I have successfully produced an assembler macro which I use to instantiate 32 independent routines in a assembly source file. The routines follow the target system ABI. Their exported symbol names are all practically identical, except for a trailing number suffix. Here is an symbol extract from the assembled object file (ellipsis indicating continuing pattern).
$ nm default_handler.o | sort
...
00000058 T exception_default_handler_5
0000005f T exception_default_handler_6
00000066 T exception_default_handler_7
0000006d T exception_default_handler_8
00000072 T exception_default_handler_9
00000079 T exception_default_handler_10
0000007e T exception_default_handler_11
00000083 T exception_default_handler_12
00000088 T exception_default_handler_13
...
I also have a C program in which I need to reference each of these individual routines. In some parts of the C program, I need to reference all of the assembly routines at once, to store a pointer of each in an array. Here is the necessary code needed to understand my problem (with ellipsis to indicate a continuing pattern). This code preforms the task stated above.
{
...
extern void exception_default_handler_5(void);
extern void exception_default_handler_6(void);
extern void exception_default_handler_7(void);
...
...
array[5] = exception_default_handler_5;
array[6] = exception_default_handler_6;
array[7] = exception_default_handler_7;
...
}
With 64 lines of this approach; the coding golden rule, to always write readable and maintainable code, have obviously been broken. What I would like is a way to automize this process of making an extern forward declaration and putting an instance of it in the array, to minimize the errors that are bound to happen when code is duplicated.
I am thinking that perhaps it's a job for the C-macros, but I cannot figure out a way to do it with them.
Any thoughts?
Related
For a large software developed by C, we first declare all the self-defined functions in a separate header file (e.g. myfun.h). After that, once we write a code (e.g. main.c) that uses the functions listed in myfun.h, we have to #include "myfun.h". I'm wondering how it works, because even if I include the function names declared in header file before the main body, the code cannot see the function details in main.c. I guess it will search the library to get the function details...Am I right?
When you say "it will search the library for the function details" you're not far off, but that isn't quite right. A function declaration, i.e.. a function prototype only contains enough information for the compiler to do two things:
First, the compiler will register the function as a known identifier so that it knows what you're taking about when you call it, as opposed to a random string of letters with parentheses (to the compiler, they are essentially the same thing without a function prototype for either - an error).
Second, the compiler uses the function prototype for checking code correctness. Correctness in this sense means that a function call will match the prototype in both arity and type. In other words a function call to int square(int a, int b); will have two arguments, both integers.
The program doesn't "search the library," though. Function names without parentheses are not function calls but rather function's address. Therefore, when you call a function, the processor jumps to the memory location of the function. (This assumes the function has not been inlined.)
Where is this function located though? It depends. If you wrote the function in the same module, i.e... a .c file that got compiled into an object linked with the main.c file into a single executable, then the location of the function will be somewhere in the .TEXT section of the executable. In other words, it's just a slight offset from the main function's entry point. In a huge project this offset won't be so slight, but it will be shorter than the offset of separate objects.
Having said that, if you compiled this hypothetical function into a DLL which you call from your main program, then the function's address will be determined in one of two ways:
Either you will have generated a .lib/.a? (depending on whether you're on Windows or Linux) file containing the function declaration's and addresses, or:
You will use run-time linking where the main program will calculate the function addresses when it loads the .dll/.so into its address space. First, it will determine where to load it. You can set DLL's to have preferred offsets to optimize load time. Otherwise, libraries will start loading from the first segment available and any additional libraries will need their function address recalculated using this new address, hampering initial load times. Once they are loaded into the program's memory though, there shouldn't be any performance hits thereafter.
Going back to the preprocessor, it's important to note two things. First, it runs before any compilation takes place. This is important. Since the program is not really being "compiled" when the preprocessor is doing its thing, macros are not type-safe. (Insert Haskell joke about C "type safety") This is why you don't -or shouldn't- see macros in C++. Anything that can be accomplished with macros in C can be accomplished by const and inline functions in C++, with the added benefit of type safety.
Second, the preprocessor is almost just a search and replace engine. For example, in the following code, nothing happens because the preprocessor if statement evaluates to false, since I never defined anything. The preprocessor removes the code in this section. Remember that since the compiler has not run in earnest yet, this removed code will not be compiled. This fact is usually utilized to implement functions for debugging or logging in debug builds. In release builds the preprocessor definition is then manipulated such that the debug code is not included.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
#if TRUE
printf("Hello, World!");
#endif
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
In fact, the EXIT_SUCCESS macro I used is defined in stdlib.h, and replaced by 0. (EXIT_FAILURE =1).
Back in the day, the preprocessor was used as duct tape, basically, to compensate for faults in C.
