I am trying to understand the differences in the C/C++ compilation process (Compiler/linker/locator etc..) between a microcontroller and a microprocessor.
For example, for a microcontroller, we can provide the linker script to specify the actual physical memory location the program should be executed. However, in a microprocessor where there are multiple programs running, we are unable to provide the actual addresses to load the program.
I would like to know how this compilation handles in a microprocessor and a microcontroller.
Thanks a lot!
I am trying to understand the differences in the C/C++ compilation process (Compiler/linker/locator etc..) between a microcontroller and a microprocessor.
None by itself.
The difference might be that on a microcontroller you typically don't have an operating system that supports any run-time loading of shared libraries, but that's not necessarily the case (NuttX and others).
For example, for a microcontroller, we can provide the linker script to specify the actual physical memory location the program should be executed.
You can do the same with a microprocessor.
You're trying to make a distinction where there is none: a microcontroller is just a microprocessor with an embedded target market and typically, integrated memory in-package. That's it.
However, in a microprocessor where there are multiple programs running,
this can (and doesn't have to) be the case on both microcontrollers and microprocessors.
You mean "on microprocessors, we typically use a multitasking operating system. Can we, on such an operating system..."
we are unable to provide the actual addresses to load the program.
That's not true. Often, such operating systems offer address space randomization and you can compile relocateable code – but the same can (and is!) done for microcontrollers.
The terms microcontroller and microprocessor have no reliable definition, they are used rather randomly and intermixed by different engineers and manufacturers. The consensus is that microcontrollers are simpler, have less resources and are meant more for "real-time-y" embedded tasks. Microprocessor are slightly more complex, have more resources and are meant more for "general" tasks. Various terms like MMU, embedded Flash/RAM, external Flash/RAM are thrown around. If this sounds vague - it is. Don't rely on those terms.
You need to look at specific features on a micro which enable your abilities as a software engineer. The most basic one is MMU - this defines if you can have virtual memory or not. This in turn defines whether it supports an OS which runs processes in separate memory regions or it's all one big continuous pile of memory with addressing hardwired (in which case you still get an OS but it has much less to do). Linking depends a lot on that distinction.
Then a system which runs processes in isolated memory regions typically needs to load the process code into RAM before executing it, which requires (much) more RAM, which is typically solved by an external RAM chip, which requires an MMU.
But the classic definition of a microcontroller is: no MMU, embedded Flash and/or RAM. Classic microprocessor is: MMU, external storage and RAM. There are more exceptions than rules.
Related
I read somewhere that learning c programming gives us the actual idea of what is happening in the hardware level i.e. C programming teach us the real programming like how the memory is being utilised, how the hardware resources are used and it allows us to interfere with hardware level stuff like we are the one who can use and can control these resources in our own way as we want but other high level languages don't allow this.
Now I am learning C programming but I am not able to understand that how I am controlling my hardware resource ?
I have no idea how it is allowing us to use my computer resources independently.
In user mode, using a 32 or 64 bits multitask operating system, even C won't show you a tiny bit of hardware - lowest level you'll see is operating system itself.
You may ask the OS to draw a window, to save a file, to send data through a network - you won't touch directly GPU, disk controller or Ethernet MAC/Phy chip to be able to do that. In fact, you probably won't even be able to tell which KIND of hardware is behind... Is it a Nvidia card? An old SVGA one? A mechanical hard drive, or a NVMe drive? A 10BaseT NIC, or a 10 Gb/s optical fiber network card? You can't tell just with C. Only OS knows it, and it's OS that may tell it. You'll get that in C exactly like you would have got it with, let's say, Python.
To see hardware and how it works, you'll need to be able to touch hardware with software instructions. On a modern OS, it means being in kernel mode. Or to use an old-timer OS, like MS-DOS, or even no OS at all - called "bare metal development", often encountered with microcontrollers like Arduino and similar devices.
In this world, you'll need to learn what a register is, how GPIO works, how you address an UART, and if you use specific controllers, you'll have to read (and understand!) their datasheets if you want to make them work.
