Thread: [GD-Linux] ANSI/ISO C++
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-linux
|
From: Matt D. <ma...@co...> - 2001-12-11 09:38:41
|
Hi, Is there any free compilers for Linux that supports the full ANSI/ISO C++ language - which includes template template parameters and partial template specialisation. Does GCC support them yet? I need a compiler for Windows as well. Borland C++ 5.5 seems to do the job but I've had no luck making it work with the Turbo Debugger. Perhaps someone can provide me with help there? BTW, does anyone know whats happened to the SWENG mailing list. I've sent some messages out but I haven't received any. Is it down? Best regards, Matt Davies Programmer, Confounding Factor ma...@co... www.confounding-factor.com |
|
From: Daniel V. <vo...@ep...> - 2001-12-11 10:06:55
|
None of the commercial compilers out there supports the full range of the ISO C++ Standard though on either the sweng or algorithm list someone posted a list of "research" compilers that claim to be fully compliant. gcc 3.0 seems to have okay template support though I can't really tell as we hit a regression with gcc >= 2.96. You might try Intel's C++ compiler - it's not free for commercial use but I think you can use it for free if you are student or something like that. For a personal project it might be worth looking up the details as the compiler is $400 otherwise IIRC. If it's for real (time==money) use it's worth every penny as it compiles code roughly three times faster than gcc :) On Windows MSVC is free IIRC as long as you are a student or for non commercial use (as above I only vaguely remember the terms) though they only provide you with access to a non optimizing version of the compiler. MSVC has a nice IDE and debugger so you might want to give that a try. BTW, cross platformness and nifty template tricks are usually mutually exclusive - at least in my experience. Michael Vance @ TreyArch should be able to tell a lot of horror stories ;) -- Daniel, Epic Games Inc. -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Matt Davies Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 4:36 AM To: gam...@li... Subject: [GD-Linux] ANSI/ISO C++ Hi, Is there any free compilers for Linux that supports the full ANSI/ISO C++ language - which includes template template parameters and partial template specialisation. Does GCC support them yet? I need a compiler for Windows as well. Borland C++ 5.5 seems to do the job but I've had no luck making it work with the Turbo Debugger. Perhaps someone can provide me with help there? BTW, does anyone know whats happened to the SWENG mailing list. I've sent some messages out but I haven't received any. Is it down? Best regards, Matt Davies Programmer, Confounding Factor ma...@co... www.confounding-factor.com |
|
From: Timothee B. <tt...@id...> - 2001-12-11 10:22:01
|
Yup .. never go too far into C++ stuff if you want to be cross-platform .. from my experience STL is already the limit :-) TTimo On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:02:49 -0500 "Daniel Vogel" <vo...@ep...> wrote: > None of the commercial compilers out there supports the full range of the > ISO C++ Standard though on either the sweng or algorithm list someone posted > a list of "research" compilers that claim to be fully compliant. > > gcc 3.0 seems to have okay template support though I can't really tell as we > hit a regression with gcc >= 2.96. You might try Intel's C++ compiler - it's > not free for commercial use but I think you can use it for free if you are > student or something like that. For a personal project it might be worth > looking up the details as the compiler is $400 otherwise IIRC. If it's for > real (time==money) use it's worth every penny as it compiles code roughly > three times faster than gcc :) > > On Windows MSVC is free IIRC as long as you are a student or for non > commercial use (as above I only vaguely remember the terms) though they only > provide you with access to a non optimizing version of the compiler. MSVC > has a nice IDE and debugger so you might want to give that a try. > > BTW, cross platformness and nifty template tricks are usually mutually > exclusive - at least in my experience. Michael Vance @ TreyArch should be > able to tell a lot of horror stories ;) > > -- Daniel, Epic Games Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gam...@li... > [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Matt > Davies > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 4:36 AM > To: gam...@li... > Subject: [GD-Linux] ANSI/ISO C++ > > > Hi, > > Is there any free compilers for Linux that supports the full ANSI/ISO C++ > language - which includes template template parameters and partial template > specialisation. Does GCC support them yet? I need a compiler for Windows > as well. Borland C++ 5.5 seems to do the job but I've had no luck making it > work with the Turbo Debugger. Perhaps someone can provide me with help > there? > > BTW, does anyone know whats happened to the SWENG mailing list. I've sent > some messages out but I haven't received any. Is it down? > > Best regards, > > > Matt Davies > Programmer, Confounding Factor > ma...@co... > www.confounding-factor.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-linux mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-linux > |
