I have a project that needs to incorporate two third-party libraries, libA and libB. I have little, if any, influence over the third-party libraries. The problem being is that both libA and libB include different versions of a common library, ASIHTTPRequest. As a result, I'm getting errors like:
-[ASIFormDataRequest setNumberOfTimesToRetryOnTimeout:]: unrecognized selector sent to instance 0x3b4170
, which I can only assume are because libA is referring to libB's implementation of ASIHTTPRequest (or the other way around).
I've tried playing around with strip -s <symbol file> -u <library> to isolate the libraries' symbols from each other, but that results in XCode's linker spitting out thousands of warnings and doesn't actually fix the main problem outlined above.
ld: warning: can't add line info to anonymous symbol anon-func-0x0 from ...
In general, how can/should one isolate libraries from each other?
There is absolutely no way to do so. One Objective-C application can have only one meaning for one symbol at a time. If you load two different versions of one library the last one will overwrite the first one.
Two workarounds:
convince the developer to use a recent version
run both libraries in separate processes
If they used the same linker symbol name for different routines, the only way out (short of hacking their object files), is to link them into different executables somehow.
On platforms that support dynamic linking (eg: DLLs) you could build one or both into a separate DLL. If they aren't part of the exported interface the symbols shouldn't clash then.
Otherwise you would be stuck putting them into entirely separate processes and using IPC to pass data between them.
Related
When I see CMake libraries with namespaces they are always in the form
Parent::Component.
If I have a sufficiently large library, there may be subsections of that library that have components. I am wondering if it is possible/appropriate to do something like ParentProject::Subgouping::SpecificComponent or for a more real world example Raytracing::Math::Utils.
In short, can I use multiple namespaces in a CMake library name? If it is possible, is it a good idea?
In short, can I use multiple namespaces in a CMake library name?
Yes. A colon (:) is just like any other character in a CMake target name. However, the target_link_libraries command will interpret any argument containing :: in its name as a proper CMake target, rather than as a potential system library. So if you mis-type a target name or it otherwise doesn't exist, you'll get a useful error at configure time, rather than a broken build.
Having multiple instances of :: in the name behaves the same as having just one.
If it is possible, is it a good idea?
It's about as good an idea as nested namespaces are in C++. If it makes sense, do it. The only minor difference is that CMake has no using namespace equivalent, so they're slightly less convenient to type.
In several of my projects, I use a namespace like Project::Tools:: to hold any build-time tools (like custom code generators) that need to be built separately for the sake of cross-compilation (when CMAKE_CROSSCOMPILING_EMULATOR is not an option).
I have big project with cmake. It mostly works.
But recently some combination of compilation server vs test server broke. Investigation found that final compile/link command calls gcc (...) -licudata -licui18n -licuuc (...), this introduces dependency on shared library which is not present on test server.
How do I find out what in my project (my library, imported library, found library, whatever) adds those 3 flags to compile command?
I don't add them explicitly, so something is done automagically and I want to find it. compile_commands.json doesn't have them because linking flags don't belong in it. CMakeCache.txt has those flags in some obscure variable PC_LIBXML_STATIC_LIBRARIES:INTERNAL but removing them there doesn't affect compile/link command.
Note that this question is not about dealing with libicu specifically but about a method for investigation in general (though comments about eventual known problems with libicu would be appreciated too).
I found out that dependency graphs created by cmake can have more details that was configured for our project. Here are all options: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/module/CMakeGraphVizOptions.html I expect GRAPHVIZ_EXTERNAL_LIBS, GRAPHVIZ_SHARED_LIBS are most important to set to true.
We enabled everything that was possible to enable, filtered out nothing and resulting graph was massive (to big for xdot - luckily .dot files are human readable), but showed that Boost::regex uses those 3 libraries.
I'm having trouble understanding if/how to share code among several Fortran projects without building libraries or duplicating source code.
I am using Eclipse/Photran with the Intel compiler (ifort) on a linux system, but I believe I'm having a bigger conceptual problem with modules than with the specific tools.
Here's a simple example: In ~/workspace/cow I have a source directory (src) containing cow.f90 (the PROGRAM) and two modules m_graze and m_moo in m_graze.f90 and m_moo.f90, respectively. This project builds and links properly to create the executable 'cow'. The executable and modules (m_graze.mod and m_moo.mod) are stored in ~/workspace/cow/Debug and object files are stored under ~/workspace/cow/Debug/src
Later, I create ~/workplace/sheep and have src/sheep.f90 as the program and src/m_baa.f90 as the module m_baa. I want to 'use m_graze, only: ruminate' in sheep.f90 to get access to the ruminate() subroutine. I could just copy m_graze.f90 but that could lead to code getting out of sync and doesn't take into account any dependencies m_graze might have. For these reasons, I'd rather leave m_graze in the cow project and compile and link sheep.f90 against it.