Indeed, it's often easier to do such low-level code in C, rather than in Assembler - especially since each CPU has its own assembler, so that may become a lot of languages to master in fine. But it's not mandatory. It can also be done with any language, as long as you can produce an absolute (=relocated), standalone (=no dependencies) and ROMable binary that can be written in Flash/EEPROM for your microcontroller. It can be done in assembler, C, C++, ADA for the most common ones, and virtualy any language that don't need a (too) big runtime library.
I have recently started to take an interest in the topics of operating systems. I have a couple of things that are weighing on my mind, but I have decided to split the questions.
Let's assume we're designing a kernel for a new instruction set architecture that's out on the market. There are no C runtime libraries, no nothing. Only a compatible compiler for that ISA.
Presumably, this means that the only C constructs that are available to the kernel programmer are only basic assignment operators, bitwise operators and loops. Is this correct?
If so, how are more complex things like main memory I/O and process scheduling achieved on the lowest level? Can they only be implemented in pure assembly?
What does it mean then, for a kernel to be written in C (Linux for example). Are some parts of the kernel inherently written in assembly then?
Presumably, this means the only C constructs that are available to the kernel programmer are only basic assignment operators, bitwise operators and loops. Is this correct?
Pretty much all C language features will still work in your kernel without needing any particular runtime support, your C compiler will be able to translate them to assembler that can run just as well in kernel mode as they would in a normal user-mode program.
However libraries such as the Standard C Library will not be available, you will have to write your own implementation. In particular this means no malloc and free until you implement them yourself.
If so, how are more complex things like main memory I/O and process scheduling achieved on the lowest level? Can they only be implemented in pure assembly?
Memory I/O is something much more low level that is handled by the CPU, BIOS, and various other hardware on your computer. The OS thankfully doesn't have to bother with this (with some exceptions, such as some addresses being reserved, and some memory management features).
Process scheduling is a concept that doesn't really exist at the machine code level on most architecture. x86 does have a concept of tasks and hardware task switching but nobody uses it. This is an abstraction set up by the OS as needed, you would have to implement it yourself, or you could decide to have a single-tasking OS if you do not want to spend the effort, it will still work.
What does it mean then, for a kernel to be written in C (linux for example). Are some parts of the kernel inherently written in assembly then?
Some parts of the kernel will be heavily architecture dependent and will have to be written in ASM. For example on x86 switching between modes (e.g. to run 16 bit code, or as part of the boot process) or interrupt handling can only be done with some protected ASM instructions. The reference manual of your architecture of choice, such as the Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual for x86 are the first place to look for those kinds of details.
But C is a portable language, it has no need for such low level architecture-specific concepts (although you could in theory do everything from a .c file with compiler intrinsics and inline ASM). It is more useful to abstract this away in assembler routines, and build your C code on top of a clean interface that you could maintain if you wanted to port your OS to another architecture.
If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend you pay a visit to the OS Development Wiki, it's a great source of information about Operating Systems and you'll find many hobbyists that share your interest.
About the only thing you need to code in assembler are:
Context switches (swapping out the machine state of one abstract process for another)
Access to device registers (and you don't even need this if the devices are memory mapped)
Entry and exit from interrupt handlers (this is a kind of context switch)
Perhaps a boot loader
Everthing else you should be able to do in C code.
If you want to see this job done spectacularly well, you should go an check out the Multics OS, dating from the middle 60s, supporting a large scale information services (multiple CPUs, Virtual Memory, ...). This was coded almost entirely in PL/1 (a C-like language) with only very small bits coded in the native assembly language of the Honeywell processor that supported Multics. The Organick book on Multics is worth its weight in gold in terms of showing how Multics worked and how clean most of it is. (We got "Eunuchs" instead).
