Is it possible to compile mod_go.c successfully and produce the Apache module (mod_go.so) for GOLANG in Windows environment?
Unfortunately i can not find any detailed instructions such as type of C++ compiler, apache version etc as well as what steps i have to follow?
Regards
Probably that is not possible, but I leave you to check.
Go plugins are only supported on Linux. So if you absolutely need to code Apache modules in Go (which requires dynamic loading of shared object produced by the Go compiler, that is a plugin coded in Go), you'll better switch to Linux. BTW the linker model of Windows is very different from Linux, so it won't change easily and I won't be surprised that Go won't have plugin on Windows for a few years.
Linux dlopen(3) (actually a POSIX feature) and its shared libraries (ELF shared objects, containing position-independent code) are very different from Windows LoadLibrary and DLLs.
Read Levine's Linkers and Loaders book and (for Linux) Drepper's paper How To Write Shared Libraries
So if you badly need to write this year (e.g. before the end of 2018) a plugin in Go to be used by Apache, I strongly recommend switching your Apache server machine to Linux.
BTW, it looks like your mod_go don't use Go plugins (but communicate with some external process, I leave you to study its source code, I only glanced into it) Perhaps using FastCGI could be simpler, since Go has FastCGI support. Probably Windows' Apache could be configured to talk to some FastCGI application (notice that FastCGI is not CGI).
(I don't know Windows, never used it, but read a few things about its weird -and IMHO inferior to Unix- linking model)
I'm starting to work on my master thesis at the moment and I have a (maybe) specific question...
I want to stay on windows OS and run a Linux VM via VirtualBox combined with Vagrant. No Problem. I like the feature to reset the VM via vagrant easily.
The next target is using features like auto-completing or similar while developing in C++. This would help me to work with unknown includes/libraries.
Is it possible to access the filesystem/compiler of the VM while using an IDE (like clion) installed on windows? Without explicit loading of the gui und running the IDE on it? Kinda like working with cygwin? I don't want to use cygwin because it doesn't support c++11 standard (or is there a way???)
Maybe you know an alternative way. I would be glad for all hints solving my problem.
I don't know much about cygwin, though I would be surprised if they cannot get recent versions of gcc. But for certain, you can use MSYS2 to get very recent versions of gcc and many other linux packages, which will support C++11.
It's a matter of opinion how best to do cross-platform development, but an alternative worth mentioning is to use cmake for your project. When you want to code in windows, it can make MSVC 2015 project files for you -- when you want to compile in linux, it can find the dependencies and generate a makefile for you to use. IIUC, cmake is the most widely used cross-platform build system right now, besides gnu make itself. (I'm pretty sure it's more popular than "autotools" nowadays, and its definitely more popular than scons.) The advantage is that you avoid the need to maintain multiple platform-specific project files that essentially say the same thing with different formatting.
If I build a DLL with Rust language, does it require libgcc*.dll to be present on run time?
On one hand:
I've seen a post somewhere on the Internet, claiming that yes it does;
rustc.exe has libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll in its directory, and cargo.exe won't run without the dll when downloaded from the http://crates.io website;
On the other hand:
I've seen articles about building toy OS kernels in Rust, so they most certainly don't require libgcc dynamic library to be present.
So, I'm confused. What's the definite answer?
Rust provides two main toolchains for Windows: x86_64-pc-windows-gnu and x86_64-pc-windows-msvc.
The -gnu toolchain includes an msys environment and uses GCC's ld.exe to link object files. This toolchain requires libgcc*.dll to be present at runtime. The main advantage of this toolchain is that it allows you to link against other msys provided libraries which can make it easier to link with certain C\C++ libraries that are difficult to under the normal Windows environment.
The -msvc toolchain uses the standard, native Windows development tools (either a Windows SDK install or a Visual Studio install). This toolchain does not use libgcc*.dll at either compile or runtime. Since this toolchain uses the normal windows linker, you are free to link against any normal Windows native libraries.
If you need to target 32-bit Windows, i686- variants of both of these toolchains are available.
NOTE: below answer summarizes situation as of Sep'2014; I'm not aware if it's still current, or if things have changed to better or worse since then. But I strongly suspect things have changed, given that 2 years have already passed since then. It would be cool if somebody tried to ask steveklabnik about it again, then update below info, or write a new, fresher answer!
Quick & raw transcript of a Rust IRC chat with steveklabnik, who gave me a kind of answer:
Hi; I have a question: if I build a DLL with Rust, does it require libgcc*.dll to be present on run time? (on Windows)
I believe that if you use the standard library, then it does require it;
IIRC we depend on one symbol from it;
but I am unsure.
How can I avoid using the standard library, or those parts of it that do? (and/or do you know which symbol exactly?)
It involves #[no_std] at your crate root; I think the unsafe guide has more.
Running nm -D | grep gcc shows me __gc_personality_v0, and then there is this: What is __gxx_personality_v0 for?,
so it looks like our stack unwinding implementation depends on that.
I seem to recall I've seen some RFCs to the effect of splitting standard library, too; are there parts I can use without pulling libgcc in?
