE
${SOURCE}
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/src/mesh/Mesh.cpp
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/src/math/Vector3.cpp
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/src/VizSim.cpp
....
)
set (HEADER
${HEADER}
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/src/mesh/Mesh.h
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/src/math/Vector3.h
....
)
add_library(${PROJECT_NAME} SHARED ${SOURCE})
Doing this I am worried if using a single CMakeLists.txt is good practice. So does single CMakeLists.txt suffice or do I need a CMakeLists.txt for each folder?
I can only think of one good reason to have multiple CMakeLists.txt in my project and that is modularity.
Considering my project will grow eventually.

This is a bit long for a comment – so I make it an answer:
In one of my projects (a library), I have that many sources that I started to move some of them in a sub-directory util.
For this, I made separate variables:
file(GLOB headers *.h)
file(GLOB sources *.cc)
file(GLOB utilHeaders
RELATIVE ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/util/*.h)
file(GLOB utilSources
RELATIVE ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}
${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/util/*.cc)
To make it nice looking / more convenient in VisualStudio, I inserted source_groups which generates appropriate sub-folders in the VS project. I believe they are called "Filters".
source_group("Header Files\\Utilities" FILES ${utilHeaders})
source_group("Source Files\\Utilities" FILES ${utilSources})
Of course, I have to consider the variables utilHeaders and utilSources as well where the sources have to be provided:
add_library(libName
${sources} ${headers}
${utilSources} ${utilHeaders})
That's it.
Fred reminded in his comment that I shouldn't forget to mention that file(GLOB has a certain weakness (although I find it very valuable in our daily work). This is even mentioned in the CMake doc.:
Note: We do not recommend using GLOB to collect a list of source files from your source tree. If no CMakeLists.txt file changes when a source is added or removed then the generated build system cannot know when to ask CMake to regenerate. The CONFIGURE_DEPENDS flag may not work reliably on all generators, or if a new generator is added in the future that cannot support it, projects using it will be stuck. Even if CONFIGURE_DEPENDS works reliably, there is still a cost to perform the check on every rebuild.
So, using file(GLOB, you shouldn't never forget to re-run CMake once files have been added, moved, or removed. An alternative could be as well, to add, move, remove the files directly in the generated built-scripts (e.g. VS project files) and rely on the fact that the next re-run of CMake will those files cover as well. Last but not least, a git pull is something else that it's worth to consider a re-run of CMake.

I would always recommend a CMakeList.txt file per directory. My reasons:
locality: keep everything in the same folder that belongs together. This includes the relevant parts of the build system. I would hate it to navigate to the root folder to see how a library or target was invoked.
separation of build artifacts and related build code: Tests belong below test, libraries below lib, binaries below bin, documentation below doc, and utilities below utils. This may vary from project to project. When I have to make a change to the documentation, why should I wade through dozens of unrelated CMake code? Just have a look into the right CMakeLists.txt.
avoid handling of paths: In most cases relative or absolute paths including stuff like ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR} can be avoided. That leads to maintainable build code and reduces errors from wrong paths. Especially with out-of-source build, which should be used anyway.
localization of errors: If a CMake error occurs it is easier to locate the problem. Often a sub-directory can be excluded as a first workaround.

Related

ESP-IDF project with multiple source files

I started my project with a simple "blink" example and used it as a template to write my code.
This example used only one source file blink.c.
Eventually, I want to a use multi source files project and can't figure out how to configure CMakeLists.txt in order to compile the project.
My CMakeLists.txt is:
cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.5)
include($ENV{IDF_PATH}/tools/cmake/project.cmake)
project(blink)
I want to add for example init.c.
I tried different ways, but with no success.
None of idf_component_register() / register_component() worked for me.
Any idea how to correctly configure the project?
Right, the CMake project hierarchy in ESP IDF is a bit tricky. You are looking at the wrong CMakeLists.txt file. Instead of the one in root directory, open the one in blink/main/CMakeLists.txt. This file lists the source files for the "main" component, which is the one you want to use. It would look like this:
idf_component_register(SRCS "blink.c" "init.c"
INCLUDE_DIRS ".")
Make sure your init.c file is in the same directory as this CMakeLists.txt and blink.c.
I also recommend taking a look at the Espressif Build System documentation, it's quite useful.
You should edit the CMakeLists.txt located in your main folder inside your project folder. In addition, you need to put the directory that contains the header files into INCLUDE_DIRS parameter.
For example, if you have this file structure in your project (you're putting init.h inside include folder) as shown below:
blink/
├── main/
│ ├── include/
│ │ └── init.h
│ ├── blink.c
│ ├── CMakeLists.txt
│ ├── init.c
│ └── ...
├── CMakeLists.txt
└── ...
The content in your main/CMakeLists.txt should be:
idf_component_register(SRCS "blink.c" "init.c"
INCLUDE_DIRS "." "include")

