I have a function written in C (Say in HelloWorld.c file).
I want to compile this and need to create a staic object file HelloWorld.a
Finally I need to call this from a Perl program (HelloWorld.pl).
To call from perl to C one usually compiles a shared, not a static, library from his c code, and then loads that into the perl interpreter using the XSLoader or DynaLoader module.
To then be able to call the C code from perl space there's many ways. The most common one is writing something called XSUBs, which have a perl-side interface, map the perl calling-conventions to C calling-conventions, and call the C functions. Those XSUBs are usually also linked into the shared library that'll be loaded into perl, and written in a language called XS, which is extensively documented in perlxs and perlxstut.
There's also other ways to build that wrapper layer, like various XS code generators, as well as SWIG. But you could also call to the C functions directly using an NCI. Perl also has many of those. The P5NCI is one example of those, the ctypes module developed in this year's Google Summer of Code program is another.
Another related technique that should probably be mentioned here is Inline::C, and the other modules of the Inline family. They allow you to write code in other languages directly in perl, and call to it. Under the hood Inline::C just builds XS code and loads the result of that into the interpreter.
As #rafl says, you should use a shared library.
If you must use a static library, then you have to rebuild Perl with the static library built in. You'll need some XS glue too. However, this is messy enough that you really, really don't want to do it.
According to perlxstut:
It is commonly thought that if a system does not have the capability to dynamically load a library, you cannot build XSUBs. This is incorrect. You can build them, but you must link the XSUBs subroutines with the rest of Perl, creating a new executable. This situation is similar to Perl 4.
This tutorial can still be used on such a system. The XSUB build mechanism will check the system and build a dynamically-loadable library if possible, or else a static library and then, optionally, a new statically-linked executable with that static library linked in.
Should you wish to build a statically-linked executable on a system which can dynamically load libraries, you may, in all the following examples, where the command "make" with no arguments is executed, run the command "make perl" instead.
If you have generated such a statically-linked executable by choice, then instead of saying "make test", you should say "make test_static". On systems that cannot build dynamically-loadable libraries at all, simply saying "make test" is sufficient.
Related
In java, there is a way to import a class and all of its children in one line:
import java.utils.*
In Perl, I've found I can only import specific classes:
use Perl::Utils::Folder;
use Perl::Utils::Classes qw(new run_class);
Is there similar way like java to import everything that falls under a tree structure, only in Perl?
No, there is not a way to easily do what you are after.
You could walk the relevant paths in your PERL library's filesystem and use every .pm file you came across (that's what Module::Find, as suggested by #Daniel Böhmer, does), but that can miss a few things:
Packages that are declared in funny ways/at runtime.
Multiple packages per module file.
Other cases I haven't thought of.
This is also a bad idea, for a few reasons:
You mentioned "classes" in your question, rather than just packages. Perl packages and subpackages do not necessarily represent classes/instantiable object-oriented code. If you were to programmatically generate a list of all packages in a hierarchy and then call $packagename->new() on each of them, you might have a syntax error, if one of the packages was just a library of functions.
Packages and subpackages often are not directly related, developed by the same people, or used for similar things. Just because a package starts with Net:: doesn't mean that it will obey standard conventions that other Net::-prefixed packages expect. For example, File::Find and File::Tail share a prefix, but have very little to do with each other; the prefix is in common because both utilities work with files as their goal.
Lots of packages do things at BEGIN/INIT/etc time when they're compiled. Some of them (sadly) do different things depending on the order in which they're used relative to other modules. The solution to this problem for module developers is "don't do that", but for module users, it's "use sparingly, and only when needed".
It clutters your local namespace with lots of potentially-exported symbols you don't necessarily need (to conditionally import symbols, you'll have to use import arguments like you're doing in your example; there's no programmatic way to define "symbols I'm interested in", since Perl doesn't have that kind static analysis at compile time . . . not for lots of call styles, at least).
It slows down your program's startup time by compiling things you might not necessarily need. This might not seem important at the early phase of a project, but for larger projects it is very easy to end up in situations where you're pulling in over a thousand CPAN modules when you start Apache (or launch your main script, or whatever), and your app takes more than a minute just to start.
I have a hunch that you're trying to reduce boilerplate (as in: all of your modules have a big block of use statements at the top, and that's duplicated everywhere). There are a few ways to do this, starting with:
Don't: import things in each module as you need them, and use strict/warnings and lots of tests to be told early on if you're calling functionality that you haven't imported yet.
You could also make your own Exporter subclass that uses all of your standard modules and adds the functions that you frequently use from them to its #EXPORTS (or splices their #EXPORTS onto its own, or uses Exporter sub-sub-classing, or something).
Factor your code so that the parts that depend on multiple imported modules live in a single utility module, and import that.
