Related
Want to get an overview on a few things about how exactly the memory for a variable is allocated.
In C programming,
Taking the context of "auto" variables, which are allocated on the stack section, I have the following question:
Does the compiler generate a logical address for the variables? If yes, then how? Won't the compiler need OS permission to generate or assign such addresses? If no, then is there some sort of indication or instruction that the compiler puts in the code segment asking the OS to allocate memory when running the executable?
Now taking the context of heap allocated variables,
Is the heap of the same size for all programs? If not, then does the executable consist of a header or something that tells the OS how much heap space it needs for dynamic allocation?
I'd be grateful if someone provides the answer or shares any related content/links that explains this.
Stack (most implementations use stack for automatic storage duration objects) and static storage duration objects memory is allocated during the program load and startup.
Does the compiler generate a logical address for the variables? If
yes, then how?
I do not know what is the "logical address" but compilers do "calculate" the references to the automatic storage duration objects. How? Simply compiler knows how far from the stack pointer address the automatic storage duration object is located (offset).
Generally the same applies to the static duration objects and the code, the compiler only calculates the offset from the their sections.
Is the heap of the same size for all programs?
It is implementation defined.
A method typically used in operating systems is that, when a program is starting, there is a piece (or collection) of software used that loads the program. The program loader reads the executable file and sets up memory for the program.
Part of the executable file says what size stack should be allocated for it. Most often, this is set by default when linking the program. (It is 8 MiB for macOS, 2 MiB for Linux, and 1 MiB for Windows.) However, it can be changed by asking the linker to set a different size.
The program loader calls operating system routines to request virtual memory be mapped. It does this for the stack and for other parts of the program, such as the code sections (the parts of memory that contain, mostly, the executable instructions of the program), and the initialized and uninitialized data. When it starts the program, it tells the program where the stack starts by putting that address into a designated register (or similar means).
One of the processor registers is used as a stack pointer; it points to address within the memory allocated for the stack that is the current top of stack. When the compiler arranges to use stack space for objects, it generates instructions that adjust the stack pointer. The addresses for the objects are calculated relative to the stack pointer. If a function needs 128 bytes of data, the compiler generates an instruction that subtracts 128 from the stack pointer. (This may occur in multiple steps, such as “call” and “push” instructions that make some changes to the stack pointer plus an additional “subtract” instruction that finishes the changes.) Then the addresses of all the objects in this stack frame are calculated as offsets from the value of the stack pointer. For example, by taking the stack pointer and adding 40, we calculate the address of the object that has been assigned to be 40 bytes higher than the top of the stack.
(There is some confusion about the wording of directions here because stacks commonly grow from high addresses to low addresses. The program loader may allocate some chunk of memory from, say, address 12300000016 to 12400000016. The stack pointer will start at 12400000016. Subtracting 128 will make it 123FFFF8016. Then 123FFFFA816 is an address that is 40 bytes “higher” than 123FFFF8016 in the address space, but the “top of stack” is below that. That is because the term “top of stack” refers to the model of physically stacking things on top of each other, with the latest thing on top.)
The so-called “heap” is not the same size of all programs. In typical implementations, the memory management routines call system routines to request more virtual memory when they need it.
Note that “heap” is properly a word for a general data structure. Heaps may be used to organize things other than available memory, and the memory management routine keep track of available memory using data structures other than heaps. When referring to memory allocated via the memory management routines, you can call it “dynamically allocated memory.” It may also be shortened to “allocated memory,” but that can be confusing in some situations since all memory that has been reserved for some use is allocated memory.
Some background first
In C programming, Taking the context of "auto" variables, which are allocated on the stack section ...
To understand my answer, you first need to know how the stack works.
Imagine you write the following function:
int myFunction()
{
return function1() + function2() + function3();
}
Unfortunately, you do not use C as programming language but you use a programming language that neither supports local variables nor return values. (This is how most CPUs work internally.)