How to properly use bin_package in Yocto

Good day,
I am trying to unpack the files from a .tar.gz archive into my bitbake generated image.
Basically just copy some files from the archive to usr/lib/fonts
File structure is like so:
├── deploy-executable
│   └── usr
│   └── lib
│   └── fonts
│   ├── LiberationMono-BoldItalic.ttf
│   ├── LiberationMono-Bold.ttf
│   ├── LiberationMono-Italic.ttf
│   ├── LiberationMono-Regular.ttf
│   ├── LiberationSans-BoldItalic.ttf
....
This goes inside an archive called deploy-executable-0.1.tar.gz
Now my deploy-executable_0.1.bb file looks like this:
SUMMARY = "Recipe for populating with bin_package"
DESCRIPTION ="This recipe uses bin_package to add some demo files to an image"
LICENSE = "CLOSED"
SRC_URI = "file://${BP}.tar.gz"
inherit bin_package
(I have followed the instructions from this post: https://www.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2015-December/027681.html)
The problem is that I keep getting the following error:
ERROR: deploy-executable-0.1-r0 do_install: bin_package has nothing to install. Be sure the SRC_URI unpacks into S.
Can anyone help me?
Let me know if you need more information. I will be happy to provide.
Solution:
Add a subdir parameter after the filepath (and leave ${S} alone) to your tarball to get it unpack to the right location.
E.G.
SRC_URI = "file://${BP}.tar.gz;subdir=${BP}"
Explanation:
According to bitbake docs
subdir : Places the file (or extracts its contents) into the specified subdirectory. This option is useful for unusual tarballs or other archives that do not have their files already in a subdirectory within the archive.
So when your tarball gets extracted and unpacked, you can specify that it should go into ${BP} (relative to ${WORKDIR}) which is what do_package & co. expect.
Note that this is also called out in the bin_package.bbclass recipe class file itself (though for a slightly different application):
# Note:
# The "subdir" parameter in the SRC_URI is useful when the input package
# is rpm, ipk, deb and so on, for example:
#
# SRC_URI = "http://example.com/foo-1.0-r1.i586.rpm;subdir=foo-1.0"
#
# Then the files would be unpacked to ${WORKDIR}/foo-1.0, otherwise
# they would be in ${WORKDIR}.
I ran into issues simply doing ${S} = ${WORKDIR} because I had some leftover artifacts in my working directory from a recipe from before I made it a bin_package. The leftover sysroot_* artifacts wreaked havoc on do_package_shlibs... Figured it was better to just unpack the archive where it was expected to go instead of mucking with changing ${S} for a bit of robustness.

Use module from parent directory in rust

Is it possible to structure a rust project in this way?
Directory structure:
src
├── a
│   └── bin1.rs
├── b
│   ├── bin2.rs
└── common
├── mod.rs
from Cargo.toml:
[[bin]]
name = "bin1"
path = "src/a/bin1.rs"
[[bin]]
name = "bin2"
path = "src/b/bin2.rs"
I would like to be able to use the common module in bin1.rs and bin2.rs. It's possible by adding the path attribute before the import:
#[path="../common/mod.rs"]
mod code;
Is there a way for bin1.rs and bin2.rs to use common without having to hardcode the path?
The recommended method to share code between binaries is to have a src/lib.rs file. Both binaries automatically have access to anything accessible through this lib.rs file as a separate crate.
Then you would simply define a mod common; in the src/lib.rs file. If your crate is called my_crate, your binaries would be able to use it with
use my_crate::common::Foo;

