Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am really new to GCC and I don't know how to use it. I already have a copy of a pre-compiled gcc binaries I've downloaded from one of the mirror sites in the gcc website. Now, I don't know where to go from here. Please give me some tips on how I can proceed.
I am sorry for the rather vague question..
What I want are tips on how to use GCC. I've programmed in C in the past using the TC compiler. Thanks!
I really appreciate all of your suggestions. Thanks again.. :)
Use -Wall all the time.
Don't ignore warnings; fix them as they crop up.
Baby steps to start with.
Create the file you want to compile (hi.c) in your favorite editor, like:
#include <stdio.h>
int main (void) {
printf ("Hi there\n");
return 0;
}
Then from the command prompt, execute:
gcc -o hi hi.c
That will give you an executable you can then run.
Beyond that, it really depends on how much C (or C++ or other GCC language) you know. If you're a beginner at C, rather than just the GCC toolchain, get yourself a good beginner's book on the language and start reading. Most importantly, do the exercises, play with the code and so forth.
Based on your update that you're comfortable with C itself (the Borland line), you'll probably only be interested in the immediate GCC differences.
GCC is a command-line compiler. There are IDEs that use it but GCC itself is not an IDE. That means you'll probably be doing command-line compilation.
The basic forms of this are:
# creates an executable "exe" from your source file "src.c"
gcc -o exe src.c
# creates an executable "exe" from your source files "src.c" and "extra.c"
gcc -o exe src.c extra.c
# creates object files from your source files
gcc -c -o src.o src.c
gcc -c -o extra.o extra.c
# creates an executable file "exe" from your object files
gcc -o exe src.o extra.o
Once you get sick of doing that, you'll want to learn how to use make, a way of automating the build process with a file containing rules (dependencies and actions to take), such as:
all: exe
clean:
rm -rf exe src.o extra.o
rebuild: clean all
exe: src.o extra.o
gcc -o exe src.o extra.o
src.o: src.c
gcc -o src.o src.c
extra.o: extra.c
gcc -o extra.o extra.c
I don't do justice to the power of make here, it's far more expressive than it looks.
Unless you have no interest in portability, make sure you learn which features of GCC are GNU extensions to the standard. Granted, GCC is available on most machines, but it would usually be silly to restrict your code so it only compiles with GCC.
To that end, as well as the ubiquitous -Wall, I usually use -std=c99 (or -std=c89) with -pedantic. I like to work with -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes to ensure that no functions are undeclared. Where the code is really clean, I will add -Wextra (more warnings than -Wall) and -Werror (treat warnings as errors). This makes sure that the code stays really clean - the compilation fails when there's a warning.
Makefiles are very helpful. You should definitely check out how to use them.
Related
I am using GCC and I want to essentially read and load the stdlib/libc stuff from another location than /usr/include and /usr/lib. I tried to copy them to another place and compile it like this, but it doesn't work. I am not surprised that this naive approach didn't work, but it was worth a try.
gcc -nostdlib -nolibc -I<custompath>/include -L<custompath>/lib -xc test.c
Could someone nudge me in the right direction here?
With this command:
gcc -nostdlib -nolibc ...
you are asking GCC to not link with libc.
Of course it doesn't work (if your program is using libc functions). What did you expect?
Start by dropping these two flags. And if the result doesn't work then, tell us exactly what doesn't work (by editing your question).
See also documentation for the -sysroot option.
I have a project that basically compiles from the command line in the following form:
g++ -o stack_raster stack_raster.cpp -lgdal -lboost_filesystem -lboost_system
I made a Makefile, and this is the content:
CXX =g++
LDDFLAGS = -lgdal -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem
all: clean stack_raster
clean:
rm -f stack_raster
However I got a collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status.
A second variation of my Makefile I tried was:
CXX = g++
CPPFLAGS = -lgdal -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem
all: clean stack_raster
clean:
rem -f stack_raster
but I still receive the following message (even though the compile flags appear as they should for my program to compile successfully).
