I'd like to have similar functionality as stack install (e.g. the --copy-bins flag) does for executables, but for libraries.
Currently, I have to stack build and then manually find the libHS*-<version>-<fingerprint>.a files in .stack-work. That is problematic/uncomfy for two reason:
I have to rely on the internal folder structure of stack (reliable enough, though)
I have to manually get rid of the fingerprint and the version
Well, I could work around both, I guess, but I'd like to know if this might already be available/sensible to implement.
Some background, which may or may not be relevant to the question rather than to its motivation:
I am playing around with https://hackage.haskell.org/package/dynamic-loader-0.0/docs/System-Plugins-DynamicLoader.html and want to provide as realistic an example as I can, so I plan to compile a package's object code into a *.a (containing the compilation of multiple modules) which I want to link in at runtime.
What I want to do works already for trivial single module files, where I only need to use loadModule. Currently I'm tinkering around with loadPackage.
Related
Consider two software projects, proj_a and proj_b, with the latter depending on the former; and with both using CMake.
When reading about modern CMake, one gets the message that the "appropriate" way to express dependencies is via target dependencies; and one should arrange it so that dependent projects are represented as (imported) targets you can depend on. More specifically, in our example, proj_b will idiomatically have:
find_package(proj_a)
# etc etc.
target_link_library(bar proj_a::foo)
and proj_a will need to have been installed, utilizing the CMake installation-and-export-related commands, someplace where proj_b's CMake invocation will search for proj_a-config.cmake.
I like this approach and encourage others to adapt to it. It offers flexibility in the choice of your own version of proj_a vs the system version; and also allows for non-CMake proj_a's via a Findproj_a.cmake script (which again, can be system-level or part of proj_b).
So far so good, right? However, there are people who want to "take matters into their own hands" in terms of dependencies - and CMake officially condones this, with commands such as ExternalProject and more recently, FetchContent: This allows proj_b's configuration stage to actually download a (built, or in our case source-form) version of proj_a.
The puzzling part to me is that, after proj_a is downloaded, say to an external/proj_a directory, CMake's default behavior will be to
add_subdirectory(external/proj_a)
that is, to use proj_a as a subproject of proj_b and build them together. This, while the idiomatic use above allows the maintainer of proj_a to "do their own thing" in my CMakeFile, and only keep things neat and tidy for others via what I export/install.
My questions:
Why does it make sense to add_subdirectory(), rather than to build, install, and perform the equivalent of find_package() to meet the dependency? Or rather, why should the former, rather than the latter, be the default?
Should I really have to write my project-level CMakeLists.txt to be compatible with being add_subdirectory()'ed?
Note: Just to give some concrete examples of how this use constrains proj_a:
Must use unique option names which can't possibly clash with super-project names. So no more WITH_TESTS, BUILD_STATIC_LIB - it has to be: WITH_PROJ_A_TESTS and BUILD_PROJ_A_STATIC_LIB.
You have to account for the parent project having searched for other dependencies already, and perhaps differently than how you would like to search for them.
Following the discussion in comments, I decided to post a bug report about this:
#22904: Support FetchContent_MakeAvailable performing build+install+find_package rather than add_subdirectory
So maybe this will change and the question becomes moot.
Why does it make sense to add_subdirectory(), rather than to build, install, and perform the equivalent of find_package() to meet the dependency? Or rather, why should the former, rather than the latter, be the default?
FetchContent doesn't just have to be for project() dependencies. It can be used for fetching utility scripts too. I'm guessing it was designed with that kind of consideration in mind. If your utility script is just one file, you can just file(DOWNLOAD) and add_subdirectory() directly, but the utilities could be multiple files, such as is the case with aminaya/project_options. FetchContent() uses a lot of the same machinery as ExternalProject, so it can do a lot of the useful things that ExternalProject does. For example, you can use FetchContent to fetch aminaya/project_options as a remote git repo, or as its archive artifacts- ex. v0.20.0.zip
Should I really have to write my project-level CMakeLists.txt to be compatible with being add_subdirectory()'ed?
It's your choice! The reasoning here can be highly objective, or subjective. It's up to you. Some people just like to put in a lot of effort to support whatever their users might want. Some people have a lot of historical configuration baggage and are still catching up to newer CMake. And as you mentioned at the end of your question post, there are certain adjustments that need to be made to accomodate for cleanly allowing people to add_subdirectory() you as a dependency. One example of a project which chose "no" is glew (see issue #314 for explanation).