Automatically add linking options to dependants of shared lib

Let's say I have a shared lib, A, and something else that links against it, B. They are in two separate projects.
In my current setup, for A's functionality to be able to work properly, B needs to add -rdynamic to its linker options, like this:
target_link_libraries(B -rdynamic)
The thing is that there may be many, many dependants of A, so having to explicitly include the line above for each of them is a hassle.
Is there a way for A to have all its dependants automatically use -rdynamic?
Edit: here's a more detailed explanation of my situation.
I have a shared library, mylib. It cannot be a static library. It is defined in a CMake project of the same name.
mylib
├── CMakeLists.txt
└── src
   └── ...
Its CMakeLists.txt looks like this:
# mylib/CMakeLists.txt
project(mylib)
...
add_library(mylib SHARED ${SOURCES})
...
In separate projects, there are executables, client_i, that use/link against mylib, sometimes indirectly (i.e. link against something that links against mylib).
client_0
├── CMakeLists.txt
└── src
   └── ...
client_1
├── CMakeLists.txt
└── src
   └── ...
client_2
├── CMakeLists.txt
└── src
   └── ...
...
One of those CMakeLists.txt looks like:
# client_i/CMakeLists.txt
project(client_i)
...
add_executable(client_i ${SOME_OTHER_SOURCES})
target_link_libraries(client_i mylib -rdynamic)
...
Notice the -rdynamic. Without this option, some functionality provided by mylib doesn't work. I need it.
My problem is that there may be thousands of different client_is, each defined in its own project by different people/users of mylib, which I provide (and may be used as a binary).
I'd like to avoid having to add -rdynamic to each of the client_is, since some users might not know about it (since it may be used indirectly), some might forget about it, it might lead to headaches, etc.
Ideally, the CMakeLists.txt for mylib would look like:
# mylib/CMakeLists.txt
project(mylib)
...
add_library(mylib SHARED ${SOURCES})
target_link_libraries(mylib -rdynamic)
...
And a client_i CMakeLists.txt would simply be:
# client_i/CMakeLists.txt
project(client_i)
...
add_executable(client_i ${SOME_OTHER_SOURCES})
target_link_libraries(client_i mylib)
...
And it would have -rdynamic in its linker options. But I have tried this and it does not seem to work.
This is a simple solution you can try:
# Get a list of A's direct library dependencies.
get_target_properties(LIB_DEPENDENCIES A LINK_LIBRARIES)
# Loop through each library, adding the link option to each.
foreach(LIB ${LIB_DEPENDENCIES})
target_compile_options(${LIB} PRIVATE "-rdynamic")
endforeach()
This can be expanded, similar to the answer #KamilCuk linked here, to account for static/shared/imported libraries and recursion depending on the variety and complexity of your dependencies.
How to link A against B when A and B are in different projects?
If A is a different project than B, the you have to export package A and use find_package in project B to find A. Here is a good tutorial show-casing the use-case.

How to publish models vs. full project artifacts separately?

How could ivy support publishing artifacts of projects in multiple phases?
Suppose we had project A and B. A depends on B's models while B depends on A's models. (Usually the circular dependence isn't that direct, but the example serves. Our projects are relatively loosely coupled, sending messages to each other via the models) The models themselves don't depend on anything, so I can easy build those artifacts. However, while I can build moduleA-models.jar, I cannot build moduleA.jar until I get moduleB-models.jar. (And.. of course, visa-versa with module B.)
So I'm thinking a 2 phase publishing effort. I'm doing exactly that. I have an ant target that builds the models and then publishes the 'model' ivy conf. I run through all the projects building/publishing the models. I then go back and start building the rest of the project code. Note that 'going back and building the rest of the project code' implies a new publishing call... this time with all the artifacts, not just the model artifact.
However ivy is.. mildly unhappy with it. For example, it sometimes sees module A's 'published' ivy.xml with just the model jar, and then might find out later there's an updated ivy.xml for module A that has model and non-model jars in it. By and large I can get around that with 'changing="true"' dependency flag.
However, lately even that just fails for me and ivy is trying to build projects out of order and thus failing. Also I occasionally get into trouble about a missing version of a project (due again to the fact that it's seeing two different versions of a project's ivy.xml within the same build cycle).
So what's the recommended approach here? Separate ivy projects (in the same file structure) perhaps?
Why don't you structure your project to have a common module that builds and publishes the jars containing the message model classes?
├── build.xml
├── common
│   ├── build.xml
│   ├── ivy.xml
│   └── src
| ..
├── module1
│   ├── build.xml
│   ├── ivy.xml
│   └── src
| ..
└── module2
├── build.xml
├── ivy.xml
└── src
..
Each module can then have a dependency on these common dependencies:
<dependency org="myproj.common" name="module1-model" rev="1.0"/>
The root build file can use the buildlist task to determine the module build order based on the ivy file dependencies.
<target name="determine-build-order">
<ivy:buildlist reference="build-path">
<fileset dir="." includes="modules/**/build.xml"/>
</ivy:buildlist>
</target>
<target name="build" depends="determine-build-order">
<subant target="build" buildpathref="build-path" />
</target>