|
From: Matt D. <ma...@co...> - 2001-12-11 13:40:46
|
I would like to use the techniques used in Modern C++ Design and the Loki library. This is however impossible as MSVC (my only current compiler) does not support partial template specialisation or template template parameters (when are they going to get their act together on this). I hoped that perhaps GCC (on Linux) would support templates properly and I will try out version 3.0 - thanks. As for Windows I've tried out Borland C++ 5.5 which handles them nicely except I cannot use its debugger with any executable that I create. Could someone let me known how this is done. I plan to implement my code on Linux when I install it. I do have the Code Fusion compiler which I bought 2 years ago which is GCC with help from Intel. I am hoping that it has decent template support. But I doubt it. Is the free GCC not that efficient at optimising then? I would like to take this conversation to SWENG but it seems to be down and I haven't heard a peep from it for a few days now. I am hoping that a few on this list subscribe to SWENG so please forgive me when I ask this question: Has anyone converted the LOKI library to not use partial template specialisation so that I can compile it under MSVC? Cheers, Matt Davies Programmer, Confounding Factor ma...@co... www.confounding-factor.com -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Vogel [mailto:vo...@ep...] Sent: 11 December 2001 10:03 To: Matt Davies; gam...@li... Subject: RE: [GD-Linux] ANSI/ISO C++ None of the commercial compilers out there supports the full range of the ISO C++ Standard though on either the sweng or algorithm list someone posted a list of "research" compilers that claim to be fully compliant. gcc 3.0 seems to have okay template support though I can't really tell as we hit a regression with gcc >= 2.96. You might try Intel's C++ compiler - it's not free for commercial use but I think you can use it for free if you are student or something like that. For a personal project it might be worth looking up the details as the compiler is $400 otherwise IIRC. If it's for real (time==money) use it's worth every penny as it compiles code roughly three times faster than gcc :) On Windows MSVC is free IIRC as long as you are a student or for non commercial use (as above I only vaguely remember the terms) though they only provide you with access to a non optimizing version of the compiler. MSVC has a nice IDE and debugger so you might want to give that a try. BTW, cross platformness and nifty template tricks are usually mutually exclusive - at least in my experience. Michael Vance @ TreyArch should be able to tell a lot of horror stories ;) -- Daniel, Epic Games Inc. -----Original Message----- From: gam...@li... [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Matt Davies Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 4:36 AM To: gam...@li... Subject: [GD-Linux] ANSI/ISO C++ Hi, Is there any free compilers for Linux that supports the full ANSI/ISO C++ language - which includes template template parameters and partial template specialisation. Does GCC support them yet? I need a compiler for Windows as well. Borland C++ 5.5 seems to do the job but I've had no luck making it work with the Turbo Debugger. Perhaps someone can provide me with help there? BTW, does anyone know whats happened to the SWENG mailing list. I've sent some messages out but I haven't received any. Is it down? Best regards, Matt Davies Programmer, Confounding Factor ma...@co... www.confounding-factor.com |
|
From: D. S. <st...@id...> - 2001-12-11 16:09:32
|