Just to give another reference to some related work mentioned in responses to the KitWare/CMake ticket your raised, here's the ticket which tracked work on "FetchContent and find_package() integration".
I have asked this question on linux, but now I need the same info on macos... The question is (adapted to macos):
I am trying to create a shared library, libbar.dylib, that embeds a commercial static library (licensing is fine). The commercial library has 4 versions: libfoo-seq.a, libfoo-mt.a, libfoo-seq.dylib, and libfoo-mt.dylib (they all provide the same symbols, just the code is sequential/multi-threaded, and the lib is static/shared). Of these four I want my code always to use the sequential foo library, so when I create libbar.dylib I link together my object files and libfoo-seq.a.
The problem is that the users of my library may have already pulled in libfoo-mt.dylib by the time they pull in my libbar.dylib, thus all symbols from libfoo are already present by the time libbar.dylib is read in, so my calls to the functions in foo are resolved to the multithreaded version. At least I think this is happening. Is there any way to double check?
If this is really what is happening, I wonder how can I resolve this issue? What kind of magic flags do I need to use when I compile to create my object files and when I link my object files with libfoo-seq.a to create libbar.dylib?
I'm quite confused about linking tips. Supose I have an app that uses a dll, but I do not want to use it, I want to statically link with a lib and avoid the dependency for the dll. Is it possible?
It's impossible enough not to try if you want a solution to your problems instead of a bunch of new problems.
(I've managed to make something like that work a couple of times. One variant used a MemoryModule and loading from memory, another one used a heuristic to find cross-segment relocations and fix them up to re-separate code and data sections. Neither was remotely like something you may recommend to a person confused about linking tips).
I'm still not 100% sure with the framework linking process, but from what I've seen here before nobody has asked a similar question, perhaps because this could be a silly question, but I'll give it a go anyway.
In my current X-Code project, I'm using a custom framework, say example.framework. At the moment, as far as I'm aware of, in order for the program to function with the framework, I need to have it either in /Library/Frameworks, or I need to have it copied into the bundle resources in the build phase.
Would anybody know about adding a framework to a project in a way that it gets compiled into the executable, so I don't have to include the raw framework with the app? I'd rather not share the whole framework...
Thank you in advance! Any suggestions are also welcome!
A Mac OS X framework is basically a shared library, meaning it's a separate binary.
Basically, when your main executable is launched, the OS will load the framework/dylib into memory, and map the symbols, so your main executable can access them.
Note that a framework/dylib (bundled into the application or not), does not need to contain the header files, as those are only needed at compilation time.
With Xcode, you can actually decide whether or not to include the header files, when you are copying the framework to its installation directory (see your build phases).
If you don't copy header files, people won't be able to use your framework/dylib (unless they reverse-engineer it, of course).
If you still think a framework is not suitable for your needs, you may want to create a static library instead.
A static library is a separate object file (usually .a) that is «included» with your final binary, at link time.
This way, you only have a single binary file, containing the code from the library and from your project.
This is the FindGTK.cmake:
# don't even bother under WIN32
IF(UNIX)
...
ENDIF(UNIX)
So it's not intended to work in windows at all,even though I've already installed the gtk+-bundle_2.20.0-20100406_win32 days ago.
How should I properly use gtk with cmake now?
Given that you are using GTK 2.20.0 (i.e. version is >= 2), you should be using GTK2 instead of GTK. But, if FindGTK2 has the same problem, then you can use find_path to locate the header files, and you can use find_library to locate the associated library files. Putting those together, you can construct the symbols GTK2_FOUND, GTK2_LIBRARIES, and GTK2_INCLUDE_DIRS that it should produce. You may find my FindUnitTestPlusPlus.cmake file a little bit helpful; it makes use of "FindPackageHandleStandardArgs", which takes care of the nitty gritty details of making sure to fail if the library isn't there and the REQUIRED flag is given. Unfortunately, there really isn't much documentation out there on creating custom FindXYZ.cmake modules; however, you should be able to hack something together from the existing modules, I think.
Another option is to contact the maintainer of that particular module. A list of CMake find module maintainers may be found at the link. Philip Lowman is the go-to guy for the FindGTK2 module.