I'm trying to figure out the compiler versions that are used in my project (to sync them across the team).
I'm using ChibiOS on an STM32 and it uses a makefile to compile. In the Makefile it uses
TRGT = arm-none-eabi-
CC = $(TRGT)gcc
Which makes it clear that arm-none-eabi-gcc is being used. However unclear to me is, if the version of my gcc compiler (gcc --version) is at all relevant to the compilation. As far a I understand gcc just is being set to a specific target here? Whats the relationship between my gcc/cc executable and the arm-none-eabi-gcc executable?
There is no relationship. It is a separate compiler which usually comes with its own include files, libraries, startup file and linker scripts. Usually, it is called a toolchain as often it comes with other tools as well (linker, specific versions of gdb and other tools).
Related
I'm a student doing research involving extending the TM capabilities of gcc. My goal is to make changes to gcc source, build gcc from the modified source, and, use the new executable the same way I'd use my distro's vanilla gcc.
I built and installed gcc in a different location (not /usr/bin/gcc), specifically because the modified gcc will be unstable, and because our project goal is to compare transactional programs compiled with the two different versions.
Our changes to gcc source impact both /gcc and /libitm. This means we are making a change to libitm.so, one of the shared libraries that get built.
My expectation:
when compiling myprogram.cpp with /usr/bin/g++, the version of libitm.so that will get linked should be the one that came with my distro;
when compiling it with ~/project/install-dir/bin/g++, the version of libitm.so that will get linked should be the one that just got built when I built my modified gcc.
But in reality it seems both native gcc and mine are using the same libitm, /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libitm.so.1.
I only have a rough grasp of gcc internals as they apply to our project, but this is my understanding:
Our changes tell one compiler pass to conditionally insert our own "function builtin" instead of one it would normally use, and this is / becomes a "symbol" which needs to link to libitm.
When I use the new gcc to compile my program, that pass detects those conditions and successfully inserts the symbol, but then at runtime my program gives a "relocation error" indicating the symbol is not defined in the file it is searching in: ./test: relocation error: ./test: symbol _ITM_S1RU4, version LIBITM_1.0 not defined in file libitm.so.1 with link time reference
readelf shows me that /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libitm.so.1 does not contain our new symbols while ~/project/install-dir/lib64/libitm.so.1 does; if I re-run my program after simply copying the latter libitm over the former (backing it up first, of course), it does not produce the relocation error anymore. But naturally this is not a permanent solution.
So I want the gcc I built to use the shared libs that were built along with it when linking. And I don't want to have to tell it where they are every time - my feeling is that it should know where to look for them since I deliberately built it somewhere else to behave differently.
This sounds like the kind of problem any amateur gcc developer would have when trying to make a dev environment and still be able to use both versions of gcc, but I had difficulty finding similar questions. I am thinking this is a matter of lacking certain config options when I configure gcc before building it. What is the right configuration to do this?
My small understanding of the instructions for building and installing gcc led me to do the following:
cd ~/project/
mkdir objdir
cd objdir
../source-dir/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/home/myusername/project/install-dir
make -j2
make install
I only have those config options because they seemed like the ones closest related to "only building the parts I need" and "not overwriting native gcc", but I could be wrong. After the initial config step I just re-run make -j2 and make install every time I change the code. All these steps do complete without errors, and they produce the ~/project/install-dir/bin/ folder, containing the gcc and g++ which behave as described.
I use ~/project/install-dir/bin/g++ -fgnu-tm -o myprogram myprogram.cpp to compile a transactional program, possibly with other options for programs with threads.
(I am using Xubuntu 16.04.3 (64 bit), within VirtualBox on Windows. The installed /usr/bin/gcc is version 5.4.0. Our source at ~/project/source-dir/ is a modified version of 5.3.0.)
You’re running into build- versus run-time linking differences. When you build with -fgnu-tm, the compiler knows where the library it needs is found, and it tells the linker where to find it; you can see this by adding -v to your g++ command. However when you run the resulting program, the dynamic linker doesn’t know it should look somewhere special for the ITM library, so it uses the default library in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu.