If I try to compile the sheep project, I'll get an error like:
error #7002: Error in opening the compiled module file. Check INCLUDE paths. [M_GRAZE]
Under Properties:Project References for sheep, I can select the cow project. Under Properties:Fortran Build:Settings:Intel Compiler:Preprocessor I can add ~/workspace/cow/Debug (location of the module files) to the list of include directories so the compiler now finds the cow modules and compiles sheep.f90. However the linker dies with something like:
Building target: sheep
Invoking: Intel(R) Fortran Linker
ifort -L/home/me/workspace/cow/Debug -o "sheep" ./src/sheep.o
./src/sheep.o: In function `sheep':
/home/me/workspace/sheep/src/sheep.f90:11: undefined reference to `m_graze_mp_ruminate_'
This would normally be solved by adding libraries and library paths to the linker settings except there are no appropriate libraries to link to (this is Fortran, not C.)
The cow project was perfectly capable of compiling and linking together cow.f90, m_graze.f90 and m_moo.f90 into an executable. Yet while the sheep project can compile sheep.f90 and m_baa.f90 and can find the module m_graze.mod, it can't seem to find the symbols for m_graze even though all the requisite information is present on the system for it to do so.
It would seem to be an easy matter of configuration to get the linker portion of ifort to find the missing pieces and put them together but I have no idea what magic words need to be entered where in the Photran UI to make this happen.
I confess an utter lack of interest and competence in C and the C build process and I'd rather avoid the diversion of creating libraries (.a or .so) unless that's the only way to make this work.
Ultimately, I'm looking for a pure Fortran solution to this problem so I can keep a single copy of the source code and don't have to manually maintain a pile of custom Makefiles.
So can this be done?
Apologies if this has already been documented somewhere; Google is only showing me simple build examples, how to create modules, and how to link with existing libraries. There don't seem to be (m)any examples of code reuse with modules that don't involve duplicating source code.
Edit
As respondents have pointed out, the .mod files are necessary but not sufficient; either object code (in the form of m_graze.o) or static or shared libraries must be specified during the linking phase. The .mod files describe the interface to the object code/library but both are necessary to build the final executable.
For an oversimplified toy problem such as this, that's sufficient to answer the question as posed.
In a larger project with more complex dependencies (in my case, 80+KLOC of F90 linking to the MKL version of LAPACK95), the IDE or toolchain may lack sufficient automatic or user-interface facilities to make sharing a single canonical set of source files a viable strategy. The choice seems to be between risking duplicate source files getting out of sync, giving up many of the benefits of an IDE (i.e. avoiding manual creation of make/CMake/SCons files), or, in all likelihood, both. While a revision control system and good code organization can help, it's clear that sharing a single canonical set of source files among projects is far from easy given the current state of Eclipse.
Some background which I suspect you already know: Typically (including ifort) compiling the source code for a Fortran module results in two outputs - a "mod" file that contains a description of the Fortran entities that the module defines that the compiler needs to find whenever it sees a USE statement for the module, and object code for the linker that implements the procedures and variable storage, etc., that the module defines.
Your first error (the one you solved) is because the compiler couldn't find the mod file.
The second error is because the linker hasn't been told about the object code that implements the stuff that was in the source file with the module. I'm not an Eclipse user by any means, but a brute force way of specifying that is just to add the object file (xxxxx/Debug/m_graze.o) as an additional linker option (Fortran Build > Settings, under Intel Fortran Linker > Command Line). (Other tool chains have explicit "additional object file" properties for their link stage - there may well be a better way of doing this for the Intel chain.)
For more involved examples you would typically create a library out of the shared code. That's not really C specific, the only Fortran aspect is that the libraries archive of object code needs to be provided alongside the mod files that the Fortran compiler generates.
Yes the object code must be provided. E.g., when you install libnetcdf-dev in Debian (apt-get install libnetcdf-dev), there is a /usr/include/netcdf.mod file that is included.
You can now use all netcdf routines in your Fortran code. E.g.,
program main
use netcdf
...
end
but you'll have link to the netcdf shared (or static) library, i.e.,
gfortran -I/usr/include/ main.f90 -lnetcdff
However, as user MSB mentioned the mod file can only be used by gfortran that comes with the distribution (apt-get install gfortran). If you want to use any other compiler (even a different version that you may have installed yourself) then you'll have to build netcdf yourself using that particular compiler.
So creating a library is not a bad solution.
I am trying to run sample Fortran code on Xcode 4.3 using a 64-bit compiler and it will not build correctly. The main problem is that despite my best efforts, I cannot get the separate .f90 files to interact with each other, thus code like
USE ElementModule, ONLY : ElementType
will not work. Does anybody have any answers regarding how to get the separate .f90 files to read each other. I'm aware you have to include specific modules, but my search hasn't given me any straight answers regarding what those specific modules are.