Factor your code so that the parts that depend on the imported modules live in a parent class, and address its methods via instances of subclasses (or SUPER), so your subclasses don't have to explicitly contain the imports, e.g. $instance->method_that_calls_an_imported_function_in_the_parent();
Also, as an aside, using package.* imports in Java is debatable, and has many of the same drawbacks of doing it in Perl.
In Perl, the class Foo::Bar::Foo may not be a subclass of Foo::Bar. Nor, is there any guarantee that a subclass module even has the same class prefix. IO::File is a subclass of IO::Handle and not of IO which isn't even a module.
There also isn't even an easy way to tell of a Perl module is a sub-class of another Perl module. There are (at least) three ways to declare a subclass' relationship to a class:
use parent
use base
The #ISA package variable
It is possible to use #INC to find all modules, then look at the source and look at use parent, use base, and #ISA declarations and build a Perl class matrix, then go through that matrix to load the classes you do need. That will probably be slow and cumbersome, and doesn't even cover Moose based classes.
You're asking the wrong question. You're asking "Find all of the subclasses of a particular class.". This will include classes that you're probably not even interested in. I know (for example LWP) that there can be dozens of various classes and subclasses that include stuff you're not even interested in.
What you should be asking is "What do I need to do?", and then find the classes that fulfill your needs. If these classes happen to be child classes of a particular parent class, these subclasses will load the required class.
We do Java programming here, and one of the standards is not to use asterisks in our import statements. This is considered sloppy programming. If you need a particular class, you should declare it rather than simply declaring a superclass. Many of our reporting tools have problems with asterisk declarations in import statements.
There is a Module::Find module, but I am not sure exactly how it works. I believe it simply assumes that subclasses are in the same module hierarchy as the superclass, but that's far from true in Perl.
In general, I think it is a bad idea to load a whole 'tree' of modules (or subclasses so to speak).
There is definitely something wrong in your design if you need to know all and everything about sub classes/modules. You break the rules of encapsulation and you should not need to know how a class handles its responsibilities.
Is there a supported way to have an Ada program call out to GNAT to compile a source file, and then load the result dynamically?
(By 'supported' I mean: better than shelling out to gnatmake.)
Background: I have a program whose configuration files contain code. Right now I have an LLVM-based library, written in C++, which I have C bindings to and call out to from Ada, which handles this: it loads the configuration files, JIT compiles them into (commendably fast) machine code, and then I call out to them from Ada.
This is horrible.
It would be far cleaner to simply write the configuration in Ada, and compile and link it against the program. But I don't want to force the end user to have to set up a build system. What I'd like is for the end user to just point my program at the configuration files, and then have the program compile and dynamically load them invisibly, without the user needing to care.
This sounds like exactly the sort of thing that someone's already done. Have they? (I only care about Unixoids like Linux, if that helps.)
I have been on a "cleaning spree" lately at work, doing a lot of touch-up stuff that should have been done awhile ago. One thing I have been doing is deleted modules that were imported into files and never used, or they were used at one point but not anymore. To do this I have just been deleting an import and running the program's test file. Which gets really, really tedious.
Is there any programmatic way of doing this? Short of me writing a program myself to do it.
Short answer, you can't.
Longer possibly more useful answer, you won't find a general purpose tool that will tell you with 100% certainty whether the module you're purging will actually be used. But you may be able to build a special purpose tool to help you with the manual search that you're currently doing on your codebase. Maybe try a wrapper around your test suite that removes the use statements for you and ignores any error messages except messages that say Undefined subroutine &__PACKAGE__::foo and other messages that occur when accessing missing features of any module. The wrapper could then automatically perform a dumb source scan on the codebase of the module being purged to see if the missing subroutine foo (or other feature) might be defined in the unwanted module.
You can supplement this with Devel::Cover to determine which parts of your code don't have tests so you can manually inspect those areas and maybe get insight into whether they are using code from the module you're trying to purge.
Due to the halting problem you can't statically determine whether any program, of sufficient complexity, will exit or not. This applies to your problem because the "last" instruction of your program might be the one that uses the module you're purging. And since it is impossible to determine what the last instruction is, or if it will ever be executed, it is impossible to statically determine if that module will be used. Further, in a dynamic language, which can extend the program during it's run, analysis of the source or even the post-compile symbol tables would only tell you what was calling the unwanted module just before run-time (whatever that means).
Because of this you won't find a general purpose tool that works for all programs. However, if you are positive that your code doesn't use certain run-time features of Perl you might be able to write a tool suited to your program that can determine if code from the module you're purging will actually be executed.
You might create alternative versions of the modules in question, which have only an AUTOLOAD method (and import, see comment) in it. Make this AUTOLOAD method croak on use. Put this module first into the include path.