You may return a value from a function in a global variable:
function1()
{
result = 1234; // instead of: return 1234;
}
And your program may now look the following way if you use a global variable instead of local ones:
int a;
myFunction()
{
function1();
a = result;
function2();
a += result;
function3();
result += a;
}
Unfortunately, one of the three functions (e.g. function3()) may call myFunction() (so the function is called recursively) and the variable a is overwritten when calling function3().
To solve this problem, you may define an array for local variables (myvars[]) and a variable named mypos. In the example, the elements 0...mypos in myvars[] are used; the elements (mypos+1)...(MAX_LOCALS-1) are free:
int myvars[MAX_LOCALS];
int mypos;
...
myFunction()
{
function1();
mypos++;
myvars[mypos] = result;
function2();
myvars[mypos] += result;
function3();
result += myvars[mypos];
mypos--;
}
By changing the value of mypos from 10 to 11 (as an example), your program indicates that the element mypos[11] is now in use and that the functions being called shall store their data in elements mypos[x] with x>=12.
Exactly this is how the stack is working.
Typically, the "variable" mypos is not a variable but a CPU register named "stack pointer". (However, there are a few historic CPUs where an ordinary variable was used for this!)
The actual answers
Does the compiler generate a logical address for the variables?
In the example above, the compiler will perform a mypos+=3 if there are 3 local variables. Let's say they are named a, b and c.
The compiler simply replaces a by myvars[mypos-2], b by myvars[mypos-1] and c by myvars[mypos].
On most CPUs, the stack pointer (named mypos in the example) is not an index into an array but already a pointer (comparable to int * mypos;), so the compiler would replace a by *(mypos-2) instead of myvars[mypos-2] in the example.
For global variables, the compiler simply counts the number of bytes needed for all global variables. In the simplest case, it chooses a range of memory of the same size (e.g. 0x10000...0x10123) and places the variables there.
Won't the compiler need OS permission to generate or assign such addresses?
No.
The "stack" (in the example this is the array myvars[]) is already provided by the OS and the stack pointer (mypos in the example) is also set to a correct value by the OS before the program is started.
Your program knows that the elements myvars[x] with x>mypos can be used.
For global variables, the information about the range used by global variables (e.g. 0x10000...0x10123) is stored in the executable file. The OS must ensure that this memory range can be used by the program. (For example by configuring the MMU accordingly.)
If this is not possible, the OS will simply refuse to start the program with an error message.
... asking the OS to allocate memory when running the executable?
For variables on the stack:
There may be operating systems where this is done.
However, in most cases, the program will simply crash with a "stack overflow" if too much stack is needed. In the example, this would mean: The program crashes if an elements myvars[x] with x>=MAX_LOCALS is accessed.
Now taking the context of heap allocated variables ...
Please first note that global variables are not stored on the heap.
The heap is used for data allocated using malloc() and similar functions (new in C++ for example).
Under many operating systems, malloc() calls an operating system function - so it is actually the operating system that allocates memory on the heap.
... and if there is not enough space, the OS (and malloc()) will return NULL.
Does the compiler generate a logical address for the variables? If yes, then how?
Yes, but they are related to the stack pointer at function entry time (which is normally saved as a constant base pointer, stored in a cpu register) This is because the function can be recursive, and you can have two calls to the function with different instances for that variable (and related to different copies of the base pointer), the compiler assigns the offset to the base pointer for the variable, but the base pointer can be different, depending on the stack contents at function entry time.
Won't the compiler need OS permission to generate or assign such addresses?
Nope, the compiler just generates an executable in the format and form needed for the operating system to manage process' memory. When the program starts, it is given normally three (or more) segments of memory:
text segment. A normally read-only (or execute only) segment that gives no write access to the program. This is normally because the text segment is shared between all programs that are using the same executable at the same time. A program can demand exclusive read-write acces to the text (to allow programs that modify their own executable code) but this happens only rarely. This is normally specified to the compiler and the compiler writes an special flag in the text segment to inform the kernel of this requirement.
