I deployed a matlab script to an executable file which runs on linux platform.
let's say file :
$./run_test.sh
As it is created on linux, it cannot be executed on the powerPC CPU.
Is there any way to translate the binary file to a PPC readable file?
Thanks
You're mixing OS & CPU issues: the problem isn't that it was created on linux (there are versions of linux that run on PPC); the problem is that it is for a different CPU (x86, most likely). And other than running an emulator/simulator for that processor on you PPC box (which, if it works, would likely be quite slow), or getting a hold of the source to re-compile it, I believe you are out of luck.
...unless of course this really is a script, and while executable is not binary, in which case your solution may be as simple as changing the line endings. This is likely the case if you can open it in a text editor & you can read it (that is, it isn't full of funky symbols).
Complementing Scott's answer. If you have the source code of the application, you can use Software Development Toolkit for Linux on Power to help you in the migration.
The IBM Software Development Kit for Linux on Power (SDK) is a free, Eclipse-based Integrated Development Environment (IDE). The SDK integrates C/C++ source development with the Advance Toolchain, Post-Link Optimization, and classic Linux performance analysis tools, including Oprofile, Perf and Valgrind.
Related
I am currently taking a class on Assembly Language and Computer Architecture. We're programming in MASM for x86 processors. I have a Macbook Air, so of course I have to run Windows on a virtual machine to program in MASM for our assignments.
What I'm confused about: We're learning about, and programming for x86 architecture. When I looked up my Macbook Air's processor, it seemed to be in the x86 family. Considering that, why doesn't MASM work with Mac OS X?
Furthermore, if assembly language communicates directly w/ hardware, why does merely installing the Windows OS (or running it through a VM) on Apple Hardware suddenly allow me to program in MASM?
Thanks,
Ian
[EDIT for clarification: My understanding -- please tell me if i'm wrong -- is that Assembly Language is as "low as you can go." I.e. it's pre-operating system, and provides instructions directly to the hardware itself. Thus, I don't understand why an assembly language for x86 architecture doesn't work on ALL x86 machines, regardless of OS]
Programs are made up of more than just the raw machine code. The executable needs to have a special format that the OS can understand, so it can load and run the code. Also, the code expects a certain environment, such as libraries and system calls (along with the appropriate calling conventions).
To compile and run your assembly program you need to assemble it first, that is run it through MASM in this case. However, MASM itself is a windows executable. It is in the executable format for windows, and it uses libraries and operating system functions accordingly. As such, you can't run it directly on mac os. Afterwards, you typically also need to link your code, which has the same issues. The next problem is with the program itself. MASM (and the rest of the toolchain) is by default also targeting windows (or dos) and so the created program has the appropriate format.
You can theoretically create a program intended to run on mac os using windows and masm. This is called cross-compiling in general. If your toolchain does not support the required mac format, you will need to create everything by hand. You obviously also need to write your program such that it expects the mac environment. For example, you can't use dos interrupts or windows libraries.
Since the architecture is the same, you don't need to virtualize the cpu. You can get away with emulating just the environment. An example for this is the windows emulator, wine, or cygwin emulating unix on windows.
A very rough analogy: there are human languages that use the same alphabet, but you still need to translate. There are also languages that do not even use the same alphabet, or don't even have letters. You will need to do more work in these cases.
Since I have started to learn Golang since yesterday :) I have a question about the compiled file.
Let's assume that I compile my project. It generates an .exec file in /bin folder.
Now my question is Since the file has been compiled on Mac with Intel based CPU, should it be compiled on other OS and other CPU architectures such as AMD, ARM, etc. if I want to publish it to public?
I guess this should not be problem if I'm using GO lang for my backend since I run it on a server. However, what happens if I publish my .exec file, let's say on AWS, with lots of instances that they are automatically increases/decreases based on load? Does it problem?
