To support multiple platforms in C/C++, one would use the preprocessor to enable conditional compiles. E.g.,
#ifdef _WIN32
#include <windows.h>
#endif
How can you do this in Ada? Does Ada have a preprocessor?
The answer to your question is no, Ada does not have a pre-processor that is built into the language. That means each compiler may or may not have one and there is not "uniform" syntax for pre-processing and things like conditional compilation. This was intentional: it's considered "harmful" to the Ada ethos.
There are almost always ways around a lack of a preprocessor but often times the solution can be a little cumbersome. For example, you can declare the platform specific functions as 'separate' and then use build-tools to compile the correct one (either a project system, using pragma body replacement, or a very simple directory system... put all the windows files in /windows/ and all the linux files in /linux/ and include the appropriate directory for the platform).
All that being said, GNAT realized that sometimes you need a preprocessor and has created gnatprep. It should work regardless of the compiler (but you will need to insert it into your build process). Similarly, for simple things (like conditional compilation) you can probably just use the c pre-processor or even roll your own very simple one.
AdaCore provides the gnatprep preprocessor, which is specialized for Ada. They state that gnatprep "does not depend on any special GNAT features", so it sounds as though it should work with non-GNAT Ada compilers. Their User Guide also provides some conditional compilation advice.
I have been on a project where m4 was used as well, with the Ada spec and body files suffixed as ".m4s" and ".m4b", respectively.
My preference is really to avoid preprocessing altogether, and just use specialized bodies, setting up CM and the build process to manage them.
No but the CPP preprocessor or m4 can be called on any file on the command line or using a building tool like make or ant. I suggest calling your .ada file something else. I have done this for some time on java files. I call the java file .m4 and use a make rule to create the .java and then build it in the normal way.
I hope that helps.
Yes, it has.
If you are using GNAT compiler, you can use gnatprep for doing the preprocessing, or if you use GNAT Programming Studio you can configure your project file to define some conditional compilation switches like
#if SOMESWITCH then
-- Your code here is executed only if the switch SOMESWITCH is active in your build configuration
#end if;
In this case you can use gnatmake or gprbuild so you don't have to run gnatprep by hand.
That's very useful, for example, when you need to compile the same code for several different OS's using even different cross-compilers.
Some old Ada1983-era compilers have a package called a.app that utilized a #-prefixed subset of Ada (interpreted at build-time) as a preprocessing language for generating Ada (to be then translated to machine code at compile-time). Rational's Verdix Ada Development System (VADS) appears to be the progenitor of a.app among several Ada compilers. Sun Microsystems, for example, derived the Ada SPARCompiler from VADS and thus also had a.app. This is not unlike the use of PL/I as the preprocessor of PL/I, which IBM did.
Chapter 2 is some documentation of what a.app looks like: http://dlc.sun.com/pdf/802-3641/802-3641.pdf
No, it does not.
If you really want one, there are ways to get one (Use C's, use a stand-alone one, etc.) However I'd argue against it. It was a purposeful design decision to not have one. The whole idea of a preprocessor is very un-Ada.
Most of what C's preprocessor is used for can be accomplished in Ada in other more reliable ways. The only major exception is in making minor changes to a source file for cross-platform support. Given how much this gets abused in a typical cross-platform C program, I'm still happy there's no support for it in Ada. Very few C/C++ developers can control themselves enough to keep the changes "minor". The result may work, but is often nearly impossible for a human to read.
The typical Ada way to accomplish this would be to put the different code in different files and use your build system to somehow choose between them at compile time. Make is plenty powerful enough to help you do this.
Related
I am combining two designs into a single chip design. The RTL code is written in SystemVerilog for synthesis. Unfortunately, the two designs contain a number of modules with identical names but slightly different logic.
Is there a namespace or library capability in SystemVerilog that would allow me to specify different modules with the same name? In other words is there a lib1::module1, lib2::module1 syntax I could use to specify which module I want? How is this sort of module namespace pollution best handled?
Thanks
Look into config and library. See IEEE Std 1800-2017 § 33. Configuring the contents of a design
library will map this files to target libraries based on file paths (IEEE Std 1800-2017 § 33.3. Libraries)
config will map which library to use for paralytic module (global, instances, subscope) (IEEE Std 1800-2017 § 33.4. Configurations)
Examples are provided in the section 33.8.
Note: some simulators want -libmap <configfile> in the command line. Refer to your simulators manual.