For example, since const values can't be used as array sizes, macros were used instead, like this:
// Not valid C89, possibly even C99
const int DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE = 128;
char user_input[DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE];
// Legal since the dawn of time
#define DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE 128
char user_input[DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE];
Another significant use of the preprocessor was for code portability, for example:
#ifdef WIN32
// Do windows things
#elif
// Handle other OS
#endif
One trick was to define a generic function and set it to the appropriate OS-dependent one (Remember that functions without the parentheses represent the function's address, not an actual function call), like this:
void RequestSomeKernelAction();
#ifdef WIN32
RequestSomeKernelAction = WindowsVersion;
#else
RequestSomeKernelAction = OtherOSFunction;
#endif
This is all to say that the code you see in header files follows these same rules. If I have the following header file:
#ifndef SRC_INCLUDES_TEST_H
#define SRC_INCLUDES_TEST_H
int square(int a);
#endif /** SRC_INCLUDES_TEST_H */
And I have this main.c file:
#define SRC_INCLUDES_TEST_H
#include "test.h"
int main()
{
int n = square(4);
}
This program will not compile. The square function will not be known to main.c because while I did include the header file where square is declared, my #define SRC_INCLUDES_TEST_H statement tells the preprocessor to copy all the header file contents over to main except those in the block where SRC_INCLUDES_TEST_H is defined, i.e... nothing.
These preprocessor commands can be nested, and there are several, which I highly recommend you look up, if only for historical or pedagogical reasons.
The last point I will make is that while the C preprocessor has its faults, it was a powerful tool in the right hands, and in fact, the first C++ compiler Bjarne Stroustroup wrote was essentially just a preprocessor.
I am thinking about the following problem: I want to program a microcontroller (let's say an AVR mega type) with a program that uses some sort of look-up tables.
The first attempt would be to locate the table in a separate file and create it using any other scripting language/program/.... In this case there is quite some effort in creating the necessary source files for C.
My thought was now to use the preprocessor and compiler to handle things. I tried to implement this with a table of sine values (just as an example):
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <math.h>
#define S1(i,n) ((uint8_t) sin(M_PI*(i)/n*255))
#define S4(i,n) S1(i,n), S1(i+1,n), S1(i+2,n), S1(i+3,n)
uint8_t lut[] = {S4(0,4)};
void main()
{
uint8_t val, i;
for(i=0; i<4; i++)
{
val = lut[i];
}
}
If I compile this code I get warnings about the sin function. Further in the assembly there is nothing in the section .data. If I just remove the sin in the third line I get the data in the assembly. Clearly all information are available at compile time.
Can you tell me if there is a way to achieve what I intent: The compiler calculates as many values as offline possible? Or is the best way to go using an external script/program/... to calculate the table entries and add these to a separate file that will just be #included?
The general problem here is that sin call makes this initialization de facto illegal, according to rules of C language, as it's not constant expression per se and you're initializing array of static storage duration, which requires that. This also explains why your array is not in .data section.
C11 (N1570) §6.6/2,3 Constant expressions (emphasis mine)
A constant expression can be evaluated during translation rather than
runtime, and accordingly may be used in any place that a constant may
be.
Constant expressions shall not contain assignment, increment,
decrement, function-call, or comma operators, except when they are
contained within a subexpression that is not evaluated.115)
However as by #ShafikYaghmour's comment GCC will replace sin function call with its built-in counterpart (unless -fno-builtin option is present), that is likely to be treated as constant expression. According to 6.57 Other Built-in Functions Provided by GCC:
GCC includes built-in versions of many of the functions in the
standard C library. The versions prefixed with __builtin_ are always
treated as having the same meaning as the C library function even if
you specify the -fno-builtin option.
What you are trying is not part of the C language. In situations like this, I have written code following this pattern:
#if GENERATE_SOURCECODE
int main (void)
{
... Code that uses printf to write C code to stdout
}
#else
// Source code generated by the code above
... Here I paste in what the code above generated
// The rest of the program
#endif
Every time you need to change it, you run the code with GENERATE_SOURCECODE defined, and paste in the output. Works well if your code is self contained and the generated output only ever changes if the code generating it changes.
First of all, it should go without saying that you should evaluate (probably by experiment) whether this is worth doing. Your lookup table is going to increase your data size and programmer effort, but may or may not provide a runtime speed increase that you need.
If you still want to do it, I don't think the C preprocessor can do it straightforwardly, because it has no facilities for iteration or recursion.
The most robust way to go about this would be to write a program in C or some other language to print out C source for the table, and then include that file in your program using the preprocessor. If you are using a tool like make, you can create a rule to generate the table file and have your .c file depend on that file.
On the other hand, if you are sure you are never going to change this table, you could write a program to generate it once and just paste it in.
Recently, when working on a project, I had a need to measure the size of a C function in order to be able to copy it somewhere else, but was not able to find any "clean" solutions (ultimately, I just wanted to have a label inserted at the end of the function that I could reference).