Edit:
This is nice solution for those how are looking Go cross compiling tool https://github.com/mitchellh/gox
The answer to the first question is yes. The current implementations of Go produce a native binary, so you will probably need a different one for Linux x86 (32-bit), Linux x64 (64-bit), and Linux ARM. You will probably need a different one for Mac OS X also. You should be able to run the 32-bit executable on a 64-bit system as long as any libraries you depend on are available in 32-bit form on that system, so you might be able to skip making a 64-bit executable.
In the future, there may be other implementations of Go that compile for a virtual machine (such as JVM or .NET), in which case you wouldn't need to compile multiple versions for different architectures. Your question is more about existing Go implementations than the language itself.
I don't know anything about AWS, but I suggest you ask that as a separate question.
Forgive my ignorance: I need to use a library that requires a UNIX system (LIBSHORTTEXT). Do I need to install a virtual machine with Unix or is Cygwin enough? (I've read quite a few articles about the difference between them but I don't really understand the practical difference for this specific use). Thanks!
Edit: The documentation that said that the library needs UNIX is here
That really depends on what makes the library "require UNIX". Looking at it briefly, it appears to be ANSI C and Python, both of which should either compile or be fairly easy to port on a Windows development system. In your case I'd go with Cygwin if you don't already have a development suite running, as it is likely to allow you to just get things running.
A Virtual Machine is a bit more compartmentalized, so much less connection between Windows and the running software. Unless you are planning to use the operating system in the Virtual Machine as a target for your program, it is a bit of overkill in this case, IMHO.
Hope this helps.
Normally I would say Cygwin will do, but it depens on how you use the library. And when you say that the library requires a UNIX system what do you mean? Are you building a python or c++ program?
The main difference between working in cygwin and a VM is that cygwin is still working in a windows environment with windows directories and hardware drivers, whereas a VM have all this emulated as if it actually was a UNIX machine.
I already have experience with setting up virtual machines, running them and other minor tasks. Im a gamer, so I wont get rid of windows (for now at least...) but I do want to be a great programmer and to be involved with the Open-Source community.
Id like to know if its a good idea to do my programming in linux through a virtual machine, vs giving it a partitioned section of the HDD. Id like to know about performance pros and cons and functionality.
All responses are appreciated, thanks in advance.
The type of programming I intend to dive into :
Android Dev, Web Dev, Desktop Dev...More Android and Web right now though.
So im looking at C#,C,C++,Java,PHP,HTML,MySQL...Off the top of the dome.
I do web designing as well, so dreamweaver is added as an "essential". But im sure I can do dreamweaver files and upload them to the server after programming in Linux...Right?
And any info on IDE's in Linux for the above mentioned are appreciated, but i would prefer going the coding route and understanding the essence of whats happening "under the covers"
Thanks to all for reading, I appreciate it.
Hope this isnt confusing :S
There is an easier solution..
I still have to use Windows for Symbian programming so I use a Wubi and Ubuntu to provide my double bout into Linux..you deploy Wubi uses a large file and thus no need to worry or mess with creating a partition..
I have used it for 18 months with no data loss and no worries..
There is also another tool called andlinux:
http://www.andlinux.org/
It uses colinux to run Linux as a program inside windows..
A couple things:
If you're using an IDE, there's no point to coding on Linux. Linux is nice for programming because the command line tools are awesome. Netbeans and Eclipse both work fine on Windows. All you'd be missing is makefiles (which IDEs don't use anyway).
Using a virtual machine would be annoying (working with the window and stuff) and slow. Try AndLinux if you want to have Linux running in Windows. It sets up X and Pulseaudio for you, so all of your programs will appear to be native. It's basically a way to run Ubuntu as a Windows service (all Ubuntu packages for your architecture are installable).
If you just want the fun of Linux command line programs without access to all of Ubuntu, cygwin is smaller and might be faster.
If by "Dreamweaver files", you mean HTML/PHP/CSS, then yes, you can just upload them to the server. As far as I know, the only ASP or ASP.net compatible server is Microsoft's, but why use that anyway?
