Is there a way to force '-m64' not overriding CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS. I want automatic x64 build environment like in Linux/BSD amd64.
Why do I need this?
The problem is complexity of the project I need to be buit as x64 on Solaris. It contains several parts and each may use specific C/C++ compiler flags. So, I can't just run:
CXXFLAGS=-m64 O2 ...
CFLAGS=-m64 -O2 ...
./configure
because there are no common C/C++ flags.
All I need is the way to transparently append '-m64' to every gcc/g++ call.
You can write a wrapper (eg: ~/bin/gcc) that would add the required option(s) and put ~/bin first in your PATH. eg:
#!/bin/ksh
/usr/sfw/bin/gcc -m64 "$#"
CPPFLAGS is used for the c preprocessor. It should be picked up by both gcc and g++.
Reference: http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables.html
Related
I am trying to compile c++ files using make. But, it is not using -std=c++11 flag by default. Whenever I need to compile a program which uses c++11 specific features, I have to explicitly compile it using g++.
So, I want to ask how can I have make automatically use the option -std=c++11 for all my c++ files on my system.
If I need to change some global makefile for g++ , what is the location of the makefile on Linux Mint 18 and what needs to be changed or added?
Or do I need to create a Makefile for myself?
EDIT 1: I am invoking make like make myfile
And there are only .cpp files and their binaries in the directory. I don't have any Makefile in the directory.
EDIT 2: Here, myfile is the name of the c++ file which I want to compile.
When I run make with the -d option, I get the following output (I can not paste all of the output as it is quite long and is exceeding the body size limit so, I am including the screenshots of the output).
Image 1
And this image(2) has some lines from the end.
Image 2
I intentionally made a change in the file "MagicalWord.cpp" so that make finds something to make!
There is no "global makefile" and there is no way to change the default flags for all invocations of make (unless you edit the source code to GNU make and compile it yourself, which is a bad idea in this situation).
In your makefile(s), add the line:
CXXFLAGS += -std=c++11
Assuming you're using the built-in rules for compiling things, or that you're using the standard variables with your own rules, that will do what you need.
If that doesn't work we'll need to see your makefile or at least the rules you use to build your C++ source files (things like the -d output aren't useful here--that would be interesting if files weren't being built, that you thought should be or similar).
Setting a system-wide language for all your C++ projects isn't necessarily a good idea. Instead, define a Makefile that specifies any compiler options you'd like:
CXXFLAGS := -std=c++11 $(CXXFLAGS)
The CXXFLAGS are then passed to your compiler when compiling a C++ program (assuming you're using the default GNU Make rules).
If the Makefile lives in your current working directory, you can now run make target in order to compile a target.cpp file into a target executable.
If the Makefile is in another directory, you must specify the path to it:
make -f path/to/your/Makefile target
If you want to add extra parameters just for one run, you can set an environment variable or a make variable on the command line:
# environment:
CXXFLAGS='-std=c++11' make target
# make variable:
make target CXXFLAGS='-std=c++11'
Any of these will cause the execution of g++ -std=c++11 target.cpp -o target or equivalent.
In theory you can edit your shell profile to export CXXFLAGS='-std=c++11' which will make that environment variable available to all programs you run. In practice, setting compiler options through environment variables tends to cause more problems than it solves.
Of all these solutions, just writing a normal Makefile is by far the easiest approach. That way, all of the build configuration is in one place and completely automated.
I want to know when i should use ld linker instead off gcc. I just wrote a simply hello world in c++, of course i include iostream library. If i want make a binary file with gcc i just use:
g++ hello hello.cpp
and i've got my binary file.
Later i try to use ld linker. To get object file i use:
g++ -c hello.cpp. Ok that was easy, but the link command was horrible long:
ld -o hello.out hello.o \
-L /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8.4/ \
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8.4/crtbegin.o \
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8.4/crtend.o \
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/crti.o \
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/crtn.o \
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/crt1.o \
-dynamic-linker /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -lstdc++ -lc
I know fact that gcc uses the ld.
Using gcc is better in all cases or just in most cases? Please, tell me somethink about cases where ld linker has advantage.
As you mentioned, gcc merely acts as a front-end to ld at link time; it passes all the linker directives (options, default/system libraries, etc..), and makes sure everything fits together nicely by taking care of all these toolchain-specific details for you.
I believe it's best to consider the GNU toolchain as a whole, tightly integrated environment (as anyone with an experience of building toolchains for some exotic embedded platforms with, say, dietlibc integration will probably agree).
Unless you have some very specific platform integration requirements, or have reasons not to use gcc, I can hardly think of any advantage of invoking ld directly for linking. Any extra linker-specific option you may require could easily be specified with the -Wl, prefix on the gcc command line (if not already available as a plain gcc option).
