I have some files that have a particular syntax that is similar to ada (not identical though), however I would like to verify the syntax before going and running them. There isn't a compiler for these files, so I can't check them before using them. I tried to use the following:
gcc -c -gnats <file>
However this says compilation unit expected. I've tried a few variations on this, but to no avail.
I just want to make sure the file is syntactically correct before using it, but I'm not sure how to do it, and I really don't want to write an entire syntax checker just for this.
Is there some way to include an additional unsupported language to gcc without going through a recompile? Also is this simply a file that details to gcc what the syntax constructs are, or what would be entailed? I don't need a full compile, only a syntax check.
Alternately, are there any syntax checkers I can use that I can update an ada syntax check with the small number of changes required for this language?
I've listed Ada as a tag, since the syntax is nearly identical, and finding something that will do ada syntax checking without compiling will be a 90% solution for me.
You could try running the files through gnatchop first. The GCC Ada compiler is rather unique in that it expects filenames to match up with the main unit names inside the file. That may be what your error message is trying to say.
gnatchop will go through any files you give it and write out Ada source files with the appropriate names to make gcc happy (even splitting files into multiple files if needed).
Another option you might be interested in is OpenToken. It is a parser construction toolkit, written in Ada, that allows you to build your own parsers fairly easily. It comes with a syntax recognizer for Ada, so you may just be able to tweak that a bit for your needs.
Related
I have a conditional makefile (well, actually I am dealing with the arch file that will be called when invoking make) that is quite involved and I would like to preprocess it to get rid of all the 'ifeq', 'ifneq' parts that only worsen the readability, in order to see better what is being actually done. I tried doing
make -n -d
where I get the whole calls to the compiler, but that is also a pain since then I need to separate manually all the flags. I just want to get my nice makefile with my separate FLAGS, DFLAGS, LIBS sentences etc etc.
(My apologies if this has been said anywhere, but I am unable to find it).
Thanks!
I have a #define ONB in a c file which (with several #ifndef...#endifs) changes many aspects of a programs behavior. Now I want to change the project makefile (or even better Makefile.am) so that if ONB is defined and some other options are set accordingly, it runs some special commands.
I searched the web but all i found was checking for environment variables... So is there a way to do this? Or I must change the c code to check for that in environment variables?(I prefer not changing the code because it is a really big project and i do not know everything about it)
Questions: My level is insufficient to ask in comments so I will have to ask here:
How and when is the define added to the target in the first place?
Do you essentially want a way to be able to post compile query the binaries to to determine if a particular define was used?
It would be helpful if you could give a concrete example, i.e. what are the special commands you want run, and what are the .c .h files involved?
Possible solution: Depending on what you need you could use LLVM tools to maybe generate and examine the AST of your code to see if a define is used. But this seems a little like over engineering.
Possible solution: You could also use #includes to pull in .c or header files and a conditional error be generated, or compile (to a .o), then if the compile fails you know it is defined or not. But this has it's own issues depending on how things are set-up in your make file.
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am working on a custom CFD Solver written in Fortran 90 and MPI.
The code contain 15+ Modules and was initially designed to work with the Intel Fortran compiler. Now since i do not have access to the Intel compiler I need to make it work using the GNU Fortran Compiler.
I made changes in the Makefile that initially had flags suitable for the ifort.
I am using it on Ubuntu with GNU Fortran and Openmpi
I am sorry I am unable to put in anything from the code structure or terminal output due to IP restrictions of my university. Nevertheless,I will try to best describe the issues
So now when I compile the code I am having some strange issues.
The GNU Fortran is not able to read lines that are too long and I get errors during compilation. As a result I have to break it into multiple lines using the '&' symbol
A module D.f90 contains all the Global variables declared. However, now I during compilation i get error is in module B.F90.
The error I get is 'Unclassified Statement Error', I was able to fix it in some subroutines and functions by locally declaring the variables again.
I am not the most experienced person in Fortran, but I thought that the change in compiler should not be a reason for new found syntax errors.
The errors described above so far could be remedied but considering the expanse of the code it is impractical.
I was hoping if anyone could share views on this matter and provide guidance on how to tackle it.
You should start reading three pieces of documentation:
The Fortran 90 standard (alternatively, other versions), which tells you what is legal, standard Fortran and what is not. Whenever you find some error, look at your code and check if what you are doing is legal, standard Fortran. Likely, the code in question will either be completely nonstandard (e.g. REAL*8, although that extension is fairly well understood) or rely on unspecified behaviour that Intel Fortran and GFortran are interpreting in different ways.
The GFortran manual for your version, which tells you how GFortran decides such unspecified cases, what intrinsic functions are available, how to change some options/flags, etc. This would tell you that your problem with the line lengths would be solved by adding -ffree-line-length-none.
The Intel Fortran manual for your version, which in cases of non-standard or unspecified behaviour, will allow you to know what the code you are reading was written to do, e.g. the behaviour that you would expect. In particular, it will allow you to decipher what the compiler flags that are currently being used mean. They may or may not need translation to GFortran, e.g. /Qsave will need to become -f-no-automatic.