Matt Davies wrote: > > I would like to use the techniques used in Modern C++ Design and the Loki > library. This is however impossible as MSVC (my only current compiler) does > not support partial template specialisation or template template parameters > (when are they going to get their act together on this). > > I hoped that perhaps GCC (on Linux) would support templates properly and I > will try out version 3.0 - thanks. As for Windows I've tried out Borland > C++ 5.5 which handles them nicely except I cannot use its debugger with any > executable that I create. Could someone let me known how this is done. g++ 2.96 of redhat supports partial specialization. The 3.x series does. I don't know if the older 2.91.x supports it or not. Even if older ones support partial specialization, I'd recommend going newer g++ due to much better STL support (this is probably due more to packaging than to the compiler itself, but I'm not sure). IMHO, the template support on 2.96+ is really nice for g++, the only real complaint I know of there is that lots of templates results in long compile times. I don't know what LOKI uses, I suggest you just give it a try. As someone else mentioned, there is no such thing as a fully ANSI/ISO C++ compiler. If you are going to distribute source code, you probably want what you expect the end user to compile on; if sending binary code, probably whatever gives you the best code and most coding quality. D. Stimits, st...@id... > > I plan to implement my code on Linux when I install it. I do have the Code > Fusion compiler which I bought 2 years ago which is GCC with help from > Intel. I am hoping that it has decent template support. But I doubt it. > Is the free GCC not that efficient at optimising then? > > I would like to take this conversation to SWENG but it seems to be down and > I haven't heard a peep from it for a few days now. I am hoping that a few > on this list subscribe to SWENG so please forgive me when I ask this > question: > > Has anyone converted the LOKI library to not use partial template > specialisation so that I can compile it under MSVC? > > Cheers, > > Matt Davies > Programmer, Confounding Factor > ma...@co... > www.confounding-factor.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Vogel [mailto:vo...@ep...] > Sent: 11 December 2001 10:03 > To: Matt Davies; gam...@li... > Subject: RE: [GD-Linux] ANSI/ISO C++ > > None of the commercial compilers out there supports the full range of the > ISO C++ Standard though on either the sweng or algorithm list someone posted > a list of "research" compilers that claim to be fully compliant. > > gcc 3.0 seems to have okay template support though I can't really tell as we > hit a regression with gcc >= 2.96. You might try Intel's C++ compiler - it's > not free for commercial use but I think you can use it for free if you are > student or something like that. For a personal project it might be worth > looking up the details as the compiler is $400 otherwise IIRC. If it's for > real (time==money) use it's worth every penny as it compiles code roughly > three times faster than gcc :) > > On Windows MSVC is free IIRC as long as you are a student or for non > commercial use (as above I only vaguely remember the terms) though they only > provide you with access to a non optimizing version of the compiler. MSVC > has a nice IDE and debugger so you might want to give that a try. > > BTW, cross platformness and nifty template tricks are usually mutually > exclusive - at least in my experience. Michael Vance @ TreyArch should be > able to tell a lot of horror stories ;) > > -- Daniel, Epic Games Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gam...@li... > [mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of Matt > Davies > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 4:36 AM > To: gam...@li... > Subject: [GD-Linux] ANSI/ISO C++ > > Hi, > > Is there any free compilers for Linux that supports the full ANSI/ISO C++ > language - which includes template template parameters and partial template > specialisation. Does GCC support them yet? I need a compiler for Windows > as well. Borland C++ 5.5 seems to do the job but I've had no luck making it > work with the Turbo Debugger. Perhaps someone can provide me with help > there? > > BTW, does anyone know whats happened to the SWENG mailing list. I've sent > some messages out but I haven't received any. Is it down? > > Best regards, > > Matt Davies > Programmer, Confounding Factor > ma...@co... > www.confounding-factor.com > > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-linux mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-linux |
|
From: Gareth H. <gar...@ac...> - 2001-12-11 19:20:27
|
GCC 3.0.2 is perhaps the best (released) version of GCC I've used. The C++ compiler is meant to be ISO C++ compliant, but as I don't really do any C++ programming I can't verify this. I would recommend checking this out initially. For example, the x86 backend was rewritten for 3.0, and generally produces much better code -- my personal favourite is moving floating point data through the integer registers when appropriate (integer regs: 2 cycle latency, fp regs: 7 cycle latency on a P4, for instance). -- Gareth |
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2001-12-12 07:27:21
|
December 11, 4004 B.C.