You might refine this method by making AUTOLOAD only log the usage and then load the real module and forward the original function call. You could also have a subroutine first in #INC which creates the fake module on the fly if necessary.
Of course you need a good test coverage to detect even rare uses.
This concept is definitely not perfect, but it might work with lots of modules and simplify the testing.
In this question i saw two different answers how to directly call functions written in C++
Inline::CPP (and here are more, like Inline::C, Inline::Lua, etc..)
SWIG
Handmade (as daxim told - majority of modules are handwritten)
I just browsed nearly all questions in SO tagged [perl][swig] for finding answer for the next questions:
What are the main differences using (choosing between) SWIG and Inline::CPP or Handwritten?
When is the "good practice" - recommented to use Inline::CPP (or Inline:C) and when is recommented to use SWIG or Handwritten?
As I thinking about it, using SWIG is more universal for other uses, like asked in this question and Inline::CPP is perl-specific. But, from the perl's point of view, is here some (any) significant difference?
I haven't used SWIG, so I cannot speak directly to it. But I'm pretty familiar with Inline::CPP.
If you would like to compose C++ code that gets compiled and becomes callable from within Perl, Inline::CPP facilitates this. So long as the C++ code doesn't change, it should only compile once. If you base a module on Inline::CPP, the code will be compiled at module install time, so another user never really sees the first time compilation lag; it happens at install time, just before the testing phase.
Inline::CPP is not 100% free of portability isues. The target user must have a C++ compiler that is of similar flavor to the C compiler used to build Perl, and the C++ standard libraries should be of versions that produce binary-compatible code with Perl. Inline::CPP has about a 94% success rate with the CPAN testers. And those last 6% almost always boil down to issues of the installation process not correctly deciphering what C++ compiler and libraries to use. ...and of those, it usually comes down to the libraries.
Let's assume you as a module author find yourself in that 95% who have no problem getting Inline::CPP installed. If you know that your target audience will fall into that same category, then producing a module based on Inline::CPP is simple. You basically have to add a couple of directives (VERSION and NAME), and swap out your Makefile.PL's ExtUtils::MakeMaker call to Inline::MakeMaker (it will invoke ExtUtils::MakeMaker). You might also want a CONFIGURE_REQUIRES directive to specify a current version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker when you create your distribution; this insures that your users have a cleaner install experience.
Now if you're creating the module for general consumption and have no idea whether your target user will fit that 94% majority who can use Inline::CPP, you might be better off removing the Inline::CPP dependency. You might want to do this just to minimize the dependency chain anyway; it's nicer for your users. In that case, compose your code to work with Inline::CPP, and then use InlineX::CPP2XS to convert it to a plain old XS module. Your user will now be able to install without the process pulling Inline::CPP in first.
C++ is a large language, and Inline::CPP handles a large subset of it. Pay attention to the typemap file to determine what sorts of parameters can be passed (and converted) automatically, and what sorts are better dealt with using "guts and API" calls. One feature I wouldn't recommend using is automatic string conversion, as it would produce Unicode-unfriendly conversions. Better to handle strings explicitly through API calls.
The portion of C++ that isn't handled gracefully by Inline::CPP is template metaprogramming. You're free to use templates in your code, and free to use the STL. However, you cannot simply pass STL type parameters and hope that Inline::CPP will know how to convert them. It deals with POD (basic data types), not STL stuff. Furthermore, if you compose a template-based function or object method, the C++ compiler won't know what context Perl plans to call the function in, so it won't know what type to apply to the template at compiletime. Consequently, the functions and object methods exposed directly to Inline::CPP need to be plain functions or methods; not template functions or classes.
These limitations in practice aren't hard to deal with as long as you know what to expect. If you want to expose a template class directly to Inline::CPP, just write a wrapper class that either inherits or composes itself of the template class, but gives it a concrete type for Inline::CPP to work with.
Inline::CPP is also useful in automatically generating function wrappers for existing C++ libraries. The documentation explains how to do that.
One of the advantages to Inline::CPP over Swig is that if you already have some experience with perlguts, perlapi, and perlcall, you will feel right at home already. With Swig, you'll have to learn the Swig way of doing things first, and then figure out how to apply that to Perl, and possibly, how to do it in a way that is CPAN-distributable.
Another advantage of using Inline::CPP is that it is a somewhat familiar tool in the Perl community. You are going to find a lot more people who understand Perl XS, Inline::C, and to some extent Inline::CPP than you will find people who have used Swig with Perl. Although XS can be messy, it's a road more heavily travelled than using Perl with Swig.
