This is a a question in my head for some years, I am using OCaml under windows, when I build each OCaml distribution version, I need a C compiler, either MSVC or MingGW, and I have to do it under Cygwin.
When I have my OCaml in hand, and when I need to compile my codes, I also need the c linker that I used for compiling my OCaml..for me it's very strange. Why OCaml can't auto bootstrap with an elder version of OCaml instead of some C compiler?
The OCaml toolchain relies on external tools to assemble and link binaries. The latter is probably more important than assembler, as assemblers are more or less stable. But linkers are usually deeply integrated with an operating system and differ each version. Bundling them will increase support burden and make OCaml programs less portable and the whole OCaml distribution more fragile. So, depending on assembler/linker abstraction is sort of a sweet point, that minimizes dependencies and support burden and maximizes portability.
Other languages, usually, follow the same approach. Even those that depend on LLVM, as LLVM actually uses the GNU toolchain linker underneath the hood.
For building OCaml itself, the C compiler is absolutely necessary. The OCaml itself is not written entirely in OCaml. In fact, OCaml runtime is written in pure C, e.g., garbage collector. Also, many functions, especially that define system interface (e.g., Unix) are also written in C. The sloccount tool gives us a rough estimate, that 15% of OCaml source code (45,000 LOC) is written in C.
The OCaml bytecode interpreter is written in C - see the description in the OCaml README here.
ivg's answer says it all, but I'll just give a quick tip for Windows 10 users.
I always recommend that Windows 10 users use Ubuntu on Windows 10. You'll then have access to a fully-fledged Unix environment instead of Cygwin, which include (among other things) a built-in C tool chain.
I'd only use Windows to develop if I intend to release on Windows, which I rarely do. Even then, I'd prefer to use a cross-compiler and use Windows only for testing.
Related
When I'm stepping into debugged program, it says that it can't find crt/crt_c.c file. I have sources of gcc 6.3.0 downloaded, but where is crt_c.c in there?
Also how can I find source code for printf and rand in there? I'd like to step through them in debugger.
Ide is codeblocks, if that's important.
Edit: I'm trying to do so because I'm trying to decrease size of my executable. Going straight into freestanding leaves me with a lot of missing functions, so I intend to study and replace them one by one. I'm trying to do that to make my program a little smaller and faster, and to be able to study assembly output a bit easier.
Also, forgot to mention, I'm on windows, msys2. But answer is still helpful.
How can I find source code for printf and rand in there?
They (printf, rand, etc....) are part of your C standard library which (on Linux) is outside of the GCC compiler. But crt0 is provided by GCC (however, is often not compiled with debug information) and some C files there are generated in the build tree during compilation of GCC.
(on Windows, most of the C standard library is proprietary -inside some DLL provided by MicroSoft- and you are probably forbidden to look into the implementation or to reverse-engineer it; AFAIK EU laws might mention some exception related to interoperability¸ but then you need to consult a lawyer and I am not a lawyer)
Look into GNU glibc (or perhaps musl-libc) if you want to study its source code. libc is generally using system calls (listed in syscalls(2)) provided by the Linux kernel.
I'd like to step through them in debugger.
In practice you won't be able to do that easily, because the libc is provided by your distribution and has generally been compiled without debug information in DWARF format.
Some Linux distributions provide a debuggable variant of libc, perhaps as some libc6-dbg package.
(your question lacks motivation and smells like some XY problem)
I intend to study and replace them one by one.
This is very unrealistic (particularly on Windows, whose system call interface is not well documented) and could take you many years (or perhaps more than a lifetime). Do you have that much time?
Read also Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces and look into OsDev wiki.
I'm trying to do so because I'm trying to decrease size of my executable.
Wrong approach. A debugger needs debug info (e.g. in DWARF) which will increase the size of the executable (but could later be stripped). BTW standard C functions are in some common shared library (or DLL on Windows) which is used by many processes.
I'm on windows, msys2.
Bad choice. Windows is proprietary. Linux is made of free software (more than ten billions lines of source code, if you consider all useful packages inside a typical Linux distribution), whose source code you could study (even if it would take several lifetimes).
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!)
I just Likely know that in which platform operating system coded.
as per my knowledge.
Windows kernel written in C language.
Linux kernel is also written in C language.
but remain operating system in?
In which Platform C language is written?
Yes, the Windows kernel and Linux kernels are written in C. Most operating systems tend to be.
There are operating systems written in other languages though, the Chorus kernel for example is written in C++.
Most C compilers are also written in C. That has the advantage that once you managed to get the compiler running on the machine (generally by compiling it on another machine that already has a working compiler/cross compiler), the machine itself can compile updates to its own compiler without maintaining yet another compiler.
Most parts of the C compiler (like gcc) are written in C themselves. Of course you would need something to bootstrap your compiler such that it can compile itself. That would then be a lower type language like Assembler.
The C language is one of many languages that are considered to be Self Hosting - that is to say that the compiler can compile its own source code, which is written in the same language that the compiler is designed to compile.
You might also want to look into the process of Bootstrapping, which is the process used to get the first compiler for a particular language to run on a given platform - as others have noted, this can be by way of cross-compiling, or by writing the original compiler in a different language, though other techniques are possible.
First off, you might want to improve your question with actual sentences.