Unfortunately, neither verilog nor system verilog provide a comprehensive solution for the namespaces problem for design element (which include modules). V2K libraries and config statements (yes,they were introduced in verilog v2k) can partially help you solving this issue for modules only, and only if you plan for this in advance and use correct methodology to implement it. Not many people try to use v2k libs to solve it.
There are other parts of this as well, which you might discover. It include other design elements, macro names, file names, package names, ... System verilog makes it even worse with introducing of the global scopes.
So, depending on the complexity of your design you might be able to fix it with v2k libs. But in general, the solution always lies in the methodology and having those names uniquified upfront. Some companies even try to use on-fly uniquification by automatically rewriting verilog code in order to make those names unique.
You might also be able to solve some of the issues like that using compilation units, as defined in the SV standard and which are implemented at least by major tool vendors.
I am working on a free-software project which involves high performance computing and the MPI library.
In my code, I need to know the size of the MPI_Offset type, which is defined in mpi.h.
Normally such projects would be build using autotools and this problem would be easily solved. But for my sins, I am working with a CMake build and I can't find any way to perform this simple task. But there must be a way to do - it is commonly done on autotools projects, so I assume it is also possible in CMake.
When I use:
check_type_size("MPI_Offset" SIZEOF_MPI_OFFSET)
It fails, because mpi.h is not included in the generated C code.
Is there a way to tell check_type_size() to include mpi.h?
This is done via CMAKE_EXTRA_INCLUDE_FILES:
INCLUDE (CheckTypeSize)
find_package(MPI)
include_directories(SYSTEM ${MPI_INCLUDE_PATH})
SET(CMAKE_EXTRA_INCLUDE_FILES "mpi.h")
check_type_size("MPI_Offset" SIZEOF_MPI_OFFSET)
SET(CMAKE_EXTRA_INCLUDE_FILES)
It may be more common to write platform checks with autotools, so here is some more information on how to write platform checks with CMake.
On a personal note, while CMake is certainly not the most pleasant exercise, for me autotools is reserved for the capital sins. It is really hard to me to defend CMake, but in this instance, it is even documented. Naturally, setting a separate "variable" that you even have to reset after the fact, instead of just passing it as a parameter, is clearly conforming to the surprising "design principles" of CMake.
I'm trying to clean up a fortran make process for distribution. Currently, two libraries are made, and then the executable is compiled linking to the libraries and including the module files. I see from previous answers (Distribute compiled fortran library with module files) that you can't get rid of the module files and that they can be different for every machine and compiler. This is very annoying.
However, the code in my libraries are made up entirely of modules. It seems like I don't need the library part at all; I can just include the modules. I've tried this and it does compile and run on small examples.
Will this always work (when all I have are modules in the libraries)? Is it best practice? Should I instead consider rewriting my libraries NOT to use modules so I can avoid all these compiler dependencies and only distribute the lib*.a files? Is that what this document is referring to by using submodules (which no one supports static lib with many modules)
It really depends on the features you have in your library. Does it have only a couple of declarations? Then the .mod files would suffice, but why not distribute the source in such a simple case?
Are all your public procedures simple enough, so that they do not require an explicit interface and they are outside of modules? Then you don't need any .mod files.
Do you have a simple public module or an include file with the public API and the rest is private? You can then distribute the source of the API module or the include file. I would recommend to place just the interface blocks and other declarations in this module.
Be aware of one important problem. You can get away (using interface locks or similar) with avoiding the non-portable .mod files, but if the procedures are using some more advanced argument passing, their ABI is often NOT portable between different compilers or even some compiler versions. You would the be able to compile it and get mysterious crashes when calling your library.
Submodules can change it all, but actually I do not expect they will solve portability between compilers. The user of your library will still need the same compiler you had. It is true that interfacing the closed source software will be easier, but not more portable between compilers.
You can link either from a library lib*.a, or from object files. Both will be at least platform dependent and so more difficult to distribute than source code. library file might have the advantage of fewer files. In either case, linking from lib*a or object files, you can present your code to the user as a library of procedures to call. If you don't want to distribute your source code, then you will have to compile for however many platforms you support. Modules are a major advantage of modern Fortran, automating the checking of procedure actual and dummy arguments. Compared to, for example, C header files, they have the advantage of being automatic, but the disadvantage of producing a compiler-dependent intermediate file. If you are providing procedures to other programmers, it would seem a bad idea not to provide them with this interface checking. If you want to hide your source code, then you could write interface blocks describing the procedures and distribute only this source for them to compile.