A concrete example of interpretative differences within the range allowed be the standard: until Fortran 2003, the units for the "record length" in random access record files were left unspecified. Intel Fortran used "one machine word" (4 bytes in x86) while GFortran used 1 byte. Both were compliant with the standard letter, but incompatible.
Furthermore, even when coding "to standard", you may hit a wall if the compiler does not implement part of the Fnn standard, or it is buggy. Case in point: Intel Fortran 12.0 (old, but it's what I work with) does not the implement the ALLOCATE(y, SOURCE=x) construct for polymorphic x (the "clone allocation"). On the other hand, GFortran has not completely implemented FINAL type-bound procedures (destructors).
In both cases, you will need to find workarounds. For example, for the first issue you can use a special form of the INQUIRE statement (kudos to #haraldkl). In other cases, the workaround might even involve using some kind of feature detection (see autoconf, CMake, etc.) and storing the results as PARAMETER variables in a config.f90 file that is included by your code. Your code would then take decisions based on it, as in:
! config.f90.in (things in #x# would get subtituted by automake, for example)
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: RECORD_LEN_BYTES = #RECORD_LEN_BYTES#
! Some other file which opens a file
INCLUDE "config.f90"
!...
OPEN(u, FILE='DE430.BIN', ACCESS='direct', FORM='unformatted', RECL=56 / RECORD_LEN_BYTES)
People have been having complaints about following the standard since at least the 60s. But those cDEC$ features were put in a for good reasons...
It is valuable to cross compile though and you usually have things caught in one compiler or the other.
For you question #1 "The GNU Fortran is not able to read lines that are too long and I get errors during compilation. As a result I have to break it into multiple lines using the '&' symbol"
In the days of old there was:
options/extended_source
SUBROUTINE...
In fort it is -132, but I have not found a gfortran equivalent to -132 . It may be -ffixed-line-length-n -ffixed-line-length-none -ffree-line-length-n -ffree-line-length-none per the link: http://www.math.uni-leipzig.de/~hellmund/Vorlesung/gfortran.html#SEC8
Also the ifort standard for .f90 and .f95 is the the compiler switch '-free' '-fixed' is the standard <.f90... However one can use -fixed with .f90 and use column 6 and 'D' in column #1... Which is handy with '-D_lines' or '-DD'.
Per the link: https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/m/f/8/5/8/0/6366-ifort.txt
For you question #2: "A module D.f90 contains all the Global variables declared. However, now I during compilation i get error is in module B.F90. The error I get is 'Unclassified Statement Error', I was able to fix it in some subroutines and functions by locally declaring the variables again."
You probably need to put in the offending line, if you can get an IP waiver.
Making variables local if they are expected to be shared in a /common/ or shared in a module will not work.
If there were in /common/ or PUBLIC then they are shared.
If they are local then they are PRIVATE.
it would be easy to get that error if a PRIVATE statement was in the wrong place, or a USE statement was omitted.
I'm using GCC 4.7.2. My code is rather heavy on template, STL and boost usage. When I compile and there is an error in some class or function that is derived from or uses some boost/STL functionality, I get error messages showing spectacularly hideous return types and/or function arguments for my classes/function.
My question:
Is there a prettyprint type of thing for GCC warnings/errors containing boost/STL types, so that the return types shown in error messages correspond to what I've typed in the code, or at least, become more intelligible?
I have briefly skimmed through this question, however, that is about GDB rather than GCC...
I've also come across this pretty printer in Haskell, but that just seems to add structure, not take away (mostly) unneeded detail...
Any other suggestions?
I asked a similar question, where someone suggested I try gccfilter. It's a Perl script that re-formats the output of g++ and colorizes it, shortens it, hides full pathnames, and lots more.
Actually, that suggestion answers this question really well too: it's capable of hiding unneeded detail and pretty-printing both STL and boost types. So: I'll leave this here as an answer too.
The only drawback I could see is that g++ needs to be called from within the script (i.e., piping to it is not possible at the time). I suspect that's easily fixed, and in any case, it's a relatively minor issue.
You could try STLfilt as mentioned in 'C++ Template Metaprogramming' by David Abrahms & Alesky Gurtovoy.
The book contains a chapter on template message diagnostics. It suggests using the STLFilt /showback:N to eliminate compiler backtrace material in order to get simplified output.
I'm a Java developer learning C++. I'm using eclipse as my IDE and MinGW as my toolset. Is it considered a best practice to list down every single object in a makefile? Also, is it just as acceptable to use wildcards to include all the files?
The use of wildcards is common, and accepted, but not really good practice.
If extra source files get into your source directories, they could wind up causing conflicts or -- worse -- riding silently in your libraries as useless baggage (introns?). Also, if a needed source file goes missing, your linker will complain about a missing {function|typename|whatever} and it might not be obvious what file has been lost (not really a problem if you have good source control, but still annoying). Finally, if your build system is expected to produce different targets using different subsets of the source files, wildcards will require you to either divide your source directories Venn-diagram-style, or resort to filename conventions that do the same thing (gah!).
Maintaining explicit lists of object files in a makefile really isn't that hard to do, and it keeps things simple.