Second,
C is not written in a platform, it is written in another programming language.
Most compilers are written in assembler, a somewhat readable version of the actual machine codes sent to the processor.
I don't know if there are other compilers, written in some intermediary language but eventually, everything boils down to assembler code, which compiles to machine code.
can anyone tell me what gcc is?? and wts are its advantage over other compiler like turbo c and visual c
The GNU Compiler Collection is an open source (GPL) compiler. It's found on a wide variety of systems, ranging from GNU/Linux to every flavor of Unix, to Windows.
GCC contains support for many languages (C, C++, Fortran, to name but a few). It's highly portable, and widely used, and tends to produce good code. It can also be used as a cross-compiler (compiling for a system other than the one running GCC).
It's the default compiler choice for most Unix-type systems because most vendors don't bother to write their own compilers anymore - GCC is just too good for general use.
Under Windows, Microsoft's own dev tools are often preferred because they get support for new technologies quicker.
In high-performance programming environments (and some embedded environments) you may want a compiler that's more highly tuned to the chip/system in question.
The GNU Compiler Collection are the compilers used in GNU/Linux systems. I don't know that they compete with Turbo C or Visual C, which I think only run on DOS/Windows systems.
The main advantage to a user is that GCC can be installed on (and is sometimes distributed with) nearly every GNU/Linux system and can be used to build packages that are distributed as source.
I'm sure there are advantages that programmers would recognize, but maybe that's a topic for stackoverflow.com.
[Edit]
Now that this question has been migrated, see Michael Kohne's answer for some advantages to programmers.
Big advantage of gcc over Turbo C and Visual C: it's free!*
And it's ubiquitous, especially on the various *nix environments. You can use it on Windows via either cygwin or MinGW. It compiles a truly staggering number of languages (C, C++, Ada, Java, Fortran, Objective-C), and supplies an intermediate language for Haskell.
It has been used for industrial-strength projects for decades now, so you're pretty safe with it.
*(Though, in all fairness, Microsoft does offer Visual C++ Express for free, though it is not open source.)
The real true advantage of gcc over turbo C and visual C is it's availability on platforms other than Windows, and it's ability of building cross-platform binaries, meaning you can set up a build tool chain to build windows binaries on a linux box with gcc, or you can set up a similar tool chain to build some arm binaries on an intel box, which is definitely nice since you might not have as much power in your arm device as you might have in you development rig. With visual c compiler and turbo c compiler that's close to impossible.
A nice bonus to all that - gcc is open source and free.
Whereas GCC started as GNU C Compiler, it is now GNU Compiler Collection, as it has compilers for C, C++, Java, Fortran among others. Why would you want to use it? Because its better. Better, because:
Once you have written your code using the GCC compilers, you are assured that your code will work on a lot of other OSs/platforms/architectures. You will be able to do a lot more in and with your programs than you would do in Turbo C, which is pretty much tied to Windows.
GCC is used by all of those projects out there in the wild. Having some experience with GCC is definitely a great plus when you are moving to some serious programming.
and its just good karma :)
The GCC collection is open source. This allows it to be ported to MANY different platforms rather quickly because so many people work on it and have seen how it works. Commercial compilers usually are closed-source, and such only one company or consorsium can do the porting, which can be time-consuming.
Note: I know very little about the GCC toolchain, so this question may not make much sense.
Since GCC includes an Ada front end, and it can emit ARM, and devKitPro is based on GCC, is it possible to use Ada instead of C/C++ for writing code on the DS?
Edit: It seems that the target that devKitARM uses is arm-eabi.
devkitPro is not a toolchain, compiler or indeed any software package. The toolchain used to target the DS is devkitARM, one of the toolchains provided by devkitPro.
It may be possible to build the ada compiler but I doubt very much if you'll ever manage to get anything useful running on the DS itself. devkitPro will certainly never provide an ada compiler as part of the packages we produce.
Yes it is possible, see my project https://github.com/Lucretia/tamp and build the cross compiler as per my script. You would then be able to target NDS using Ada. I have build a basic RTS as well which will provide you with local exception handling.
And #Martin Beckett, why do think Ada is aimed squarely at DoD stuff? They dropped the mandate years ago and Ada is easily usable for any project, you do realise that Ada is a general purpose programming language don't you?
(Disclaimer: I don't know Ada)
Possibly.
You might be able to build devKitPro to use Ada, however, the pre-provided binaries (at least for OS X) do not have Ada support compiled in.
However, you will probably find yourself writing tons of C "glue" code to interface with the various hardware registers and the like.
One thing to consider when porting a language to the nintendo DS is the relatively small stack it has (16KB). There are possible workarounds such as swapping the SRAM stack content into DRAM (4MB) when stack gets full or just have the whole stack in DRAM (assumed to be auwfully slow).
And I second Dre on the fact that you'll have to provide yourself glue between the Ada library function you'd like to use and existing libraries on the DS (which are hopefully covering most of the hardware stuff).
On a practical plane, it is not possible.
On a theoretical plane, you could use one custom Ada parser (I found this one on the ANTLR site, but it is quite old) in order to translate Ada to C/C++, and then feed that to devkitpro.
However, the effort of building such translator is probably going to be equal (if not higher) to creating the game itself.