There are some places where it will be worthwhile to code in assembler anyway. Regardless of the quality of your compiler's code generator, you will be able to hand-code certain routines that occur in time-critical areas better in assembler than the compiler will do. Places I'd expect this matter: the scheduler, system call entry and exit. Other places only as measurement indicates. (On older, much smaller systems, one tended to write the OS using a lot of assembler, but that was as much for space savings as it was for efficiency of execution, C compilers weren't nearly as good).
I'm wondering how a new architecture that's "out on the market" would not already have some type of operating system.
Device drivers - someone is going to have to write code for this, perhaps one driver for BIOS, the other for the OS. Memory mapped I/O can get complicated depending on the hardware, such as a controller with a set of descriptors, each containing a physical address and length. If the OS supports virtual memory, then that memory has to be "locked" and the physical addresses obtained in order to program the controller. This one reason for having a set of descriptors, so that a single memory mapped I/O can handle scattered physical pages that have been mapped into a continuous virtual address space.
Assembly code - the other comments here have already note that some assembly will be required (context switches, interrupt handlers (which could call C functions, so most of the code could be in C)).
In ARM microprocessors, is the only available memory space the 37 or so general and status registers, or is there a separate accessible memory space within the microprocessor chip?
For example, in the Atmel AVR microcontroller, to my understanding, the memory is mapped internally within the same chip, with data memory, program memory (containing program memory) and EEPROM memory. Does the same apply to ARM microprocessors, or does a microcontroller with an ARM microprocessor require separate external memory?
Your interpretation of the Atmel AVR architecture is not quite correct.
Of course it's possible to integrate memory of virtually any kind on the same die as the CPU core. However, that doesn't mean you can compare flash memory available on one such integrated system to registers on another.
A CPU core needs a memory interface and that's all that counts: Flash is slower than registers. So if you connect Flash to an ARM processor it will behave similar (in the same order of magniture regarding speed) as the on-board Flash of the AVR.
Besides, ARM is solely an IP (design concept) and licenced by numerous companies which build efficient peripherals and sometimes also memory around the core. So you will find chips with an ARM core and on-board memory on the market.
(I simplified things a bit in the above description but I was focusing on trying to point out where I think you misunderstand how the two processors compare.)
Below link talks a lot about how memory management is done in ARM processor. Hope it helps
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.dui0471c/CHDDJIFI.html
I have an evaluation board (Olimex STM32-P103) which supports a SD-card connector. I want to put my program in to a SD memory instead of internal flash of the micro-controler; and run it from there.
I don't know if it is possible to do that according to boot-loader issue!
P.S my goal is running linux on this board and then port my application over it.
To run programs from SD-Card in general you should know that you can't run them "right away". This means, you have to load it in a executable memory somewhere in your address space which is done by a (more or less) simple bootloader. In the simplest instance, the bootloader is capable to read from a SD-Card a specific binary and copy it into the memory.
That being said you should think about this considering you only got 20k of RAM and 128k of Flash on your board. So where should your program go? Or better: Why not flashing the program in the 128k of Flash from the very beginning? Especially you should know that Linux is a bit "hungry" in terms of memory.
If your goal is to run a "normal" Linux on this board, I'm afraid you're screwed. This because from what I know Linux needs a MMU to run and the chip on this board does not provide one (as far as researchable without access to datasheets from ST).
If you're lucky you can go with uCLinux. I'm not sure if a finished port exists for the STM32 but it seems there are some resources based on a short google search for "STM32 uCLinux". But even if you manage to run uCLinux I'm afraid there's not much left in your system for your application, so the result might be a bit disappointing.
Depending on why you are looking for Linux running on this MCU, there are maybe other solutions like a FreeRTOS in combination with a lwIP-stack (if networking is needed) or a FAT library like FullFAT if you are looking for reading SD-Cards and stuff.
Edit: One thing i'd like to add is that booting from the SD-Card is typically something you do with "bigger" (not much but slightly) systems where you have enough RAM to keep the whole image you'd like to run in it and still have some space left for the data you want to process.
You're going to have to have some code in the STM's onboard flash (typically called a "boot loader") that implements this since the "bare metal" very likely can't boot from SD card.