Data segment. A read-write segment, that can be grown by means of a system cal (sbrk(2)) This is used for global variables and the heap (while in modern systems, the heap is allocated into a new segment acquired by calling the mmap(2) system call. Sometimes this segment is divided in two. A data segment read-only for constants (so the program receives a signal in case you try to change the value of a constant) and a read-write segment, freely usable by the program. This is where global variables are stored.
Stack segment. A read-write segment, that is allocated for the process to use as the stack segment. It has the capability of growing in one direction as the process starts using it. When the process accesses the data one memory page below the start of the segment, it generates a page fault trap that results in a new page being appended to the segment, so its workings are transparent to the process. This is the memory we are talking about.
the process can ask the kernel explicitly to get a new segment if it wants to (let's say it needs to map some file on memory, or if it has to load a shared executable/library) and on some systems, the read only variables (declared as const) are explititly stored in the text segment or in a specific section called .rodata that demands from the system a special data segment that is read-only. The compiler doesn't normally code this kind of resource itself, it is normally encoded in the program being compiled.
The complete memory is limited by system imposed limits, so if you try to overpass them (around 8Mb of stack space, by default, and depending on the operating system) you will get signalled by the system and your program aborted.
As you see, the process memory is owned by the process, and it can make whatever use it is permitted to. The stack memory is read/write, and allocated on demand, you can use up to 8Mb, but there's no provision to check on the use you do about it.
If no, then is there some sort of indication or instruction that the compiler puts in the code segment asking the OS to allocate memory when running the executable?
The system will know the size of the text segment of the process by the size it has on the executable. The data segment is divided into two parts, normally based on the assumption of what are the global initialized variables and what are the ones defaulting to zero (the memory allocated by the kernel to a process is initialized to zeros for security reasons) so the sum of both the initialized/data and the non initialized data sections are added to know how much memory to assign to the data segment. And the stack segment is assigned initialy just one page of memory, but as the process starts running and filling the stack, it grows as the process generates page faults on the so called next page of the stack segment. As you see, there's no nedd for the compiler to embed in the code any instruction to ask for more memory. Everything is read from the executable file.
The compiler runs as a normal program... it only generates all this information and writes it in a file (the executable file) for the kernel to know the resources needed to run the program. But the compiler's communication with the kernel is just to ask it to open files, write on them, read from source code and struggle it's head to achieve its task. :)
In most POSIX systems, the kernel loads a program in memory by means of the exec*(2) system calls. The kernel reads the executable file pointed to in a parameter of the call and creates the segments above mentioned, based on the parameters passed in the file, checks if another instance of the same program is running in the system to avoid loading the instructions from the file and referencing in this process the segment already open by the other. The data segment contents is initialized to zeros, and the contents of the initialization data are read into the segment (so the first part has the .data section of initialized global variables and the .bss section, which has only a size, is used to calculate the total size of the data segment). Then the stack is normally allocated one or more pages, depending on the initial contents that the exec() calls put in the initial stack. The initial stack is filled with:
a structure of data containing references to the program parameter list that was used on legacy systems to provide the kernel about the command line parameters to show in the ps(1) command output (this is still being generated for legacy purposes, but not used by the kernel for obvious security reasons) Today, a special system call is used to indicate the kernel the command line parameters to be output in the ps(1) output.
a snippet of machine code to use in the return from a system call to allow the execution (in user mode) of any signal handler that should be executed (this is the reason for the requirement that all signal handlers are called when the kernel returns from kernel mode and switches back again to user mode, and not otherwise)
the environment of the process.
the array of pointers to environment strings.
the command line parameters.
the array of char pointers that point to the command line parameters.
the envp array referenct to main().
the argv array reference to the command line parameters.
the argc counter of the number of command line parameters.
Once all these data is pushed to the stack, the program jumps to the start address (fixed by the linker, or by the user by a linker option) and is let to start running.
Before the program jumps to main() the executed code is part of the C runtime, that loads a special shared executable (called /lib/ld.so or similar) that is responsible of searching and loading of all the shared libraries that are linked to the program. Not all the programs have this feature (but almost all of them today are dynamically linked) but IMHO this is out of the scope to this question, as the program has already started and is running.