Tuesday
I have a Linux shared-library (*.so) file with lots
of C++ classes. I would like to determine the addresses
of the binary code implementations of various
NON-STATIC member functions at run-time (not at
compile-time or doing "nm foo.so" at the command line).
For example, let's say I have:
class Foo
{
public:
int Bar( int, char *, float );
};
I'd like to do something like:
printf( "%p", &(Foo::Bar) );
The problem is, this print statement gives me
a wacky answer (like 0xffff0000, for example).
I know that pointer-to-member-function is
more than a simple C pointer -- since it must
have information regarding virtual function
tables, etc. I also know that there is an
implicit "this" parameter to all non-static
member functions:
int Foo::Bar( [Foo *this,] int, char *, float );
IMPLICIT
Perhaps this is not always the case, especially
if the member function only accesses static
member functions and variables -- in which case
the "this" parameter is superfluous.
Anyhow, I want a 32-bit address of the
assembly language implementation of Foo::Bar()
without instantiating a Foo class object,
and without calling Foo::Bar().
*** I don't mind any assembly language "hack",
or any non-portable, frown-upon trickery. ***
Ideally the technique would be "self-contained";
i.e., something I could do with a few lines of
code or assembly code, without changing any
external source files. For example, I *don't*
want to modify the source code of the C++
classes themselves! Oh, and the technique must
do calculations at run-time, and must work
even for re-located shared-library code.
One idea I had for this problem is this:
write code to call the method, but never
execute it, and then search backwards for
the "call" instruction, and get the address.
That leads me to another question: How can
I get the run-time address of C++ statements?
For example, suppose I do this:
goto my_label;
my_label:
printf("Happy day, citizen!\n");
Could I figure out the approximate address of
the "printf" call (NOT the location of the
implementation of printf(), but the local
"line" of code where the "call printf"
assembly language is) just by doing the
following:
printf( "%x", (unsigned int)(my_label) );
or something similar?
Am I allowed to read any code pages just like
memory allocated on the heap? I mean *MY* code
pages. So is it possible to scan through the
assembly language opcodes of my own program
to search for code?
Okay, that's a lot of material -- and probably
too hard-core for this list -- but I think a
few of you guys have the expertise to help me
with this puzzle. I did lots of Google searching,
but everyone is happy making statements like
"just declare a pointer-to-member-function to
implement callbacks...C++ is great...who cares
about the secret mechanics!"
--- Colin P. Fahey
|
|
From: Ryan C. G. <ic...@cl...> - 2001-12-12 07:47:09
|
> That leads me to another question: How can
> I get the run-time address of C++ statements?
> For example, suppose I do this:
>
> goto my_label;
>
> my_label:
> printf("Happy day, citizen!\n");
>
> Could I figure out the approximate address of
> the "printf" call (NOT the location of the
> implementation of printf(), but the local
> "line" of code where the "call printf"
> assembly language is) just by doing the
> following:
>
> printf( "%x", (unsigned int)(my_label) );
>
> or something similar?
Not portably. There IS a gcc extension, though:
printf("address of my_label is (%p).\n", &&my_label);
That is TWO ampersands, and is NOT a typo.
And did I mention it's not portable. Chances are, if you need this, you
also need to rethink your design.
> Am I allowed to read any code pages just like
> memory allocated on the heap? I mean *MY* code
> pages. So is it possible to scan through the
> assembly language opcodes of my own program
> to search for code?
By default, you have read and execute access to memory pages that
represent your program. You need to change that to have write access, too,
if you plan to do any self-modifying code, or you'll segfault.
