I have a project that first uses a C++ program to process some template files (setup as a subdirectory) and then needs to cross-compile to run on vxworks. The cross compile part will be done via a custom command and .bat file but the first part will vary depending on the available options.
If the computer has an appropriate compiler it should compile the template processor program as necessary before running it. Some computers, though, won't have a regular c++ compiler. In this case I want to assume that the template processor program is installed to a specific location and continue using that prebuilt version.
How would I go about tackling this with CMake?
You can give try_run a try. It compiles and executes C++ source code. If execution fails. it is indicated in the failed run variable you pass as the first argument.
The advantage of using this is, that you don't have to take care of the right compiler call or any flags.
Documentation: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.4/command/try_run.html
Especially the section about cross compilation
Related
We have a quite large Fortran program that's developed and builded using Visual Studio and Ifort for Windows. On the linux side, we used to get the .dep generated on windows side, proccess it using a script, and create a command line call with the files on the order needed for the compilation. Now, I'm trying to rewrite the linux build using CMake.
After many solved problems (casing, enconding, ...) I've encountered some errors on the linking part. We have some subroutines defined on separated files that get called straight from other files like: CALL SUBROUTINE_NAME ()
I guess VisualStudio is somehow handling this linking but when I try to compile it using CMake on linux i get an error "undefined reference to SUBROUTINE_NAME".
My first tought was trying to include the file where this routine is defined but the subroutines are defined on multiple directories and, as far I understand, unless I put all this places on the include path for the compiler they can't be found.
Another option would be rewriting all this as modules and using them where needed. I guess this would be a cleaner solution but also a lot of work that I'm not sure I'd have the time for now.
First of all, I'd like to make sure my reasoning seems right and then what would be the best or some alternatives way to deal with this, like a way to manually include the paths for each occurrence or if there's a way to make CMake work like VisualStudio and resolve this references for example.
Thanks in advance for any insight and don't hesitate to get in touch and ask for more information if needed.
Edit to add more CMake info as requested:
CMakeLists.txt:
file(GLOB_RECURSE sources ./src/*.for)
add_executable(program_name ${sources}
target_include_directories(program_name PUBLIC "./src/includes")
I've managed to manually compile the file passing the .o of the separated subroutine but couldn't get CMake to include it as needed.
My subroutine file is been processed by CMake and a .o file is been generated for it, as I'm passing it as source.
Whenever I use a module, CMake can automatically add the module as a dependency for the file. But on this cases, where I'm calling the subroutine directly it doesn't generate the correct dependency for the Makefile.
So I'm using CMake for a project.
It consists of a set of shared libraries linked to one executable. All are generated in the project (there are no external targets). Each sub project lives in its own directory, with its own cmakelists file.
So I make an out-of-source build, taking care to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to Debug, and run cmake, and then make. I use GNU make 3.81, GCC 4.8.1, binutils 2.23.2 and CMake 3.2.3 on a Windows box using MSYS/MINGW.
The problem is that, when I load this executable in gdb (version 7.6), place a breakpoint on a function from one of the shared libraries, and then try to single step, gdb skips the whole function saying it has no line number information.
According to my understanding, line number information is a part of the debugging information, so I expected this to be generated during the compiling process (as per the CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE) which it didn't, so I would like to know how I can get CMake to generate this line number information properly (that is, without manually adding compiler-specific options in the cmake files, although I would take that if it's the only solution).
I've tried setting CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE from the command line (when invoking the cmake utility), inside the cmakelists, and even by modifying the CMakeCache.txt, and restarting the build from an empty directory with no success. I then made sure that CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE was effectively set to Debug by using the MESSAGE command to print it's value, and it was correctly set to Debug. So then I executed 'make VERBOSE=1' to see if the correct compiler option was added, and found it correctly used the "-g" option (although I would have expected -ggdb, but more on this later). The cmake documentation and Google did not bring me any answers.
My hypothesis is that the -g option only generates basic debugging information (such as the mappings between functions and their memory addresses, and how to access their arguments) whereas -ggdb would generate more in-detail debugging information in a gdb-specific format, including said line number informations), but a troubling fact is that, when running the executable in gdb, functions defined inside the executable do have line number information, only the shared libraries don't, hence my confusion.
How to only build a static library with clion without having an executable?
How does the CMakeLists.txt look like? (without add_executable)
Update: If I don't add executable to Clion, I have an
error, that an executable is required.