Inline::CPP is also a common topic on the inline#perl.org mailing list. In addition to myself, the maintainer of Inline::C and several other Inline-family maintainers frequent the list, and do our best to assist people who need a hand getting going with the Inline family of modules.
You might also find my Perl Mongers talk on Inline::CPP useful in exploring how it might work for you. Additionally, Math::Prime::FastSieve stands as a proof-of-concept for basing a module on Inline::CPP (with an Inline::CPP dependency). Furthermore, Rob (sisyphus), the current Inline maintainer, and author of InlineX::CPP2XS has actually included an example in the InlineX::CPP2XS distribution that takes my Math::Prime::FastSieve and converts it to plain XS code using his InlineX::CPP2XS.
You should probably also give ExtUtils::XSpp a look. I think it requires you to declare a bit more stuff than Inline::CPP or SWIG, but it's rather powerful.
Another question got me thinking about different methods of code reuse: use vs. require vs. do
I see a lot of posts here where the question centers around the use of require to load and execute code. This seems to me to be an obvious bad practice, but I haven't found any good resources on the issue that I can point people to.
perlfaq8 covers the difference between use and require, but it doesn't offer any advice in regard to preference (as of 5.10--in 5.8.8 there is a quick bit of advice in favor of use).
This topic seems to suffer from a lack of discussion. I have a few questions I'd like to see discussed:
What is the preferred method of code reuse in Perl?
use ModuleName;
require ModuleName;
require 'file.pl';
do 'file.pl';
What is the difference between require ModuleName and require "file.pl"?
Is it ever a good idea to use require "file.pl"? Why or why not?
Standard practice is to use use most of the time, require occasionally, and do rarely.
do 'file' will execute file as a Perl script. It's almost like calling eval on the contents of the file; if you do the same file multiple times (e.g. in a loop) it will be parsed and evaluated each time which is unlikely to be what you want. The difference between do and eval is that do can't see lexical variables in the enclosing scope, which makes it safer. do is occasionally useful for simple tasks like processing a configuration file that's written in the form of Perl code.
require 'file' is like do 'file' except that it will only parse any particular file one time and will raise an exception if something goes wrong. (e.g. the file can't be found, it contains a syntax error, etc.) The automatic error checking makes it a good replacement for do 'file' but it's still only suited for the same simple uses.
The do 'file' and require 'file' forms are carryovers from days long past when the *.pl file extension meant "Perl Library." The modern way of reusing code in Perl is to organize it into modules. Calling something a "module" instead of a "library" is just semantics, but the words mean distinctly different things in Perl culture. A library is just a collection of subroutines; a module provides a namespace, making it far more suitable for reuse.
use Module is the normal way of using code from a module. Note that Module is the package name as a bareword and not a quoted string containing a file name. Perl handles the translation from a package name to a file name for you. use statements happen at compile time and throw an exception if they fail. This means that if a module your code depends on isn't available or fails to load the error will be apparent immediately. Additionally, use automatically calls the import() method of the module if it has one which can save you a little typing.
require Module is like use Module except that it happens at runtime and does not automatically call the module's import() method. Normally you want to use use to fail early and predictably, but sometimes require is better. For example, require can be used to delay the loading of large modules which are only occasionally required or to make a module optional. (i.e. use the module if it's available but fall back on something else or reduce functionality if it isn't.)
Strictly speaking, the only difference between require Module and require 'file' is that the first form triggers the automatic translation from a package name like Foo::Bar to a file name like Foo/Bar.pm while the latter form expects a filename to start with. By convention, though, the first form is used for loading modules while the second form is used for loading libraries.
There is a major preference for using use, because it happens at an earlier state BEGIN {} during compilation, and the errors tend to be propagated to the user at a more appropriate time. It also calls the sub import {} function which gives the caller control over the import process. This is something that is heavily used. You can get the same effect, by calling the specific namespace's import, but that requires you to know the name of the namespace, and the file, and to code the call to the subroutine... which is a lot more work. Conversely, use, just requires you to know the namespace, and then it requires the file with the matching namespace -- thus making the link between namespaces and files less of an conscious to the user.
Read perldoc -f use, and perldoc -f require, for more information. Per perldoc -f use:
use is the same as BEGIN { require Module; Module->import( LIST ); } Which is just a lot more ugly.
The main difference is around import/export. use is preferred when you're making use of a module because it allows you to specify which routines you wish to import into your namespace :
use MyModule qw(foo bar baz); # allows foo(), bar() and baz() to be used
use MyModule qw(); # Requires explicit naming (e.g. MyModule::foo).
use also gives runs the module's import() procedure which is often used to set the module up.
See the perldoc for use for more detail.
Using use to module will include module during compile time which increases speed but uses more memory, whereas using require module will include during run time. Requiring a module without using import when needed uses less memory but reduces speed.