--ryan.
|
|
From: D. S. <st...@id...> - 2001-12-12 08:46:33
|
"Ryan C. Gordon" wrote:
>
> > That leads me to another question: How can
> > I get the run-time address of C++ statements?
> > For example, suppose I do this:
> >
> > goto my_label;
> >
> > my_label:
> > printf("Happy day, citizen!\n");
> >
> > Could I figure out the approximate address of
> > the "printf" call (NOT the location of the
> > implementation of printf(), but the local
> > "line" of code where the "call printf"
> > assembly language is) just by doing the
> > following:
> >
> > printf( "%x", (unsigned int)(my_label) );
> >
> > or something similar?
>
> Not portably. There IS a gcc extension, though:
>
> printf("address of my_label is (%p).\n", &&my_label);
If you don't mind compiling it in, there are standard defines under gcc
(I think on most platforms, not just linux) of __FILE__ and __LINE__.
E.G.:
printf( "%s at line %s\n", __FILE__, __LINE__ );
Assuming you can live with file name and line number, it'll do the
trick.
D. Stimits, st...@id...
>
> That is TWO ampersands, and is NOT a typo.
>
> And did I mention it's not portable. Chances are, if you need this, you
> also need to rethink your design.
>
> > Am I allowed to read any code pages just like
> > memory allocated on the heap? I mean *MY* code
> > pages. So is it possible to scan through the
> > assembly language opcodes of my own program
> > to search for code?
>
> By default, you have read and execute access to memory pages that
> represent your program. You need to change that to have write access, too,
> if you plan to do any self-modifying code, or you'll segfault.
>
> --ryan.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-linux mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-linux
|
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2001-12-12 23:29:51
|
Colin Fahey wrote: > I have a Linux shared-library (*.so) file with lots > of C++ classes. I would like to determine the addresses > of the binary code implementations of various > NON-STATIC member functions at run-time (not at > compile-time or doing "nm foo.so" at the command line). Is dlopen/dlsym applicable here? What I don't understand is *WHY* you need to do this. It seems like you must be doing something unbelievably **NASTY** and you ought to be looking for a better way to solve the problem than delving around in ikky machine details such as code addresses. ----------------------------- Steve Baker ------------------------------- Mail : <sjb...@ai...> WorkMail: <sj...@li...> URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net http://toobular.sf.net http://lodestone.sf.net |
|
From: Ryan C. G. <ic...@cl...> - 2001-12-13 00:04:34
|
> Is dlopen/dlsym applicable here?
The problem with dlsym() is that the symbol would be mangled in a way that
varies between versions of gcc, so it's best for the dynamic linker to do
this work.
The odd thing is that, when statically linked, the code that Colin posted
( printf("%p", &(Foo::Bar)); ) works fine here.
You could always do something like this (which is uglier, but probably
safer, dlsym or otherwise):
extern "C"
{
void FooBarEntry(void)
{
Foo::Bar();
}
}
then do your lookup on FoorBarEntry instead of Foo::Bar. I dunno. I tend
to agree with Steve, there's probably a better way to do this without
resorting to this sort of thing.
> What I don't understand is *WHY* you need to do this. It seems
> like you must be doing something unbelievably **NASTY** and you ought
> to be looking for a better way to solve the problem than delving around
> in ikky machine details such as code addresses.
I'm rapidly coming to the belief that this should be the standard reply to
any questions on this list. :)
--ryan.
|
|
From: Colin F. <cp...@ea...> - 2001-12-13 08:04:27
|
December 12th, 2001
Wednesday
The primary reason I asked about finding the address
of the implementation of non-static C++ class member
functions was to satisfy my curiousity; I like to
know how things work. But there was another reason...
I built my own shared-library file (*.so), which had
a few C and C++ static libraries (*.a) collected in
there, in addition to my C++ object code (*.o).