I am trying to understand a few basics concepts regarding the memory layout for a 8051 MCU architecture. I would be grateful if anyone could give me some clarifications.
So, for a 8051 MCU we have several types of memories:
IRAM - (idata) - used for general purpose registers and SFRs
PMEG - (code) - used to store code - (FLASH)
XDATA
on chip (data) - cache memory for data (RAM) /
off-chip (xdata) - external memory (RAM)
Questions:
So where is the stack actually located?
I would assume in IRAM (idata) but it's quite small (30-7Fh)- 79 bytes
What does the stack do?
Now, on one hand I read that it stores the return addresses when we call a function (e.g. when I call a function the return address is stored on the stack and the stack pointer is incremented).
http://www.alciro.org/alciro/microcontroladores-8051_24/subrutina-subprograma_357_en.htm
On the other hand I read that the stack stores our local variables from a function, variables which are "deleted" once we return from that function.
http://gribblelab.org/CBootcamp/7_Memory_Stack_vs_Heap.html
If I use dynamic memory allocation (heap), will that memory always be reserved in off-chip RAM (xdata), or it depends on compiler/optimization?
The 8051 has its origin in the 1970ies/early 80ies. As such, it has very limited ressources. The original version did (for instance) not even have XRAM, that was "patched" aside later and requires special (ans slow) accesses.
The IRAM is the "main memory". It really includes the stack (yes, there are only few bytes). The rest is used for global variables ("data" and "bss" section: initialized and uninitialized globals and statics). The XRAM might be used by a compiler for the same reason.
Note that with these small MCUs you do not use many local variables (and if, only 8bit types). A clever compiler/linker (I actually used some of these) can allocate local variables statically overlapping - unless there is recursion used (very unlikely).
Most notably, programs for such systems mostly do not use a heap (i.e. dynamic memory allocation), but only statically allocated memory. At most, they might use a memory pool, which provides blocks of fixed size and does not merged blocks.
Note that the IRAM includes some special registers which can be bit-addressed by the hardware. Normally, you would use a specialized compiler which can exploit these functions. Very likely some features require special assembler functions (these might be provided in a header as C-functions just generating the corresponding machine code instruction), called intrinsics.
The different memory areas might also require compiler-extensions to be used.
You might have a look at sdcc for a suitable compiler.
Note also that the 8051 has an extended harvard architecture (code and data seperated with XRAM as 3rd party).
Regarding your 2nd link: This is a very generalized article; it does not cover MCUs like the 8051 (or AVR, PIC and the like), but more generalized CPUs like x86, ARM, PowerPC, MIPS, MSP430 (which is also a smaller MCU), etc. using an external von Neumann architecture (internally most (if not all) 32+ bitters use a harvard architecture).
I don't have direct experience with your chips, but I have worked with very constrained systems in the past. So here is what I can answer:
Question 1 and 2: The stack is more than likely set within a very early startup routine. This will set a register to tell it where the stack should start. Typically, you want this in memory that is very fast to access because compiled code loves pushing and popping memory from the stack all the time. This includes return addresses in calls, local variable declarations, and the occasional call to directly allocate stack memory (alloca).
For your 3rd question, the heap is set wherever your startup routine set it to.
There is no particular area that a heap needs to live. If you want it to live in external memory, then it can be set there. You want it in your really small/fast area, you can do that too, though that is probably a very bad idea. Again, your chip's/compiler's manual or included code should show you an overloaded call to malloc(). From here, you should be able to walk backwards to see what addresses are being passed into its memory routines.
Your IRAM is so dang small that it feels more like Instruction RAM - RAM where you would put a subroutine or two to make running code from them more efficient. 80 bytes of stack space will evaporate very quickly in a typical C function call framework. Actually, for sizes like this, you might have to hand assemble stuff to get the most out of things, but that may be beyond your scope.
