I got some source code in plain C. It is built to run on ARM with a cross-compiler on Windows.
Now I want to do some white-box unit testing of the code. And I don't want to run the test on an ARM board because it may not be very efficient.
Since the C source code is instruction set independent, and I just want to verify the software logic at the C-level, I am wondering if it is possible to build the C source code to run on x86. It makes debugging and inspection much easier.
Or is there some proper way to do white-box testing of C code written for ARM?
Thanks!
BTW, I have read the thread: How does native android code written for ARM run on x86?
It seems not to be what I need.
ADD 1 - 10:42 PM 7/18/2021
The physical ARM hardware that the code targets may not be ready yet. So I want to verify the software logic at a very early phase. Based on John Bollinger's answer, I am thinking about another option: Just build the binary as usual for ARM. Then use QEMU to find a compatible ARM cpu to run the code. The code is assured not to touch any special hardware IO. So a compatible cpu should be enough to run all the code I think. If this is possible, I think I need to find a way to let QEMU load my binary on a piece of emulated bare-metal. And to get some output, I need to at least write a serial port driver to bridge my binary to the serial port.
ADD 2 - 8:55 AM 7/19/2021
Some more background, the C code is targeting ARMv8 ISA. And the code manipulates some hardware IPs which are not ready yet. I am planning to create a software HAL for those IPs and verify the C code over the HAL. If the HAL is good enough, everything can be purely software and I guess the only missing part is a ARMv8 compatible CPU, which I believe QEMU can provide.
ADD 3 - 11:30 PM 7/19/2021
Just found this link. It seems QEMU user mode emulation can be leveraged to run ARM binaries directly on a x86 Linux. Will try it and get back later.
ADD 4 - 11:42 AM 7/29/2021
An some useful links:
Override a function call in C
__attribute__((weak)) and static libraries
What are weak functions and what are their uses? I am using a stm32f429 micro controller
Why the weak symbol defined in the same .a file but different .o file is not used as fall back?
Now I want to do some white-box unit testing of the code. And I don't want to run the test on an ARM board because it may not be very efficient.
What does efficiency have to do with it if you cannot be sure that your test results are representative of the real target platform?
Since the C source code is instruction set independent,
C programs vary widely in how portable they are. This tends to be less related to CPU instruction set than to target machine and implementation details such as data type sizes, word endianness, memory size, and floating-point implementation, and implementation-defined and undefined program behaviors.
It is not at all safe to assume that just because the program is written in C, that it can be successfully built for a different target machine than it was developed for, or that if it is built for a different target, that its behavior there is the same.
I am wondering if it is possible to build the C source code to run on x86. It makes debugging and inspection much easier.
It is probably possible to build the program. There are several good C compilers for various x86 and x86_64 platforms, and if your C code conforms to one of the language specifications then those compilers should accept it. Whether the behavior of the result is representative of the behavior on ARM is a different question, however (see above).
It may nevertheless be a worthwhile exercise to port the program to another platform, such as x86 or x86_64 Windows. Such an exercise would be likely to unmask some bugs. But this would be a project in its own right, and I doubt that it would be worth the effort if there is no intention to run the program on the new platform other than for testing purposes.
Or is there some proper way to do white-box testing of C code written for ARM?
I don't know what proper means to you, but there is no substitute for testing on the target hardware that you ultimately want to support. You might find it useful to perform initial testing on emulated hardware, however, instead of on a physical ARM device.
If you were writing ARM code for a windows desktop application there would be no difference for the most part and the code would just compile and run. My guess is you are developing for some device that does some specific task.
I do this for a lot of my embedded ARM code. Typically the core algorithms work just fine when built on x86 but the whole application does not. The problems come in with the hardware other than the CPU. For example I might be using a LCD display, some sensors, and Free RTOS on the ARM project but the code that runs on Windows does not have any of these. What I do is extract important pieces of C/C++ code and write a test framework around it. In the real ARM code the device is reading values from a sensor and doing something with it. In the test code that runs on a desktop the code reads from a data file with fake sensor values and writes its output to a datafile that can be analyzed. This way I can have white box tests for the most complicated code.