You're going to have to build that code, which figures out how to use the STM's onboard peripherals to talk to the SD card, finds the file you want to run in the file system (which you also have to implement), and loads it.
I wanted to include a link to the STM standard peripheral library, but it seems to be down (being moved). :/
The data on the SD card is not memory mapped, so cannot be executed directly.
It is possible to dynamically load the data from the card into RAM for execution. WindRiver's VxWorks RTOS supports loading and linking object modules dynamically, I know of no other OS that would scale to a Cortex-M that directly supports that but it would be possible to write your own.
However, I would suggest that in the case of the microcontroller you are using the idea is ill-advised; optimal performance on Cortex-M is achieved when the code is in on-chip flash and data in RAM allowing the data and instruction to be fetch to occur simultaneously on the separate buses (Harvard architecture). If you execute the code from RAM the performance will be severely hit since then data and instructions must be fetched sequentially over the same bus.
The board is entirely unsuited to running Linux, with only 128K Bytes Program Flash, and 20K Bytes RAM is is not at all feasible. Even the smallest Linux distribution requires 600Kb RAM plus whatever is needed by application code. uClinux can just about run on higher-end STM32 with external RAM and Flash, but that would suffer from the same bus contention performance hit and Linux without an MMU is rather missing the one major benefit of using Linux at all. The part on your board lacks an external memory interface, so cannot be expanded to support Linux.
If you need an OS consider a RTOS such as uC/OS-II, FreeRTOS, or emBOS for example.
AS other says you cannot directly execute your code directly from the SD CARD.
But like those "linux board", you can load the stored kernel/programm into an external SDRAM that can be mapped and execute it from there.
You'll still need to write that "bootloader" and store it in the internal flash.
That'is a lot work to my opinion, for limited application.
If you want to write your application in a linux environnement then port it suck small target, I would rather design my application using dependency injection, or even use an emulator.
I have an open-source Atari 2600 emulator (Z26), and I'd like to add support for cartridges containing an embedded ARM processor (NXP 21xx family). The idea would be to simulate the 6507 until it tries to read or write a byte of memory (which it will do every 841ns). If the 6507 performs a write, put the address and data on some of the ARM's I/O ports and let the ARM code run 20 cycles, confirm that the ARM is floating its data bus, and let the ARM run for another 38 cycles. If the 6507 performs a read, put the address on the ARM's I/O ports, let the ARM run 38 cycles, grab the data from the ARM's I/O port (hopefully the ARM software will have put it there), and let the ARM run another 20 cycles.
The ARM7 seems pretty straightforward to implement; I don't need to simulate a whole lot of hardware features. Any thoughts?
Edit
What I have in mind would be a routine that would take as a parameter a struct holding the machine state and pointers to a memory access routine. When called, the routine would emulate the ARM's instruction engine, generating appropriate reads, writes, and code fetches. I could then write the memory access routine to regard appropriate areas as flash (with roughly-approximated wait states), RAM, I/O ports, and timer registers. Some other areas would be marked as don't-care, and accesses to any other areas would flag an error and stop the emulator.
Perhaps QEMU uses such a thing internally. Since the ARM emulation would be integrated into an already-existing emulation engine (which I didn't write and don't fully understand--the only parts of Z26 I've patched have been the memory read/write logic) I would need something with a fairly small footprint.
Any idea how QEMU works inside? Any idea what the GPL licence would require if I just use 2% of the code in QEMU--whether I'd have to bundle the code for the whole thing, or just the part that I use, or what?
Try QEMU.
With some work, you can make my emulator do what you want. It was written for ARM920, and the Thumb instruction set isn't done yet. Neither is the MMU/cache interface. Also, it's slow because it is an interpreter. On the bright side, it's all written in C99.
http://code.google.com/p/gp2xemu/
I haven't worked on it for a while (The svn trunk is 2 years old), but if you're going to use the code, I'll be glad to help you out with the missing features. It is licensed under MIT, so it's just the same as the broad BSD license.