EDIT: SO didn't give me enough space in the comments to answer your question..
AndLinux and Cygwin are basically just better ways to do your "virtual machine" idea.
Cygwin adds a posix layer to Windows (basically everything you need to compile Unix/Linux/BSD programs). This means that you can generally take a Linux program and just compile it on Windows and have it work. They also have repositories, but in my experience, the cygwin installer is slow and hard to use.
AndLinux runs the Linux kernel as a Windows service, giving you a similar experience as running it in VirtualBox/other virtualization programs. However, it also sets up X (the graphics layer for Linux) and PulseAudio (a sound system that lets you run sound over a network), so that when you run Linux programs they act and sound like native programs. I also like AndLinux better because you have access to all of Ubuntu's programs, and apt-get is easier to use than cygwin's installer. Also, if you use AndLinux and later to decide to go 100% Linux, you're basically already using it that way.
What I'm getting at is: If you want to run Linux in a virtual machine, don't. Just install AndLinux. It will be faster and it's much easier to work with (since everything is just a normal window).
Here's an example of the difference:
Screenshot of AndLinux: The program in the bottom right corner is running in AndLinux. Notice how it just looks like a badly themed Windows program? Compare that to something like this, where you have another desktop in a Window.
And still.. there's no reason to virtualize Netbeans. It's a native Windows program and you can gain nothing and lose a lot of speed.
If you're interested in Android development and you want to use Linux, then I would recommend you do your development in Eclipse. Eclipse is available for Linux and if you get Ubuntu then Eclipse is amazingly easy to install. I used VirtualBox + Ubuntu + Eclipse for several projects I worked on. If you decide that Linux is not for you and your project was in Eclipse then you will have no problem switching back to Windows since Eclipse is available for both operating systems.
The ONLY problem I had was the screen size on the virtual machine... if you have a big screen and you use a virtual machine then you might get limited to a fraction of your actual screen resolution. It's very easy to install Linux on a second partition, so I would just recommend you go with a second partition if you want to fully utilize the size of your monitor.
My setup is sort of the opposite: I run Linux as my main OS, both at work an at home, and I have Windows in a virtual machine. On a modern computer with adequate memory the performance of development tools is not a problem. I work with Visual Studio in the virtual machine, and I have seen few performance issues. (But note that this is on a fast computer, and that you may need more memory than otherwise, since you are running two OS:es at the same time. On an old computer with less memory it can become unbearable.)
Dual-boot, where you have to restart the computer to switch OS, doesn't work well for me. It takes way too much time to switch, and really need to switch back and forth. Having Windows in a window works much better for me, and you can maximize that "Windows window", so it looks like you're just running Windows.
One thing you may want to look at is to have Linux running in a VM, then configuring Samba to allow the host to network-mount pieces of the Linux filesystem so that you can operate using Windows tools, and have Linux running the server processes (e.g., httpd). Alternatively, I'm sure that there are shell extensions for using FTP, NFS, or SSH/SFTP servers from within Explorer, but I've not looked at any for a long time.
If you should happen to need to use graphical Linux tools then you can use the X server found in cygwin for that.
The downside of this plan is that Samba can be a bit tricky to configure, but you get to use the Windows tools you're already familiar with.
I had no issues running Ubuntu via VMWare. You can easily switch to full screen mode anytime. Strongly recommended. One shortcoming is that Linux will not be exposed to the full potential of your hardware. Compbiz Fusion failed to work as a result.
Given that you're a gamer, I'm thinking your machine should be fast enough to run Linux in a VM. Best to try out the VM before messing with disk partitions.
I use physically separate machines to run Linux and Windows (and MacOS X). This means that I don't have to reboot to do something different, and each system gets the full power of the hardware.
Disadvantages: more desk space used, more time and money spent maintaining hardware (though if you do a rolling upgrade, this is mitigated - Linux runs most happily on not-quite-new machines). Doesn't work so well if you like carrying laptops around.