May I ask, roughly what does this code do? An ARM processor with no peripherals would be kind of useless. Typically we use the processor to interact with some other hardware like a screen, some buttons, or Bluetooth. It's those interactions that are going to be the most problematic.
Related
I'm a newbie to learning OS development. From the book I read, it said that boot loader will copy first MBR into 0x7c00, and starts from there in real mode.
And, example starts with 16 bit assembly code.
But, when I looked at today's linux kernel, arch/x86/boot has 'header.S' and 'boot.h', but actual code is implemented in main.c.
This seems to be useful by "not writing assembly."
But, how is this done specifically in Linux?
I can roughly imagine that there might be special gcc options and link strategy, but I can't see the detail.
I'm reading this question more as an X-Y problem. It seems to me the question is more about whether you can write a bootloader (boot code) in C for your own OS development. The simple answer is YES, but not recommended. Modern Linux kernels are probably not the best source of information for creating bootloaders written in C unless you have an understanding of what their code is doing.
If using GCC there are restrictions on what you can do with the generated code. In newer versions of GCC there is an -m16 option that is documented this way:
The -m16 option is the same as -m32, except for that it outputs the ".code16gcc" assembly directive at the beginning of the assembly output so that the binary can run in 16-bit mode.
This is a bit deceptive. Although the code can run in 16-bit real mode, the code generated by the back end uses 386 address and operand prefixes to make normally 32-bit code execute in 16-bit real mode. This means the code generated by GCC can't be used on processors earlier than the 386 (like the 8086/80186/80286 etc). This can be a problem if you want a bootloader that can run on the widest array of hardware. If you don't care about pre-386 systems then GCC will work.
Bootloader code that uses GCC has another downside. The address and operand prefixes that get get added to many instructions add up and can make a bootloader bloated. The first stage of a bootloader is usually very constrained in space so this could potentially become a problem.
You will need inline assembly or assembly language objects with functions to interact with the hardware. You don't have access to the Linux C library (printf etc) in bootloader code. For example if you want to write to the video display you have to code that functionality yourself either writing directly to video memory or through BIOS interrupts.
To tie it altogether and place things in the binary file usable as an MBR you will likely need a specially crafted linker script. In most projects these linker scripts have an .ld extension. This drives the process of taking all the object files putting them together in a fashion that is compatible with the legacy BIOS boot process (code that runs in real mode at 0x07c00).
There are so many pitfalls in doing this that I recommend against it. If you are intending to write a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel then I'd suggest not writing your own bootloader and use an existing one like GRUB. In the versions of Linux from the 1990s it had its own bootloader that could be executed from floppy. Modern Linux relies on third party bootloaders to do most of that work now. In particular it supports bootloaders that conform to the Multiboot specification
There are many tutorials on the internet that use GRUB as a bootloader. OS Dev Wiki is an invaluable resource. They have a Bare Bones tutorial that uses the original Multiboot specification (supported by GRUB) to boot strap a basic kernel. The Mulitboot specification can easily be developed for using a minimal of assembly language code. Multiboot compatible bootloaders will automatically place the CPU in protected mode, enable the A20 line, can be used to get a memory map, and can be told to place you in a specific video mode at boot time.
Last year someone on the #Osdev chat asked about writing a 2 stage bootloader located in the first 2 sectors of a floppy disk (or disk image) developed entirely in GCC and inline assembly. I don't recommend this as it is rather complex and inline assembly is very hard to get right. It is very easy to write bad inline assembly that seems to work but isn't correct.
I have made available some sample code that uses a linker script, C with inline assembly to work with the BIOS interrupts to read from the disk and write to the video display. If anything this code should be an example why it's non-trivial to do what you are asking.
I am reading a primer text on embedded C programming (it is: Barr & Massa, 2007). For companion hardware board to run examples, they recommend Arcom VIPER-Lite. But I do already have Beaglebone Black (BBB) board and I don't want to buy a new board.