Here my CMakeLists.txt.
This is an old question. But I'll add the answer to your question as a help for other people. You need to replace your add_executable with add_library
add_library(target_name source_files)
Short answer: compile the library target and run any custom command as a placeholder to avoid the warning.
Long answer:
CLion lets you either build the whole project and run executables/configurations.
When running executables, you can choose a target to compile and the executable to run after compiling the target. For executable targets, they are usually the same thing. You compile the executable target and then run it.
It seems like this is not really designed for libraries, but there is a workaround. You usually set the target to be the library and the executable to be any executable that depends on this library. However, this is usually not very useful because if you wanted to run this executable you could just set this executable to be the target and the library would be built anyway.
So people probably want to just build the library (to check if everything is OK, etc) without compiling or running any extra executable targets. In this case, the workaround is to choose a custom executable to run after building the library, and the error message is gone.
You have nothing useful you need to run after building the library, just choose any cheap command as a placeholder. Something like "pwd" or "ls".
I'm relitavely new to embedded development and I have a question, or more of a feedback, on building and linking the µIP library on an embedded device. For what it's worth, the following is using a FOX G20 V board with an ATMEL AT91SAM9G20 processor with no OS.
I have done some research, and the way I see myself building and linking the library on the board is one of the following two options.
Option 1: The first option would be to compile the whole library (the .c files) in order to have a built static library in the form of a .a file. Then, I can link the created static library with my application code, before loading it on the device. Of course, the device driver will have to be programmed in order to allow the library to work on the platform (help was found here). This first option is using a Linux machine. For this first option as well, in order to load the static library linked with my application code, do I do so with an "scp"?
Option 2: The second option would be to compile and link the library to my application code directly without going through an intermediate static library. However, since my platorm does not contain an OS, I would need to install an appropraite GCC compiler in order to compile and link (if anyone has any leads for such an installation, that would be very helpful as well). However I'm quite unfamilier with the second option, but I've been told that it is easier to implement so if anyone as an idea on how to implement it, it would be very helpful.
I would appreciate some feedback along with the answers as to whether these options seem correct to you, and to be sure that I have not mentioned something that is false.
There is no real difference between these options. In any case, the host toolchain is responsible for creating a binary file that contains a fully linked executable with no external dependencies, so you need a cross compiler either way, and it is indeed easiest to just compile uIP along with the rest of the application.
The toolchain will typically have a cross compiler (if you use gcc, it should be named arm-eabi-gcc or arm-none-eabi-gcc), cross linker (arm-eabi-ld), cross archiver (arm-eabi-ar) etc. You would use these instead of the native tools. For Debian, you can find a cross compiler for ARM targets without an OS in testing/unstable.
Whether you build a static library
arm-eabi-gcc -c uip.c
arm-eabi-ar cru uip.a uip.o
arm-eabi-ranlib uip.a
arm-eabi-gcc -o executable application.c uip.a
or directly link
arm-eabi-gcc -c application.c
arm-eabi-gcc -c uip.c
arm-eabi-gcc -o executable application.o uip.o
or directly compile and link
arm-eabi-gcc -o executable application.c uip.c
makes no real difference.
If you use an integrated development environment, it is usually easiest to just add uip.c as a source file.
I'm considering to use CMake for projects targeting a microcontroller. I found out how to create a toolchain file and invoke cmake -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=Path/To/Toolchain.cmake to make CMake do cross-compiling.
However most projects that I work on have also code that must be compiled for the host platform. These are often unit tests or other test tools, which share most part of their code with the binary that will run on the microcontroller. A rare case might be a project that even has two processors having a different instruction architectures, thus needing a host compiler and two different cross compilers.
I'd like to have one build that rules them all. Is it possible to have a construction that I only need to call cmake /path/to/source && make, or is the only solution having multiple 'root' CMakeList.txt files, each for every target?
Each cmake run will target one specific generator and thus one platform.
What you want can be achieved by having one hierarchy of CMakeLists files for each platform. You need to get to a point where doing a succession of cmake .. && make calls will build the whole project.
Then write a master CMakeLists that executes all of those separate build steps for you, e.g. through ExternalProject_Add or by using custom commands. Depending on the structure of your project it might make sense to have only the tools required for building being processed this way and add the sources for the actual project directly to the master CMakeLists instead.