If you have other questions, let me know. This is the kind of stuff I like doing :)
Update
This page has a bunch of good information on stack management for your particular chip. It appears that the stack for this chip is indeed in IRAM and is very very constrained. It also appears that assembly level coding on this chip would be the norm as this amount of RAM is quite small indeed.
Heck, this is the first system I've seen in many years that has bank switching as a way to access more RAM. I haven't done that since the Color Gameboy's Z80 chip.
Concerning the heap:
There is also a malloc/free couple
You have to call init_mempool(), which is indicated in compiler documentation but it is somewhat uncommon.
The pseudo-code below to illustrate this.
However I used it only this way and did not try heavy used of malloc/free like you may find in dynamic linked list management, so I have no idea of the performance you get out of this.
//A "large" place in xdata to be used as heap
static char xdata heap_mem_pool [1000];
//A pointer located in data and pointing to something in xdata
//The size of the pointer is then 2 bytes instead of 3 ( the 3rd byte
//store the area specification data, idata, xdata )
//specifier not mandatory but welcome
char xdata * data shared_memory;
//...
u16 mem_size_needed;
init_mempool (heap_mem_pool, sizeof(heap_mem_pool));
//..
mem_size_needed = calcute_needed_memory();
shared_memory = malloc(mem_size_needed);
if ( 0 == shared_memory ) return -1;
//...use shared_memory pointer
//free if not needed anymore
free(shared_memory);
Some additionnal consequences about the fact that in general no function is reentrant ( or with some effort ) due to this stackless microcontroller.
I will call "my system" the systemI am working on at the present time: C8051F040 (Silab) with Keil C51 compiler ( I have no specific interest in these 2 companies )
The (function return address) stack is located low in the iram (idata on my system).
If it start at 30(dec) it means you have either global or local variables in your code that you requested to be in data RAM ( either because you choose a "small" memory model or because you use the keyword data in the variable declaration ).
Whenever you call a function the return 2 bytes address of the caller function will be save in this stack ( 16 bits code space ) and that's all: no registers saving, no arguments pushed onto the (non-existing)(data) stack. Your compiler may also limit the functions call depth.
Necessary arguments and local variables ( and certainly saved registers ) are placed somewhere in the RAM ( data RAM or XRAM )
So now imagine that you want to use the same innocent function ( like memcpy() ) both in your interrupt and in you normal infinite loop, it will cause sporadic bugs. Why ?
Due to the lack of stack, the compiler must share RAM memory places for arguments, local variables ... between several functions THAT DO NOT BELONG to the same call tree branch
The pitfall is that an interrupt is its own call tree.
So if an interrupt occurs while you were executing e.g the memcpy() in your "normal task", you may corrupt the execution of memcpy() because when going out of the interrupt execution, the pointers dedicated to the copy performed in the normal task will have the (end) value of the copy performed in the interrupt.
On my system I get a L15 linker error when the compiler detects that a function is called by more than one independant "branch"
You may make a function reentrant with the addition of the reentrant keyword and requiring the creation of an emulated stack on the top of the XRAM for example. I did not test on my system because I am already lacking of XRAM memory which is only 4kB.
See link
C51: USING NON-REENTRANT FUNCTION IN MAIN AND INTERRUPTS
In the standard 8051 uC, the stack occupies the same address space as register bank 1(08H to 0FH) by default at start up. That means, the stack pointer(SP register) will be having a value of 07H at startup(incremented to 08H when stack is PUSHed). This probably limits the stack memory to 8 bytes, if register bank 2(starting from 10H) is occuppied. If register banks 2 and 3 are not used, even that can be taken up by the stack(08H to 1FH).
If in a given program we need more than 24 bytes (08 to 1FH = 24 bytes) of stack, we can change the SP to point to RAM locations 30 – 7FH. This is done with the instruction “MOV SP, #xx”. This should clarify doubts surrounding the 8051 stack usage.
I want to understand exactly where the global variables are stored in my program. On the stack? On the heap? Somewhere else?