The two boards have same architecture, namely, ARM but BBB uses TI AM3358BZCZ100 processor, clocked at 1GHz, whereas VIPER-Lite uses Intel's PXA255 processor, clocked at 200MHz. The BBB board has more memory and basically more of everything.
My question is, can I follow and execute embedded C code examples given in this book on my BBB board? Does embedded C code depend on processors or architecture or something else? I understand that very specific examples addressing particular peripherals/drivers may not be portable from one platform to next but is entire embedded code like this? I am hope I am making sense.
Intel X-Scale is not the same as Cortex-A8 - ARM architecture has been through a number of versions since then, and Intel implemented some proprietary features too. Moreover ARM licencees are free to implement proprietary peripheral sets and subsets of the core architecture.
In particular for board bring-up the PLL and SDRAM controller will be entirely different between different vendor's devices and even between different generations of device from the same vendor.
If you are running code on an already implemented OS (BeagleBone is delivered with Linux already installed), then you will not need to worry about board bring up and peripheral support; but you will also miss out in learning a great deal about embedded systems (other than perhaps embedded systems that run pre-installed or vendor supplied Linux distros, which is a small subset or all embedded systems).
Beyond board bring up the boards will have entirely different peripheral sets, different on-board devices, and differing I/O at different addresses and with different register sets - no code that directly accesses the I/O is will work. Code accessing devices through a standard Linus device driver interface may well work because an abstraction to a common interface is provided by the OS and board vendor or third party device drivers.
If you are not running the code on Linux - or are implementing low-level device drivers, then the programming environment in terms of memory map, MMU, PLL, I/O control, peripherals, and even instruction set will be different and any code will require adaptation, and you will need to get familiar with the corresponding data sheets or reference manuals and also the ARM technical reference.
So the answer is that it depends largely on where you are starting from; bare-metal or Linux.
There are resources related to "bare-metal" development on BeagleBone Black in particular TI's own bare-metal StarterWare library.
The concept you learn from most good text books can be applied any microprocessor or micro controller at a very high level. But if you want learn embedded system programming using Beagle Bone Black I suggest the following youtube links from Prof Derek Molloy. Prof Molloy does a fantastic job of teaching embedded System programming using BBB. Here are few links for you to get started.
The Beaglebone - Unboxing, Introduction Tutorial and First Example
Beaglebone: C/C++ Programming Introduction for ARM Embedded Linux Development using Eclipse CDT
Beaglebone: GPIO Programming on ARM Embedded Linux
The one problem you might want to be aware is that the video were based on Angstrom Distribution. The current BBB is shipped with Debian Distribution.
Also if you want to learn bare-metal embedded system program you might want check out
Embedded Systems - Shape The World
You might also want to take look at the following link for more material.
Beginning with programming microcontrollers
The xscale although ARM instruction set derived is not ARM in the sense that you want to use it. For some reason the native mode is big endian and normal ARM native mode is little endian. But more important the core processor is not insignificant, but not the bulk if the porting effort, most of not all of the peripherals are expected to differ between those two chips, most of the code would need a re-write unless it is a purely portable C program that runs on any say linux, then arm, xscale, x86 are completely irrelevant to the discussion. I suspect you are not in that situation. Even compiled as a generic command line linux app would still have problems in this situation with the endianness.
Basically you are saying I have two fords and I want to take the wheels off of one and put them on the other, without understanding that one is a ford festiva and the other is lets say an F350 pickup. Just because they have the same looking tiny ford badge on them, doesnt mean that the entirety of their components are identical.
If you are desperate to re-use these binaries, you are better off finding or making a simulator for the prior platform and then you can run that on anything.
I have Fedora installed on my PC and I have a Friendly ARM Mini2440 board. I have successfully installed Linux kernel and everything is working. Now I have some image processing program, which I want to run on the board without OS. The only process running on board should be my program. And in that program how can I access the on board camera to take image from, and serial port to send output to the PC.