Be aware that VMs universally don't give you full graphics acceleration. This can be a non-issue (many programs must cope with Intel GMA anyway), or it can be a showstopper. Your choice.
Is it possible to run the COFF executable files on UNIX or the ELF executable files on Windows? And what would be the steps to be able to run either file type on Windows and UNIX. I'm just curious.
To answer your question properly, it is relevant to review what ELF, COFF, and PE are. These binary formats are essentially just containers that give directions to the operating system about how to execute the raw CPU instructions contained in the file. They are very much like audio/video containers like MKV, WMV, and OGG. Support for the executable format is either in the operating system or not. Microsoft Windows has consistently not given any support for COFF or ELF, until recently. With Windows 10, Microsoft has provided indirect support for ELF by building into the Windows kernel UserMode-Linux compatible system routines. A UserMode Linux kernel runs on top of the Windows kernel and runs all ELF binary formats almost as if it were running independent of MS Windows.
The alternative to using the UserMode-Linux (sub-kernel) being for Microsoft to rewrite the majority of the Linux API in a completely compatible format, their choice solves one other compatibility issue: The API. "A" stands for Application and "I" for Interface, however the API as an interface is mainly just a set of executable routines and environment assumptions. Access to the filesystem and most basic system routines is provided by the Windows kernel, while everything else is provided in the UserMode Linux kernel. This way not only can Windows run ELF formatted executables, but in can run the most popular ELF executables that are already made to run on the Linux API.
The reverse, the other half of the question, running PE (most Microsoft Windows executables) on Linux is possible as well. There are two runtime wrapping libraries that can run MSIL (virtual machine application) and Win32 (normal CPU application). Because the Linux kernel is extendable to recognize a certain byte format, then run an appropriate wrapper program, in effect the kernel supports PE and potentially more executable container formats. Therefore, Linux can run some PE programs either in the mono runtime (.NET/C# applications) or in the WINE runtime (Win32 C/C++).
To install the UserMode-Linux environment you can follow instructions provided on Microsoft's Development Network. To summarize:
Turn on Developer Mode: Settings | Update & Security | For Developers | Check the Developer Mode radio button
From the start menu, open “Turn Windows Features on or off”
Scroll down and check the “Windows Subsystem for Linux (Beta)” feature
Hit okay and reboot (required step)
Once rebooted, open a PowerShell/command prompt and run “Bash” and follow the simple prompts to accept Canonical’s license and kick-off the download of the Ubuntu image
After download has completed, you’ll be able to start “Bash on Ubuntu on Windows” from the Start menu
Be aware this method only works on Windows 10 and is still limited to text-mode console and a Win32 port of Xorg like vcXsrv for anything graphical. Cygwin or MSYS2 systems are not able to run ELF binaries, but make it possible to port and run the same applications that are normally ELF binaries on a Linux system.
To actually run executables and have them do useful stuff, you need to worry about the API, not just the executable file format. On a Linux machine with WINE installed, you can run Windows .EXE files from the command line and they do the same thing that they do on Windows.
The other way around is not really possible, however if you install CYGWIN on a Windows machine, and then rebuild the application from source with CYGWIN compilers, you will get an executable that runs on Windows and does the same thing that the Linux executable does on Linux. Lots of standard Linux tools are already ported and in the CYGWIN repository including stuff like X-Windows and GIMP.
http://lbw.sourceforge.net/ works better than line.
low was another project for doing the same thing, but that was the less working.
EDIT: http://atratus.org/ seems to do the same as well, without the need to have Interix/SFU.
COFF was originally introduced by UNIX (around System V or thereabouts) so yes, some UNIX probably still supports COFF format. It's been deprecated by Linux at least for a while, and presumably most other Unices have also deprecated or outright dropped support.
Windows ELF support is a bit more iffy - almost certainly not there without some deep trickery. You should be more specific about what you're trying to do here...