I would like to know in which language the "proto compiler" (the compiler used to generate source files from Java, Python or c++) is written? Is it maybe a mix of languages?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks in Advance
Horace
It appears to be written in C++. There's also documentation on Java and Python APIs, but those don't appear to contain the compiler itself (at least I don't see anything that's obviously the compiler in either case, though I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking for it either).
That said, I'm almost tempted to vote to close -- for most practical purposes, the language used to implement the compiler is basically a trivia question, irrelevant to actual use. There is, however, an entirely legitimate exception: if you're going to download and modify the compiler, knowing the language you'd need to work with could be quite useful.
The protoc compiler is written in C or C++ (its a native program anyway).
When I want to process proto files in java files, I
I use the protoc command to convert them to a Protocol Buffer File ie
protoc protofile.proto --descriptor_set_out=OutputFile
Read the new protocol buffer file (its a FileDescriptorSet) and use it
An over complicated example is example, is compileProto method in
http://code.google.com/p/protobufeditor/source/browse/trunk/%20protobufeditor/Source/ProtoBufEditor/src/net/sf/RecordEditor/ProtoBuf/re/display/ProtoLayoutSelection.java
its compilcated because options because the protoc command and options can be stored in a properties file.
Note: The getFileDescriptor method reads the newly created protocol buffer
You write a function and, looking at the resulting assembly, you see it can be improved.
You would like to keep the function you wrote, for readability, but you would like to substitute your own assembly for the compiler's. Is there any way to establish a relationship between your high-livel language function and the new assembly?
If you are looking at the assembly, then its fair to assume that you have a good understanding about how code gets compiled down. If you have this knowledge, then its sometimes possible to 'reverse enginer' the changes back up into the original language but its often better not to bother.
The optimisations that you make are likely to be very small in comparison to the time and effort required in first making these changes. I would suggest that you leave this kind of work to the compiler and go have a cup of tea. If the changes are significant, and the performance is critical, (as say in the embedded world) then you might want to mix the normal code with the assemblar in some fashion, however, on most computers and chips the performance is usually sufficient to avoid this headache.
If you really need more performance, then optimise the code not the assembly.
None, I suppose. You've rejected the compiler's work in favor of your own. You might as well throw out the function you wrote in the compiled language, because now all you have is your assembler in that platform.
I would highly advise against engaging in this kind of optimization because unless you're sure, via profiling and analysis, that you truly are making a difference.
It depends on the language you wrote your function in. Some languages like C are very low-level, translating each function call or statement to specific assembly statements. If you did use C, you can replace your function with inline assembly to improve performance.
Other high-level languages may convert each statement into macro routines or other more complex calls on the assembly side. Certain optimizations (like tail recursion, loop unrolling, etc) can be implemented easily on the source side, but others (like making more efficient use of the register file) may be impossible (again, depending on the language and the compiler you're using).
Its tough to say there is any relationship between modified assembly and the source which generated the unmodified version. It will certainly confuse debugging tools: register contents will no longer match the source variables they were supposed to correspond to.
There are a number of places in packet processing code where I've examined the generated assembly and gone back to change the original source code in order to improve the result. Re-arranging source can reduce the number of branches, __attribute__ and compiler arguments can align branch points and functions to reduce I$ misses. In desperate cases a little inline assembly can be used, so that the binary can still be compiled from source.
Something you could try is to separate your original function into its own file, and provide a make rule to build the assembler from there. Then update the assembler file with your improved version, and provide a make rule to build an object file from the assembler file. Then change your link rules to include that object file.
If you only ever change the assembler file, that will keep on being used. If you ever change the original higher-level language file, the assembler file will be rebuilt and the object file built from the new (unimproved) version.
This gives you a relationship between the two; you probably want to add a warning comment at the top of the higher-level language file to warn about the behaviour. Using some form of VCS will give you the ability to recover the improved assembler file if you make a mistake here.
If you're writing a native compiled app in Visual C++, there are two methods:
Use the __asm { } block and write your assembler in there.
Write your functions in MASM assembler, assemble to .obj, and link it as an static library. In your C/C++ code, declare the function with an extern "C" declaration.
Other C/C++ compilers have similar approaches.
In this situation, you generally have two options: optimize the code or rewrite the compiler. I can't see where breaking the link between source and op is ever going to be the correct solution.