You're talking about what is often called a bare-metal environment. Google can help you, for example here. In a bare-metal environment you have to have a good understanding of your hardware because you have to take care of a lot of things that the OS normally handles.
I've been working (off and on) on bare-metal support for my ELLCC cross development tool-chain. I have the ARM implementation pretty far along but there is still quite a bit of work to do. I have written about some of my experiences on my blog.
First off, you have to get your program started. You'll need to write some start-up code, usually in assembly, to handle the initialization of the processor as it comes out of reset (or is powered on). The start-up code then typically passes control to code written in C that ultimately directly or indirectly calls your main() function. Getting to main() is a huge step in your bare-metal adventure!
Next, you need to decide how to support your hardware's I/O devices which in your case include the camera and serial port. How much of the standard C (or C++) library does your image processing require? You might need to add some support for functions like printf() or malloc() that normally need some kind of OS support. A simple "hello world" would be a good thing to try next.
ELLCC has examples of various levels of ARM bare-metal in the examples directory. They range from a simple main() up to and including MMU and TCP/IP support. The source for all of it can be browsed here.
I started writing this before I left for work this morning and didn't have time to finish. Both dwelch and Clifford had good suggestions. A bootloader might make your job a lot simpler and documentation on your hardware is crucial.
First you must realise that without an OS, you are responsible for bringing the board up from reset including configuring the PLL and SDRAM, and also for the driver code for every device on the board you wish to use. To do that required adequate documentation of the board and it devices.
It is possible that you can use the existing bootloader to configure the core and SDRAM, but that may not meet your requirement for the only process running on the board should be your image processing program.
Additionally you will need some means of loading and bootstrapping; again the existing Linux bootstrapper may suit.
It is by no means straightforward and cannot really be described in detail here.
I was using PIC micro controller for my projects. Now I would like to move to ARM based Controllers. I would like to start ARM using Linux (using C). But I have no idea how to start using Linux. Which compiler is best, what all things I need to study like a lot of confusions. Can you guys help me on that? My projects usually includes UART, IIC, LCD and such things. I am not using any RTOS. Can you guys help me?
Sorry for my bad English
Once you put a heavyweight OS like Linux on a device, the level of abstraction from the hardware it provides makes it largely irrelevant what the chip is. If you want to learn something about ARM specifically, using Linux is a way of avoiding exactly that!
Morover the jump from PIC to ARM + Linux is huge. Linux does not get out of bed for less that 4Mb or RAM and considerably more non-volatile storage - and that is a bare minimum. ARM chips cover a broad spectrum, with low-end parts not even capable of supporting Linux. To make Linux worthwhile you need an ARM part with MMU support, which excludes a large range of ARM7 and Cortex-M parts.
There are plenty of smaller operating systems for ARM that will allow you to perform efficient (and hard real-time) scheduling and IPC with a very small footprint. They range form simple scheduling kernels such as FreeRTOS to more complete operating systems with standard device support and networking such as eCOS. Even if you use a simple scheduler, there are plenty of libraries available to support networking, filesystems, USB etc.
The answer to your question about compiler is almost certainly GCC - thet is the compiler Linux is built with. You will need a cross-compiler to build the kernel itself, but if you do have an ARM platform with sufficient resource, once you have Linux running on it, your target can host a compiler natively.
If you truly want to use Linux on ARM against all my advice, then the lowest cost, least effort approach to doing so is perhaps to use a Raspberry Pi. It is an ARM11 based board that runs Linux out of the box, is increasingly widely supported, and can be overclocked to 900MHz
You can also try using the Beagle Bone development board. To start with it has few features like UART I2C and others also u can give a try developing the device driver modules for the hardware.
ARM Linux compilers and build toolchains are provided by many vendors. Below are your options which I know of:
1.ARM themselves in form of their product DS-5 ;
2.Codesourcery now acquired by Mentor graphics. See some instructions to obtain & install, codesourcery toolchain for ARM linux here
3.To first start programming using ARM (C , assembly ) I find this Windows-Cygwin version of ARM linux tool chain very helpfull. Here. These are prebuilt executables which work under Cygwin(A Posix shell layer) on Windows.