Things get even more confusing with ITM on Ubuntu because the library is installed system-wide, but the link script is installed in a GCC-private directory. This doesn’t happen with the default GCC build, so your own GCC build doesn’t do this, and you’ll see libitm.so in ~/project/install-dir/lib64.
To fix this at run-time, you need to tell the dynamic linker where to find the right library. You can do this either by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH (to /home/.../project/install-dir/lib64), or by storing the path in the binary using -Wl,-rpath=/home/.../project/install-dir/lib64 when you build it.
I am trying to compile an SDK with the an embedded arm gcc compiler in cygwin. It is a makefile based SDK. My target is a cortex m3 device. My problem is, the SDK has a custom libc implementation for the target, and when I compile with the arm compiler (arm-none-eabi-gcc) it looks to pick up the gnu arm libc, not the SDK libc. This is resulting in a compilation error. I am positive the makefiles are correct (I copy and pasted the entire SDK from a computer where this was working). I no longer have access to that computer to try and verify / compare settings. I don't know how to prevent the arm gcc compiler from looking for its own implementation of the libc and instead point it to the correct implementation. Any help is greatly appreciated.
There are perhaps two solutions:
Create an environment specific to your tool - the GNU toolchain uses a number of environment variables to define default behaviour. For a custom toolchain, you will need to set all necessary variables to override the system defaults.
Use the -nostdlib linker option and explicitly link your desired library and C Runtime start-up code, so your linker command line might include the following:
-nostdlib -L/usr/myarmtools/gcc/lib -lc crt0.o
Note that -nostdlib suppresses the default linking of libc libstdc++ and crt0.o, so you must provide search path (-L) to the libraries, or explicitly link them by their full path and file name and link the C runtime object code for your target.
I use option 2 for preference as it will work in any environment. However if you wish to use common makefiles for building for multiple targets, option 1 may be useful.
I know how to build gcc from source, what I still have to figure out is what are the exact environmental variables used by gcc when configure and building gcc itself, I'm actually trying to build the compiler from source using another version of gcc with different ABI.
Any idea on how to get this kind of information beside "try to grep all the variable that starts with $ inside all makefiles and configuration files" ?
You can see a list of Environment Variables Affecting GCC.
To create a completly independent gcc with a new toolset, have a look at LFS, they explain how to build gcc from an existing OS for a future OS.
There is also a page about building gcc, which talks about BOOT_CFLAGS='-O' and CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET and STAGE1_TFLAGS and BUILD_CONFIG. There is also some additional variables for cross-compiling and ada compiler.
I was just trying to understand something about cross compilers which made me ask this question.
gcc is a cross-compiler.
By default what it the target architecture for gcc compilation if none is specified is the native target on which I am compiling the source. Correct ?
If the above is correct then how does it manage to generate the code for several different architectures even when it is explicitly specified ?
Shouldn't it have to know all the ISA's ? How is this managed ? Do they have all the information for all the existing ISA's ?
A given (particular) gcc is built for a particular given target. Use gcc -v to find out which.
Often, cross-compilers are installed as different commands, e.g. avr-gcc on Debian for the Atmel AVR processor (with specific options ...)
On some architectures and systems (typically x86 & Linux) you may compile for a different variant. See this. In particular you may want to use -mtune=native or -march=haswell or -m32 ...
If you build gcc yourself from its source tarball, you'll give it at configure time specific configure options (e.g. --program-suffix=-avr and --target=avr for the avr-gcc etc....)