Yes, libcore doesn't require any of that.
You give up libstd.
Also, quoting parts of the unsafe guide:
The core library (libcore) has very few dependencies and is much more portable than the standard library (libstd) itself. Additionally, the core library has most of the necessary functionality for writing idiomatic and effective Rust code. (...)
Further libraries, such as liballoc, add functionality to libcore which make other platform-specific assumptions, but continue to be more portable than the standard library itself.
And fragment of the current docs for unwind module:
Currently Rust uses unwind runtime provided by libgcc.
(The transcript was edited slightly for readability. Still, I'll happily delete this answer if anyone provides something better formatted and more thorough!)
Please Note: Portable as in portableapps.com, not in the traditional sense of a language that can be used on multiple architectures or operating systems. Whoever coined this usage of the word portable should be whacked. :)
I'm a DBA and sysadmin, mostly for Windows machines running SQL Server. I'm looking for a programming/scripting language for Windows that doesn't require Admin access or an installer, needing no install process other than expanding it into a folder. My intent is to have a language for automation around which I can standardize.
Up to this point, I've been using a combination of batch files and Unix shell, using sh.exe from UnxUtils but it's far from a perfect solution.
I've evaluated a handful of options, all of them have at least one serious shortcoming or another. I have a strong preference for something open source or dual license, but I'm more interested in finding the right tool than anything else. Not interested that anything that relies on Cygwin or Java, but at this point I'd be fine with something that needs .NET.
Requirements:
Manageable footprint (1-100 files, under 30 MB installed)
Run on Windows XP and Server (2003+)
No installer (exe, msi)
No reliance on a JVM or Cygwin install
Works with external pipes, processes, and files
Support for MS SQL Server or ODBC connections
Bonus Points:
Open Source
FFI for calling functions in native DLLs
GUI support (native or gtk, wx, fltk, etc)
Linux, AIX, and/or OS X support
Dynamic, object oriented and/or functional, interpreted or bytecode compiled; interactive development
Able to package or compile scripts into executables
So far I've tried:
Ruby: 148 MB on disk, 23000 files
Portable Python: 54 MB on disk, 2800 files
Strawberry Perl: 123 MB on disk, 3600 files
REBOL: Great, except closed source and no MSSQL or ODBC in free version
Squeak Smalltalk: Great, except poor support for scripting
I urge you to try Lua. Regarding your requirements:
Tiny footprint (56 source files, under 150K compiled)
Runs everywhere (uses only ANSI C)
No installer needed; you compile from source (there's also a "batteries included" package that I haven't explored
Doesn't need JVM and works with any ANSI C compiler, so you can compile with Visual Studio, not Cygwin
Works with external processes and files but only to the extent supported by ANSI C. If POSIX popen is provided then that is supported also.
And your bonus points:
Open source (MIT license)
FFI to C is brilliantly conceived and executed—not quite as simple as Tcl but loads more powerful. Much better integration with C than Python or Ruby.
GUI support is mixed but there are good bindings for wx widgets. QT support was there at one time but I don't know if it has been maintained.
Linux is supported
Language/compiler features:
Dynamic
Functional
Prototype-based objects and inheritance through metamethods (you'll want to see examples in the book below
Fastest bytecode compiler in the West
Interactive read-eval-print loop; load new code dynamically
Able to package scripts into executables; either use Luiz de Figueiredo's srlua, or I can send you a 120-line Lua script that converts Lua source to a .c file that you link in with your app and the interpreter to make an executable.
Additional bonus points:
Very crisp, clean, well-designed language.
Small enough to master in its entirety and to be productive within a day.
Superb book Programming in Lua (check out the previous edition free online)
There are a couple of options for Python that might fit your bill:
The first is IronPython, which can be run without an installer and will play nicely with .net APIs. This gives you access to anything with a .net API or a COM typelib that you could build a PIA for. I've used at as a scripting mechanism for precisely this reason - it could be dropped into a directory within the system and did not need to be explicitly installed..You will have to have an appropriate .Net runtime installed, but .Net 2.0 is installed with SQL Server 2005. SQL Server can be accessed through ADO.net and building GUIs with Winforms is fairly straightforward.
The second is Portable Python which is designed to be run off a USB key. Although I see you've already tried it, you might elaborate on what the shortcomings were. If something isn't available in the basic install you could always look into building a custom version with it included. TkInter (at least) is bundled.You can also use Py2EXE to generate standalone python applications with all superfluous junk stripped out. This will give you about 10 files or so (depending on the number of DLLs) that can be run from a single directory, possibly on a USB key.
Running local python installs on Unix-oid OS's is pretty straightforward, so that's pretty much a no brainer. Also, python comes with most linux distros and is available as 'contributed software' from most if not all trad unix vendors. IIRC it's also bundled with MacOS.
Tclkit is a single-file, self-contained Tcl/Tk system. The mac version I have is about 3.8 megs. You can get a version for just about any modern OS. I carry around a thumb drive that has mac, windows and linux binaries so I can run my scripts on any platform. No install is required, just copy one file wherever you want.