So for that I wrote this small code:
int global_vector[1000000];
int main () {
global_vector[0] = 1; // just to avoid a compilation warning
while(true); // to give me time to check the amount of RAM used by my program
return 0;
}
No matter how large I make global_vector, the program only uses a really tiny amount of RAM. I do not understand the reason for this. Could someone please explain?
This is completely implementation-dependent, but typically global variables are stored in a special memory segment that is separate from the stack and the heap. This memory could be allocated as a fixed-size buffer inside of the executable itself, or in a segment that is given to the program at startup by the operating system.
The reason that you're not seeing the memory usage go up probably has to do with how virtual memory is handled by the OS. As an optimization, the operating system won't actually give any memory to the program for that giant array unless you actually use it. Try changing your program to for-loop over the entire contents of the array and see if that causes the RAM usage to go up. (It's also possible that the optimizer in your compiler is eliminating the giant array, since it's almost completely unused. Putting a loop to read/write all the values might also force the compiler to keep it).
Hope this helps!
The optimizer is probably removing the array entirely since you never use it.
Global variables that are not given explicit initializers, like yours in this case, are initialized to 0's by default. They are placed into an area of memory called the .bss segment, and no additional data is stored in the object file/executable file indicating the initial value of the data (unlike explicitly initialized data, which has to have its initial value stored somewhere).
When the OS loads the program, it reads in the descriptions of all of the segments and allocates memory for that. Since it knows that the .bss segment is initialized to all 0's, it can do a sneaky trick to avoid having to actually allocate tons of memory and then initialize it to all 0's: it allocates address space for the segment in the process's page table, but all of the pages point to the same page, filled with 0's.
That single zero-page is also set to read-only. Then, if and when the process writes to some data in the .bss segment, a page fault occurs. The OS intercepts the page fault, figures out what's going on, and then actually allocates unique memory for that page of data. It then restarts the instruction, and the code continues on its merry way as if the memory had been allocated all along.
So, the end result is that if you have a zero-initialized global variable or array, each page-sized chunk of data (typically 4 KB) that never gets written to will never actually have memory allocated for it.
Note: I'm being a little fuzzy here with the word "allocated". If you dig into this sort of thing, you're likely to encounter words such as "reserved" and "committed". See this question and this page for more info on those terms in the context of Windows.
I would like to be able to debug how much total memory is being used by C program in a limited resource environment of 256 KB memory (currently I am testing in an emulator program).
I have the ability to print debug statements to a screen, but what method should I use to calculate how much my C program is using (including globals, local variables [from perspective of my main function loop], the program code itself etc..)?
A secondary aspect would be to display the location/ranges of specific variables as opposed to just their size.
-Edit- The CPU is Hitachi SH2, I don't have an IDE that lets me put breakpoints into the program.
Using the IDE options make the proper actions (mark a checkobx, probably) so that the build process (namely, the linker) will generate a map file.
A map file of an embedded system will normally give you the information you need in a detailed fashion: The memory segments, their sizes, how much memory is utilzed in each one, program memory, data memory, etc.. There is usually a lot of data supplied by the map file, and you might need to write a script to calculate exactly what you need, or copy it to Excel. The map file might also contain summary information for you.
The stack is a bit trickier. If the map file gives that, then there you have it. If not, you need to find it yourself. Embedded compilers usually let you define the stack location and size. Put a breakpoint in the start of you program. When the application stops there zero the entire stack. Resume the application and let it work for a while. Finally stop it and inspect the stack memory. You will see non-zero values instead of zeros. The used stack goes until the zeros part starts again.
Generally you will have different sections in mmap generated file, where data goes, like :
.intvect
.intvect_end
.rozdata
.robase
.rosdata
.rodata
.text .... and so on!!!
with other attributes like Base,Size(hex),Size(dec) etc for each section.
While at any time local variables may take up more or less space (as they go in and out of scope), they are instantiated on the stack. In a single threaded environment, the stack will be a fixed allocation known at link time. The same is true of all statically allocated data. The only run-time variable part id dynamically allocated data, but even then sich data is allocated from the heap, which in most bare-metal, single-threaded environments is a fixed link-time allocation.