It is mostly a matter of taste: you would use ld directly when the command-lines are simpler than using gcc. That would be when you are just using the linker to manipulate a small number of shared objects, e.g., to create a shared library with few dependencies.
Because you can pass options to ld via the -Wl option, often people will recommend just using gcc to manage the command-line.
I'm working on setting up autotools for a large code base that was once just a bash script compile and later just hand written Makefiles.
We have a set of files that require that compiler optimizations be turned off. These files are already in their own subdirectory, so they will have their own Makefile.am.
What's the proper way to drop any existing compiler optimizations and force a -O0 flag on the compiler for these specific files?
I went with Brett Hale's comment to use subpackages. I was able to insert
: ${CFLAGS="-O0"}
before AC_PROG_CC, which sets the appropriate optimization. The other solutions do not work, since the -g -O2 was getting added very last. You can never get another -O variable after it.
You don't have to remove existing optimizations: the last value of -O on the compiler invocation will be used, so it's good enough to just add -O0 at the end.
This is not directly supported by automake, but there's a trick you can use defined in the documentation.
Otherwise if you know you'll only ever invoke your makefile with GNU make you can play other tricks that are GNU make specific; you may have to disable automake warnings about non-portable content.
Given a C++ program that uses GNU autotools, what's the easiest way to compile it with -flto (link time optimization)? My understanding is that it is customary on Unix for such optimization flags to be specified by the user or packager, not by the programmer.
According to this post, the -flto flag needs to be passed as a compilation flag and as a linker flag, so:
./configure CXXFLAGS="-flto" LDFLAGS="-flto" ...
or possibly:
./configure CXXFLAGS="-flto" LDFLAGS="-Wc,-flto" ...
might work.
I'm trying to compile AODV for ARM linux. I use a SabreLite as a board with kernel version 3.0.35_4.1.0. It's worth mention that i'm using openembedded to create my Linux Distribution for my board.
The AODV source code (http://sourceforge.net/projects/aodvuu/) has a README file which give some indications on how to install it on ARM as stated a bit here.
(http://w3.antd.nist.gov/wctg/aodv_kernel/kaodv_arm.html).
I was able to upgrade the makefile in order to be used with post 2.6 kernel version ( as stated above, i have the 3.0.35_4.1.0 kernel version).
So, basically, what i am trying to do is that i have to create a module (let's say file.ko) and then load it into the ARM (with insmod file.ko command).
To do that, i am using a cross compiler which some values are stated below:
echo $CC :
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-gcc -march=armv7-a -mthumb-interwork -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=neon -mtune=cortex-a9 --sysroot=/usr/local/oecore-x86_64/sysroots/cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-oe-linux-gnueabi
echo $ARCH=arm
echo $CFLAGS: O2 -pipe -g -feliminate-unused-debug-types
echo $LD :
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-ld --sysroot=/usr/local/oecore-x86_64/sysroots/cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-oe-linux-gnueabi
echo $LDFLAGS :
-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,--as-needed
when i launch "make command", i get the following errors:
LD [M] /home/scof/script_emulation/AODV/aodv-uu/lnx/kaodv.o
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-ld: unrecognized option '-Wl,-O1'
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-ld: use the --help option for usage information
It states that there is something wrong with the linker. This linker comes from the cross compilation tools and i normally shouldn't touch it.
Anyway, to get this above errors fixed, i try to withdraw the LDFLAGS like this:
export LDFLAGS='',
and after this, the make command works and i get the module kaodv.ko. But when i insert it into my ARM to check, it does not work. It actually freeze my terminal
So my question is, do i have to specify the LDFLAGS when compiling ? Does withdrawing LDFLAGS can have impact on the generated kernel module.
Actually, i try to understand where might be the problem and the only thing that come to me is that may be i should not change manually the LDFLAGS. But if i don't change de LDFLAGS, i get the unrecognized option error.
My second question related to that is, what are the possibly value of LDFLAGS
in ARM compilation
Thanks !!
echo $LDFLAGS : -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,--as-needed
There are two common methods of invoking the linker in a GCC-based toolchain. One is to do it directly, but another is to use GCC as a front end to invoke the linker, rather than invoke it directly. When doing this, options intended for the linker are prefixed with -Wl, so that GCC knows to pass them through rather than interpret them itself.
In your case the error message from LD itself
arm-oe-linux-gnueabi-ld: unrecognized option '-Wl,-O1'
Indicates that your build system is passing LDFLAGS directly to the linker, and not by way of GCC.
Therefore, you should remove the -Wl, prefix and your LDFLAGS would instead be
-O1 --hash-style=gnu --as-needed --as-needed
(the duplication of the last argument is probably pointless but benign)
-O1 is an option that tells the linker to optimize. I believe it something new, and your linker may be slightly out of date. Try removing -Wl,-O1, it should still work.