Normally when F90 code compiles, it generates 2 files: an object file and a mod file. When compiling subsequent modules, the mod files are used for the USE statements.
If you have circular dependency, then you have to build two or more times. Best to avoid circular dependency if you can avoid it.
The mod files are normally picked up by the same directive that tells the compiler where the include files are.
I have created a static library containing all my generic classes. Some of these classes use frameworks.
Now I have two projects, one that uses some classes that use frameworks, and one that doesn't use any of the classes that use frameworks.
Because Static Libraries don't support including frameworks (if I am correct). I have to include the frameworks in the project that uses them. But when I compile the project that doesn't use any of the framework-classes the compiler breaks because it still requires the frameworks. Now I know it tries to compile all the (unused) classes from the library because I use the Linker Flag '-ObjC' to prevent 'unrecognized selector' errors.
Does anyone know how to compile only the required source files per project? And prevent from all frameworks having to be included in all projects that use my static library?
First of all, you are right in that a static library cannot include any framework nor other static libraries, it is just the collection of all object files (*.obj) that make up that specific static library.
Does anyone know how to compile only the required source files per project?
The linker will by default only link in object files from the static library that contain symbols referenced by the application. So, if you have two files a.m and b.m in your static library and you only use symbols from a.m in your main program, then b.o (the object file generated from b.c) will not appear in your final executable. As a sub-case, if b.m uses a function/class c which is only declared (not implemented), then you will not get any linker errors. As soon as you include some symbols from b.m in your program, b.o will also be linked and you will get linker errors due to the missing implementation of c.
If you want this kind of selection to happen at symbol rather than at object level granularity, enable dead code stripping in Xcode. This corresponds to the gcc option -Wl,-dead_strip (= linker option -dead_strip in the Build settings Info pane for your project). This would ensure further optimization.
In your case, though, as you correctly say, it is the use of the "-ObjC" linker flag that defeats this mechanism. So this actually depends on you. If you remove the -Objc flag, you get the behavior you like for free, while losing the stricter check on selectors.
And prevent from all frameworks having to be included in all projects that use my static library?
Xcode/GCC support an linking option which is called "weak linking", which allows to lazily load a framework or static library, i.e., only when one of its symbols is actually used.
"weak linking" can be enabled either through a linker flag (see Apple doc above), or through Xcode UI (Target -> Info -> General -> Linked Libraries).
Anyhow, the framework or library must be available in all cases at compile/link time: the "weak" option only affects the moment when the framework is first loaded at runtime. Thus, I don't think this is useful for you, since you would need anyway to include the framework in all of your projects, which is what you do not want.
As a side note, weak_linking is an option that mostly make sense when using features only available on newer SDK version (say, 4.3.2) while also supporting deployment on older SDK versions (say, 3.1.3). In this case, you rely on the fact that the newer SDK frameworks will be actually available on the newer deployment devices, and you conditionally compile in the features requiring it, so that on older devices they will not be required (and will not produce thus the attempt at loading the newer version of the framework and the crash).
To make things worse, GCC does not support a feature known as "auto-linking" with Microsoft compilers, which allow to specify which library to link by means of a #pragma comment in your source file. This could offer a workaround, but is not there.
So, I am really sorry to have to say that you should use a different approach that could equally satisfy your needs:
remove the -ObjC flag;
split your static library in two or more parts according to their dependencies from external frameworks;
resort to including the source files directly.
Abour second part of your question, you can mark a linked framework as Optional :
About first part, it is not clear to me what you intend to do:
A library being declared in a project
A project declaring which files are compiled (via Target > Build phases > Compile sources)
Unless setting complex build rules to include or not files, which if I remember well can be done using .xcconfig files, I don't see any other solutions than splitting your Library. Which I would recommend, for its ease. You should even do several targets in the same project... You could also just use precompiler MACROS (#ifdef...) but that depends on what you want to do.
It sounds like you have library bloat. To keep things small I think you need to refactor your library into separate libraries with minimal dependencies. You could try turning on "Dead Code Stripping" in the "Linker Flags" section of the build target info (Xcode 3.x) to see if that does what you want (doesn't require frameworks used by classes that are dead-stripped.)
When you link against a framework on iOS I don't think that really adds any bloat since the framework is on the device and not in your application. But your library is still a bit bloated by having entire classes that never get used but are not stripped out of the library.
A static library is built before your app is compiled, and then the whole thing is linked into your app. There's no way to include some parts of the library but not others -- you get the whole enchilada.
Since you have the source code for the library, why not just add the code directly to each application? That way you can control exactly what goes into each app. You can still keep your generic classes together in the same location, and use the same code in both apps, but you avoid the hassle of using a library.