Consequently all the information you need about memory allocation is probably already provided by your linker. Often (depending on your tool-chain and linker parameters used) basic information is output when the linker runs. You can usually request that a full linker map file is generated and this will give you detailed information. Some linkers can perform stack usage analysis that will give you worst case stack usage for any particular function. In a single threaded environment, the stack usage from main() will give worst case overall usage (although interrupt handlers need consideration, the linker is not thread or interrupt aware, and some architectures have separate interrupt stacks, some are shared).
Although the heap itself is typically a fixed allocation (often all the available memory after the linker has performed static allocation of stack and static data), if you are using dynamic memory allocation, it may be useful at run-time to know how much memory has been allocated from the heap, as well as information about the number of allocations, average size of allocation, and the number of free blocks and their sizes also. Because dynamic memory allocation is implemented by your system's standard library any such analysis facility will be specific to your library, and may not be provided at all. If you have the library source you could implement such facilities yourself.
In a multi-threaded environment, thread stacks may be allocated statically or from the heap, but either way the same analysis methods described above apply. For stack usage analysis, the worst-case for each thread is measured from the entry point of each thread rather than from main().
I know this is more "heavy" question, but I think its interesting too. It was part of my previous questions about compiler functions, but back than I explained it very badly, and many answered just my first question, so ther it is:
So, if my knowledge is correct, modern Windows systems use paging as a way to switch tasks and secure that each task has propriate place in memory. So, every process gets its own place starting from 0.
When multitasking goes into effect, Kernel has to save all important registers to the task´s stack i believe than save the current stack pointer, change page entry to switch to another proces´s physical adress space, load new process stack pointer, pop saved registers and continue by call to poped instruction pointer adress.
Becouse of this nice feature (paging) every process thinks it has nice flat memory within reach. So, there is no far jumps, far pointers, memory segment or data segment. All is nice and linear.
But, when there is no more segmentation for the process, why does still compilers create variables on the stack, or when global directly in other memory space, than directly in program code?
Let me give an example, I have a C code:int a=10;
which gets translated into (Intel syntax):mov [position of a],#10
But than, you actually ocupy more bytes in RAM than needed. Becouse, first few bytes takes the actuall instruction, and after that instruction is done, there is new byte containing the value 10.
Why, instead of this, when there is no need to switch any segment (thus slowing the process speed) isn´t just a value of 10 coded directly into program like this:
xor eax,eax //just some instruction
10 //the value iserted to the program
call end //just some instruction
Becouse compiler know the exact position of every instruction, when operating with that variable, it would just use it´s adress.
I know, that const variables do this, but they are not really variables, when you cannot change them.
I hope I eplained my question well, but I am still learning English, so forgive my sytactical and even semantical errors.
EDIT:
I have read your answers, and it seems that based on those I can modify my question:
So, someone told here that global variable is actually that piece of values attached directly into program, I mean, when variable is global, is it atached to the end of program, or just created like the local one at the time of execution, but instead of on stack on heap directly?
If the first case - attached to the program itself, why is there even existence of local variables? I know, you will tell me becouse of recursion, but that is not the case. When you call function, you can push any memory space on stack, so there is no program there.
I hope you do understand me, there always is ineficient use of memory, when some value (even 0) is created on stack from some instruction, becouse you need space in program for that instruction and than for the actual var. Like so: push #5 //instruction that says to create local variable with integer 5
And than this instruction just makes number 5 to be on stack. Please help me, I really want to know why its this way. Thanks.
Consider:
local variables may have more than one simultaneous existence if a routine is called recursively (even indirectly in, say, a recursive decent parser) or from more than one thread, and these cases occur in the same memory context
marking the program memory non-writable and the stack+heap as non-executable is a small but useful defense against certain classes of attacks (stack smashing...) and is used by some OSs (I don't know if windows does this, however)
Your proposal doesn't allow for either of these cases.