[Shamelessly cross-posted from the CMake help list]
I'm trying to create binaries as statically as possible. The fortran code I've got has got X11 and quadmath as dependencies, and I've come across a number of issues (maybe each of these issues should be in a different question?):
My variables are currently
set(CMAKE_LIBRARY_PATH /usr/X11/lib /usr/X11/include/X11 ${CMAKE_LIBRARY_PATH})
find_package(X11 REQUIRED)
find_library(X11 NAMES X11.a PATHS /usr/X11/include/X11/ /usr/X11/lib)
find_library(X11_Xaw_LIB NAMES Xaw Xaw /usr/X11/include/X11/ /usr/X11/lib ${X11_LIB_SEARCH_PATH})
find_library(Xaw Xaw7 PATHS ${X11_LIB_SEARCH_PATH})
set(CMAKE_LIBRARY_PATH /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.7 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.7/x32 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.7/32 ${CMAKE_LIBRARY_PATH})
find_library(quadmath NAMES quadmath.a)
set(BUILD_SHARED_LIBS ON)
set(CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES .a ${CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES})
set(LINK_SEARCH_START_STATIC TRUE)
set(LINK_SEARCH_END_STATIC TRUE)
set(SHARED_LIBS OFF)
set(STATIC_LIBS ON)
set(CMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH_USE_LINK_PATH TRUE)
set(CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS "${CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS} -static")
Using these, CMake attempts to build every program statically (as expected) - however, it fails because I don't have Xaw.a - I can't find out whether this actually should exist. I have installed the latest libxaw7-dev which I was expecting to fix it. One option would be to compile the X11 libraries myself, but I don't really want to do that...
if I comment out only set(CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS "${CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS} -static"), then CMake compiles everything, but uses shared libraries for every program, even though I specify the location of .a X11 libraries in my find_library() calls. I was expecting CMake to use the .a files where it could and then only use shared libraries - is there a way to force this behaviour?
does anyone know yet of a fix for the bug described here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46539; whereby gfortran seemingly can't statically link libquadmath? I tried the fix using gcc but I can't get CMake to recognise the libgfortran flag:
cmake -DCMAKE_Fortran_COMPILER=gcc -DCMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS=-gfortran
results in
-- The Fortran compiler identification is unknown
-- Check for working Fortran compiler: /usr/bin/gcc
-- Check for working Fortran compiler: /usr/bin/gcc -- broken
CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake-2.8/Modules/CMakeTestFortranCompiler.cmake:54 (message):
The Fortran compiler "/usr/bin/gcc" is not able to compile a simple test program.
However, as you might have noticed, I set the location of the libquadmath.a; when I build a program which doesn't use X11 but does use quadmath when I use
set(CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS "${CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS} -static")
then the program does compile successfully (running ldd reports 'not a dynamic executable') - does this mean that the bug has been fixed, or does it only work because I set the location in CMake?
I was having a similar problem. Turns out that cmake was implicitly linking against libgfortran and libquadmath. To fix this I put the following in my top level CMakeLists.txt:
unset(CMAKE_Fortran_IMPLICIT_LINK_LIBRARIES)
I could then explicitly link again the libraries using:
SET_TARGET_PROPERTIES(main_f PROPERTIES LINKER_LANGUAGE "C"
LINK_FLAGS
"/usr/local/Cellar/gcc/7.1.0/lib/gcc/7/libgfortran.a
/usr/local/Cellar/gcc/7.1.0/lib/gcc/7/libquadmath.a -lm -lgcc"
)
The static version of libgfortran is necessary because the shared library also depends on libquadmath. The added "-lm" and "-lgcc" bring in the system dynamic versions of these libraries. On a mac system, you would want to use the full path to your libm.a as well.
I guess your questions are not that much related, I don't know the answer for all of them.
For your static linking problems, since you're using GCC, you can pass multiple -static and -dynamic flags to it:
set(CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS "-static ${STATIC_LIBS} -dynamic ${EVERYTHING ELSE} -static ${MORE_STATIC_LIBS}")
I don't know why Xaw.a isn't available on your system, probably because the package maintainer of your Linux distribution didn't really make them available.
Also, compiling everything static might make things not compatible between all distros out there and you cripple the ability for others to use improved, up-to-date libraries with your program, it might not be what you want.
If you intend to make a self-contained package of your program, it might be better just to include the shared libraries you used together, like Dropbox and many other proprietary applications do (Humble Bundle games are other example).