4.Another option would be to cross compile gcc/g++ toolchain on Linux for ARM target of your choice. Search and web will have information about how it is done. But this could be a slightly mroe involved and long-winding process.
enjoy ARM'ing.
First, you should question yourself if you really need to program assembly language, most modern compilers are hard to beat when it comes to generating optimized code.
Then if you decide you really need it, you can make life easier for your self by using inline assembler, and let the compiler write the glue code for you, as shown in this wikipedia article.
Then the compiler to use: For free compilers there are practically only two choices: either gcc or clang.
There is also a non free toolchain from arm which when i last tried, 5 years ago, produced about 30% faster code than gcc at the time. I have not used it since.
The latest version of this compiler can be found here
You can also write standalone assembler code in .s files, both gcc and clang can compile .s into .o in the same way you would compile a .c or .cpp file.
Compile
If you are using a STM32 based microcontroller you need to get CMSIS and GNU arm-non-eabi-gcc package installed. Then you need to write your own makefile to pass your c codes into arm gcc compiler.
Programming
For the programming step you need to install openocd and configure that for your specific programmer. You can find a full description on how to do that on my blog
http://bijan.binaee.com/index.php/2016/04/14/how-to-program-cortex-m-under-gnulinux-arch/ and in my GitHub repository.
IDE
I'm using vim with CTags but you can use gEdit with the Shortcut plugin if you need a simpler text editor.
Next term, I'll need to write a basic operating system for Motorola 68K processor as part of a course lab material.
Is there a Linux emulator of a basic hardware setup with that processor? So my partners and I can debug quicker on our computers instead of physically restarting the board and stuff.
Is it possible to apply test-driven development technique to OS development? Code will be mostly assembly and C. What will be the main difficulties with trying to test-drive this? Any advice on how to do it?
I would recommend developing an operating system for the classic Amiga computers, which had different versions of the 68000 processor. Since the Amiga computer is a complete computer and is extremely well documented, I thought this would be a good exercise.
There is an emulator for it called UAE (and Win-UAE) which is very exact and
can be configured with different kinds of processors (68000 - 68060) and other capabilities. Normally, you would also need to acquire ROMs for it, but since you are developing an operating system yourself, this is not necessary.
Tools you will need is either Cygwin (for developing under Windows) or a Linux computer. Then you will need cross compilers. This includes both a C compiler and an assembler. Here is a template for creating a simple ROM which changes screen color and flicks the power LED. It will create a file 'kick.rom' which UAE then searches for in the current directory.
Reference on the 68000 instruction set can be found at the links below. Be aware that different assembler programs may use slightly different syntax and instruction set.
If you need to demo the operating system on real hardware, there are modern Amiga clones sold on Ebay and other places. Search for "Minimig".
Update:
Nowadays AROS also runs on UAE as well as physical Amigas.
Refs:
[UAE]
[WinUAE]
[Cygwin]
[Cross Compilers]
[68000 reference]
I would suggest QEMU for m68k emulation.
(The system emulator you want in QEMU is "Coldfire" - that's what Freescale calls the successor to the m68k architecture).
You certainly can tdd this project. First off decouple all accesses to the hardware with simple routine calls, e.g. getch() and printf, then you can provide simple mocks that provide test input and check output. You can then write well over 90% of the project on a PC using gcc, msdev or xcode. Once you have got some confidence in the decoupling routines you will need very little access to the hardware, and only then to occasionally check that your mocks are acting as you expect.
Keep to C until you find a particular bottle neck, and only then resort to assembler.
There are a few new projects that use hardware simulated 68000 cpus, the C-One project, the Minimig (Mini Amiga) project and the Natami (Native Amiga) project - they are new 68k compatible Amiga systems.
C One, reconfigurable computer, Minimig, in development, prototypes done: FPGA Arcade and Natami.
The Easy68k http://www.easy68k.com simulator might help you.
The uClinux project started on a m68k board. They may have the tools you need...