The only thing it's missing from your original spec is MS SQL Server / ODBC support out of the box. I know people use tcl for that but I think you'll have to add an extra library or something. See the Tcl'ers wiki entry on MS SQL Server for more information.
For tcl, apart from Tclkit, freewrap is another small portable, self-contained interpreter for tcl.
Just rename the freewrap executable to something else will convert it to a stand-alone interpreter. Renaming it back to freewrap will convert it to a script wrapper.
Also, freewrapped apps contain a tcl interpreter. In dire emergencies you can try opening the app as a zip file and edit/replace the tcl code contained within (just remember to make a copy first). This has saved me several times when I'm at a client site without development tools but need to troubleshoot something. I just make a copy of one of my deployed app and presto - instant development environment!
Looking at wikipedia's exhaustive list of portable software
There's Tiny C compiler, again on Wikipedia here, and its own homepage here.
To summarize by quoting from wikipedia's list of features:
Small - can compile and execute C code everywhere, for example on rescue disks (about 100KB for x86 TCC executable, including C preprocessor, C compiler, assembler and linker).
Fast - tcc generates optimized x86 code. No byte code overhead. It compiles, assembles and links about 9 times faster than GCC.
Any C dynamic library can be used directly. TCC is heading towards full ISOC99 compliance. TCC can of course compile itself.
Includes an optional memory and bound checker. Bound checked code can be mixed freely with standard code.
Compile and execute C source directly. No linking or assembly necessary. Full C preprocessor and GNU-like assembler included.
C script is supported: just add '#!/usr/local/bin/tcc -run' at the first line of your C source, and execute it directly from the command line.
With libtcc, you can use TCC as a backend for dynamic code generation.
Few dependencies. It includes its own hand-written lexer, and it is implemented using a recursive descent parser. Thus, building TCC requires few other libraries.
Its LGPL license permits anyone to use, modify, and/or redistribute the software, and it can be used to develop either open source or proprietary software.
Hope this helps and would be of use,
Best regards,
Tom.
Every somewhat modern Windows version comes pre-installed with both VBScript and JScript. The doesn't meet all your features (compile to an executable comes to mind), but they certainly have an unbeatable advantage with the installation size: it's hard to beat 0.
In addition to the Lua suggestion, there is also Idle. It is basically a superset of Lua 5.1, with both the language (and libraries) and the implementation based on Lua. It was originally created to be a more complete scripting solution for Windows: because Lua is primarly intended for embedding, it has a rather small standard library and it is usually expected that the embedding application provides a rich library to Lua.
This makes sense for an embedded language, because, after all, there isn't much common functionality between, say Adobe Lightroom, Nginx and World of Warcraft, so there simply is nothing you can put in a standard library. But for a more general purpose OS scripting language, one would want a slightly larger library. Thus, Idle bundles a couple of libraries that are third-party (and sometimes hard to get to work on Windows) in Lua in its standard library.
Some of the things that the Idle standard library adds over Lua are tight Win32 integration, SQLite3 support, networking support, a PEG parser generator and archive support.
Also, Idle has support for embedding Perl and C code into your Idle programs.
I have a C library, which I build as a shared object for Linux and a DLL for Windows with MinGW32. The API depends on a couple of data files (statistical models) which I'd really like to roll in with the SO/DLL so that deployment is just one file.
It looks like I can achieve this for Windows with a "resource file" compiled with windres, but then I've got to write a bunch of resource-handling code for Windows, and I'm still stuck with the files on Linux.
Is there a way to achieve the same functionality on Linux?
Even better, is there a portable solution?
It's actually quite simple on Linux and other ELF systems: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/embedding-file-executable-aka-hello-world-version-5967
OS X has bundles, so you just build your library as a framework and put the file in the bundle.
Two potential solutions:
Phong Vo's sfio library, which is part of the AT&T Advanced Software Technology toolset, is a wonderful replacement for C stdio.h, and it will allow you to open either files or memory blocks using a single API. So you can easily convert your existing files to C initialized data to include in your DLL or SO file.
This is a good cross-platform solution, but the penalty is that the learning curve to get started is pretty high. They don't make it easy to figure out how stuff works or to take one part of their toolset and split it out for use independent of the other parts. But the good news is that if you want to adopt their U/Win system for running Unix codes on windows (all part of the same toolset), you can create DLLs and SOs using the same system.
For this kind of problem I often fall back on Lua; I can stored Lua data either in external files or within C as initialized data. This is great for distributing everything in one .so file; I do this for my students.
Again the downside is that you have to master and incorporate a new technology.
In my own work I use Lua over the AT&T stuff for these reasons:
Lua has a much smaller footprint and is designed to play well with others; with AST you really have do adopt their way of doing things.
The learning curve with Lua is much less steep; you can be productive very quickly.
Lua is dead easy to install and it's easy to get information about it. AST has its own quirky installation process shared by nobody else in the world; it's often hard to make the installation work; and it's harder to get information about it.
Using Lua has a lot of other payoffs, so the effort spent learning Lua and learning how to incorporate Lua into C codes is easy to amortize over multiple projects.