So, there is no far jumps, far pointers, memory segment or data segment. All is nice and linear.
Yes and no. Different program segments have different purposes - despite the fact that they reside within flat virtual memory. E.g. data segment is readable and writable, but you can't execute data. Code segment is readable and executable, but you can't write into it.
why does still compilers create variables on the stack, [...] than directly in program code?
Simple.
Code segment isn't writable. For safety reasons first. Second,
most CPUs do not like to have code segment being written into as it
breaks many existing optimization used to accelerate execution.
State of the function has to be private to the function due to
things like recursion and multi-threading.
isn´t just a value of 10 coded directly into program like this
Modern CPUs prefetch instructions to allow things like parallel execution and out-of-order execution. Putting the garbage (to CPU that is the garbage) into the code segment would simply diminish (or flat out cancel) the effect of the techniques. And they are responsible for the lion share of the performance gains CPUs had showed in the past decade.
when there is no need to switch any segment
So if there is no overhead of switching segment, why then put that into the code segment? There are no problems to keep it in data segment.
Especially in case of read-only data segment, it makes sense to put all read-only data of the program into one place - since it can be shared by all instances of the running application, saving physical RAM.
Becouse compiler know the exact position of every instruction, when operating with that variable, it would just use it´s adress.
No, not really. Most of the code is relocatable or position independent. The code is patched with real memory addresses when OS loads it into the memory. Actually special techniques are used to actually avoid patching the code so that the code segment too could be shared by all running application instances.
The ABI is responsible for defining how and what compiler and linker supposed to do for program to be executable by the complying OS. I haven't seen the Windows ABI, but the ABIs used by Linux are easy to find: search for "AMD64 ABI". Even reading the Linux ABI might answer some of your questions.
What you are talking about is optimization, and that is the compiler's business. If nothing ever changes that value, and the compiler can figure that out, then the compiler is perfectly free to do just what you say (unless a is declared volatile).
Now if you are saying that you are seeing that the compiler isn't doing that, and you think it should, you'd have to talk to your compiler writer. If you are using VisualStudio, their address is One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA. Good luck knocking on doors there. :-)
Why isn´t just a value of 10 coded directly into program like this:
xor eax,eax //just some instruction
10 //the value iserted to the program
call end //just some instruction
That is how global variables are stored. However, instead of being stuck in the middle of executable code (which is messy, and not even possible nowadays), they are stored just after the program code in memory (in Windows and Linux, at least), in what's called the .data section.
When it can, the compiler will move variables to the .data section to optimize performance. However, there are several reasons it might not:
Some variables cannot be made global, including instance variables for a class, parameters passed into a function (obviously), and variables used in recursive functions.
The variable still exists in memory somewhere, and still must have code to access it. Thus, memory usage will not change. In fact, on the x86 ("Intel"), according to this page the instruction to reference a local variable:
mov eax, [esp+8]
and the instruction to reference a global variable:
mov eax, [0xb3a7135]
both take 1 (one!) clock cycle.
The only advantage, then, is that if every local variable is global, you wouldn't have to make room on the stack for local variables.
Adding a variable to the .data segment may actually increase the size of the executable, since the variable is actually contained in the file itself.
As caf mentions in the comments, stack-based variables only exist while the function is running - global variables take up memory during the entire execution of the program.
not quite sure what your confusion is?
int a = 10; means make a spot in memory, and put the value 10 at the memory address
if you want a to be 10
#define a 10
though more typically
#define TEN 10
Variables have storage space and can be modified. It makes no sense to stick them in the code segment, where they cannot be modified.
If you have code with int a=10 or even const int a=10, the compiler cannot convert code which references 'a' to use the constant 10 directly, because it has no way of knowing whether 'a' may be changed behind its back (even const variables can be changed). For example, one way 'a' can be changed without the compiler knowing is, if you have a pointer which points 'a'. Pointers are not fixed at runtime, so the compiler cannot determine at compile time whether there will be a pointer which will point to and modify 'a'.