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
<builtin>: recipe for target `stack_raster` failed
make: *** [stack_raster] Error 1
Does anyone could help me with a reference or hint about my problem, and how could I tackle it?
Does anyone could help me with a reference or hint about my problem, and how could I tackle it?
To begin with, you should have a look at the actual link command that make executed. It should have been echoed to make's output just before the error message from collect2. Understanding what's wrong with the command is the first step in determining how to fix your makefile.
In the first case, the command is probably something like
g++ stack_raster.cpp -o stack_raster
In the second, it is probably something like
g++ -lgdal -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem stack_raster.cpp -o stack_raster
The latter is probably also very similar to what you would get with the first makefile if you corrected the spelling of LDDFLAGS to LDFLAGS.
You will note that the library flags come in a different place in that command than they do in your manual command, and I assume you know that the order of objects and library flags on the linker command line is significant to Unix-style linkers such as GNU's (which is the one that the g++ driver will use).
You can certainly fix this by writing an explicit rule, as you describe in your own answer, but your makes' built-in rules may be up to the task, too. If you are using GNU make then they certainly are. For this purpose it is useful to know what the built-in rules actually are, and essential to know what the variables on which these rules depend mean.
Specifically,
LDFLAGS provides options to pass when invoking the linker, and conventionally, they appear on the command line before the objects being linked. As a result, this variable typically is not appropriate for specifying libraries (but it is fine for other link-specific options, such as -L to add directories to the library search path).
CPPFLAGS provides options for modulating the behavior of the C preprocessor (including when compiling C++). These do not typically appear at all in link(-only) commands executed by make, but they will appear (early) in commands for compiling object files from C or C++ sources, and in rules for building executables directly from C or C++ sources.
Neither of those is what you want, but if you are using GNU make, then its documentation for the former explicitly tells you what (with that make implementation) you should do instead:
Extra flags to give to compilers when they are supposed to invoke the
linker, ‘ld’, such as -L. Libraries (-lfoo) should be added to the
LDLIBS variable instead.
(emphasis added)
In GNU make, and perhaps some others, the LDLIBS variable serves exactly the purpose you need: to specify the libraries to link. These will appear at the end of the link command line from built-in rules, as you can confirm from GNU make's catalog of implicit rules, or from the list obtainable by running make -p in a directory containing no makefile.
So, with GNU make you can get the build you seem to want from the built-in rules, with this:
CXX = g++
LDLIBS = -lgdal -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem
all: clean stack_raster
clean:
rm -f stack_raster
In closing, I note that cleaning before building by default, as your examples do and mine imitates, largely defeats the purpose of using make instead of a simple script. Part of the point of make is to do the minimum work necessary, and if your target executable is present and not out of date with respect to its sources then there is no reason to force it to be rebuilt.
Check out the answer:
Set up my makefile to compile C with just "make"
YOu have to specify in the Makefile the file you want to create in this case stack_raster.exe and the objective file in this case stack_raster.cpp and specify the command line arguments you normally pass for compiling. So the Makefile would be something like:
CXX=g++
stack_raster.exe: stack_raster.cpp
g++ -o stack_raster.exe stack_raster.cpp -lgdal -lboost_filesystem -lboost_system
all: clean stack_raster.exe
clean:
rm -f stack_raster.exe
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 am trying to learn to C programing using Zed Shaw's Learn C the hard way. I have been working on ex26 where we create a program "devpkg" used to install software. This exercise requires installing Apache Portable Runtime library. After writing the code for this exercise I could not get program to compile using the following makefile:
PREFIX?=/user/local
CFLAGS=-g -Wall -I${PREFIX}/apr/include/apr-1 -I{PREFIX}/apr/include/apr-util-1
LDFLAGS=-L${PREFIX}/apr/lib -lapr-1 -pthread -laprutil-1
all: devpkg
install: all
install -d${DESTDIR}/${PREFIX}/bin/
install devpkg ${DESTDIR}/${PREFIX}/bin/
clean:
rm -f *.o
rm -f devpkg
rm -f *.dSYM
This makefile did not seem to work as when I used "$make devpkg" not all of the APR library functions were declared. As a side note I am running this on a Ubuntu virtual machine. A solution given in the text says to alter a config file and then "run ldconfig" to help the linker find the appropriate library.