If you do "nm foo.so" and "objdump foo.so" you
can learn a lot about the structure of the shared
library file. In particular, you can see all of the
function addresses (including non-static member
functions).
Okay, I also have an executable that loads my
shared library at run-time. I have no source code
for the executable, and it was stripped of symbols.
When the executable invokes a method in my
shared library, some part of the shared library
causes a crash.
There is code that successfully "unwinds" the call
stack, so I get the addresses of all functions
at the time of the crash.
One of my co-workers wrote a Perl (ugh!) script
that parses the stack trace and uses the output
of "nm" and "objdump" to produce a friendly
trace -- listing functions and line numbers!
However, this script only works on regular
executables with everything linked in.
When a shared library is loaded, all of the
code is re-located. In order to use the Perl
script mentioned above, I had to determine
where the code was placed in virtual memory.
I picked an arbitrary function, printed its
address at run-time, and compared this to the
address indicated by "nm" or "objdump".
I subtracted the difference in the Perl script,
and now I get a valid stack trace for my
shared library crash! ***NOTE: The function
I chose was a straight C (extern "C" to avoid
mangled names) function, whose address is
trivial to print. ***
Just to reassure myself that the addresses
for the ***C++ non-static member functions*** were
sane (in addition to the static member functions
and straight C functions, whose addresses are
trivial to print), I wanted to be able to print
them -- thus the question I posted to this list.
What I ended up doing was this:
extern void MyFunction__8MyClassi();
printf( "%p", MyFunction__8MyClassi );
This prints the run-time address of the
implementation of the non-static member
function MyClass::MyFunction -- and my
"extern" function prototype is completely
artificial; it's just enough to keep the
compiler from complaining about the symbol
'MyFunction__8MyClassi' being unknown...
(...yet, heh, heh!) My fake prototype has
to be a function (or something similar),
but I don't need to match the arguments
and return value of the actual function
(with the specified mangled name).
As I clearly mentioned in my initial post,
I was willing to do any hack or frown-upon
technique just to get the answer.
This trick worked perfectly; I found that
all of the code (C++ static and non-static
functions alike) was relocated by the same
constant offset at run-time.
I'm still stuck with this crash, though.
The problem is, part of the stack trace
includes addresses that I can't explain.
I can account for all of the code that is
*DIRECTLY* contained in the shared library.
But if the shared library itself loads
even more shared libraries at run-time,
and the crash is happening inside one
of them...Uh, ohhh!
Well, I won't bore you with more details
of my problem (which is even more convoluted
than I can explain here), but maybe I'll
ask one last question:
Can you use gdb to debug an executable-
without-debugging-information just for
the sake of debugging a shared library
(whose symbols you *DO* have)?
It's a crazy, multi-threaded, Java/C++
hybrid, with lots of library loading on
both sides... Believe me, I completely
agree that wanting to know the addresses
of C++ member functions should never be
necessary for any application! But I
wanted to do some sanity checking before
entertaining some wacky theories about
the crashing. I'm not a Linux guru, and
I haven't mastered debugging on that platform.
Thanks, Ryan, for the interesting gcc compiler
trick:
printf("address of my_label is (%p).\n", &&my_label);
I just like knowing that this can be done, even
if I have no immediate plans to do this.
--- Colin P. Fahey
cp...@ea...
|
|
From: Mark C. <me...@th...> - 2001-12-11 14:45:36
|
On Tuesday 11 December 2001 9:35 am, Matt Davies wrote: <snip> On a vaguely unrelated matter, the Linux beta of VectorC is going to be starting in a couple of months, and I've been given the task of finding people who want to beta test it. Let me know (off-list) if you're interested. -- === Mark 'Nurgle' Collins Lead Author - Linux Game Programming (Premiere Press) Author - Advanced AI Game Development (WordWare) Email: me...@th... Phone: +44 7761 774 152 Email: nu...@is... Spam: sp...@th... |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X