I do not understand the man page for ldconfig well enough to correctly utilize the function. How do run ldconfig correctly?
Also after some digging I found a reference that using "LDLIBS" instead of "LDFLAGS" in the makefile fixed the problem. I altered the makefile and the program compiled.
What is the difference between "LDFLAGS" and "LDLIBS" that allowed the C compiler to correctly link to the APR library? Is there a handy list of commands somewhere that can help me better understand how a makefile is correctly generated?
Thanks for your time.
From the GNU Make Manual, section 10.2 Catalogue of Implicit Rules:
Linking a single object file
n is made automatically from n.o by running the linker (usually called ld) via the C compiler. The precise recipe used is '$(CC) $(LDFLAGS) n.o $(LOADLIBES) $(LDLIBS)'.
As you can see, LDFLAGS comes before your object file and LDLIBS after. Sometimes that order can matter - apparently it does in your case.
Editorial note: While it might sometimes be convenient to use make's implicit rule support, it almost always ends up more confusing down the road. I'd urge you to write a complete makefile - it'll help you understand what's going on better and hopefully avoid this sort of problem in the future.
I just wanted to add this answer as an alternative to changing "LDFLAGS" to "LDLIBS". The above solution did work in my case but I found an alternative (though less direct) solution before I saw this thread which others may find useful or interesting. When compiling I was seeing lots of "undefined reference" errors e.g.:
/MyCode/LCTHW/devpkg/devpkg.c:18: undefined reference to `apr_pool_initialize'
After much trial and error, I changed the makefile thus (still using LDFLAGS):
CC=gcc
PREFIX?=/usr/local
CFLAGS=-g -Wall -I$(PREFIX)/apr/include/apr-1 -I$(PREFIX)/apr/include/apr-util-1
LDFLAGS=-L$(PREFIX)/apr/lib -lapr-1 -laprutil-1 -pthread
OBJECTS=bstrlib.o db.o shell.o commands.o devpkg.o
all: devpkg
devpkg: $(OBJECTS)
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(OBJECTS) -o devpkg $(LDFLAGS)
install: all
install -d $(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX)/bin/
install devpkg $(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX)/bin/
clean:
rm -f *.o
rm -f devpkg
rm -rf *.dSYM
I then had to add a .conf file to /etc/ld.so.conf.d containing the path to the apr libraries, namely
/usr/local/apr/lib
And then run
sudo ldconfig
so the system would pick up the new .conf file and so know where to find the library. From what I have read, it seems this last step was necessary because the library wasn't stored in /usr/local/lib. If I remove the .conf file and re-run ldconfig to update, the program compiles but then fails to find the libraries at run-time (whether compiled with my makefile or OP's).
While I don't fully understand my solution, it at least allowed me to compile and run the program with no errors. Hopefully this solution will be of interest to others, and maybe somebody more knowledgeable will be able to explain in more detail why it works.
I am building a large project with a makefile that was originally built with icpc, and now I need to get it running with g++.
When it compiles the file that uses openmp, it uses the -c flag, and doesn't use any libraries, so it ends up being serial instead of openmp. All of the examples I am seeing aren't using this -c flag.
Is there some way to compile without linking, but using openmp?
edit:
I've been using the -lgomp flag(and the library is on the library path):
g++ -lgomp -c -w -O4 mainS.cpp
g++: -lgomp: linker input file unused because linking not done
Edit: my boss made several mistakes in the code, the makefile, and the documentation. Sorry to have wasted your time, at least it was less than the 5 hours I spend on it =/
Are you passing the flag to enable OpenMP (IIRC it's something like -fopenmp? If you don't chances are the compiler will ignore the OpenMP-related primitives and just produce serial code.
I don't think that -c (ie, compile only, don't like) has anything to do with your problem.
Perhaps the documentation helps...