Having written the LLVM backend for this architecture (while it may look like ARM, it isn't) and knowing that it emitted assembly code for that architecture, I opted for the following hack (I think the comment explains it quite well):
/***************************************************************************
* if ENABLE_SDRAM_CALLGATE is enabled, this function should NEVER be called
* from C code as it will corrupt the stack pointer, since it returns before
* its epilog. this is done because clang does not provide a way to get the
* size of the function so we insert a label with inline asm to measure the
* function. in addition to that, it should not call any non-forceinlined
* functions to avoid generating a PC relative branch (which would fail if
* the function has been copied)
**************************************************************************/
void sdram_init_late(sdram_param_t* P) {
/* ... */
#ifdef ENABLE_SDRAM_CALLGATE
asm(
"b lr\n"
".globl sdram_init_late_END\n"
"sdram_init_late_END:"
);
#endif
}
It worked as desired but required some assembler glue code in order to call it and is a pretty dirty hack that only worked because I could assume several things about the code generation process.
I've also considered other ways of doing this which would work better if LLVM was emitting machine code (since this approach would break once I added an MC emitter to my LLVM backend). The approach I considered involved taking the function and searching for the terminator instruction (which would either be a b lr instruction or a variation of pop ..., lr) but that could also introduce additional complications (though it seemed better than my original solution).
Can anyone suggest a cleaner way of getting the size of a C function without having to resort to incredibly ugly and unreliable hacks such as the ones outlined above?
I think you're right that there aren't any truly portable ways to do this. Compilers are allowed to re-order functions, so taking the address of the next function in source order isn't safe (but does work in some cases).
If you can parse the object file (maybe with libbfd), you might be able to get function sizes from that.
clang's asm output has this metadata (the .size assembler directive after every function), but I'm not sure whether it ends up in the object file.
int foo(int a) { return a * a * 2; }
## clang-3.8 -O3 for amd64:
## some debug-info lines manually removed
.globl foo
foo:
.Lfunc_begin0:
.cfi_startproc
imul edi, edi
lea eax, [rdi + rdi]
ret
.Lfunc_end0:
.size foo, .Lfunc_end0-foo ####### This line
Compiling this to a .o with clang-3.8 -O3 -Wall -Wextra func-size.c -c, I can then do:
$ readelf --symbols func-size.o
Symbol table '.symtab' contains 4 entries:
Num: Value Size Type Bind Vis Ndx Name
0: 0000000000000000 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND
1: 0000000000000000 0 FILE LOCAL DEFAULT ABS func-size.c
2: 0000000000000000 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT 2
3: 0000000000000000 7 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT 2 foo ### This line
The three instructions total 7 bytes, which matches up with the size output here. It doesn't include the padding to align the entry point, or the next function: the .align directives are outside the two labels that are subtracted to calculate the .size.
This probably doesn't work well for stripped executables. Even their global functions won't still be present in the symbol table of the executable. So you might need a two-step build process:
compile your "normal" code
get sizes of functions you care about into a table, using readelf | some text processing > sizes.c
compile sizes.c
link everything together
Caveat
A really clever compiler could compile multiple similar functions to share a common implementation. So one of the functions jumps into the middle of the other function body. If you're lucky, all the functions are grouped together, with the "size" of each measuring from its entry point all the way to the end of the blocks of code it uses. (But that overlap would make the total sizes add up to more than the size of the file.)
Current compilers don't do this, but you can prevent it by putting the function in a separate compilation unit, and not using whole-program link-time optimization.
A compiler could decide to put a conditionally-executed block of code before the function entry point, so the branch can use a shorter encoding for a small displacement. This makes that block look like a static "helper" function which probably wouldn't be included in the "size" calculation for function. Current compilers never do this, either, though.
Another idea, which I'm not confident is safe:
Put an asm volatile with just a label definition at the end of your function, and then assume the function size is at most that + 32 bytes or something. So when you copy the function, you allocate a buffer 32B larger than your "calculated" size. Hopefully there's only a "ret" insn beyond the label, but actually it probably goes before the function epilogue which pops all the call-preserved registers it used.
I don't think the optimizer can duplicate an asm volatile statement, so it would force the compiler to jump to a common epilogue instead of duplicating the epilogue like it might sometimes for early-out conditions.
But I'm not sure there's an upper bound on how much could end up after the asm volatile.
I am thinking about the following problem: I want to program a microcontroller (let's say an AVR mega type) with a program that uses some sort of look-up tables.
The first attempt would be to locate the table in a separate file and create it using any other scripting language/program/.... In this case there is quite some effort in creating the necessary source files for C.
My thought was now to use the preprocessor and compiler to handle things. I tried to implement this with a table of sine values (just as an example):
#include <avr/io.h>
#include <math.h>
#define S1(i,n) ((uint8_t) sin(M_PI*(i)/n*255))
#define S4(i,n) S1(i,n), S1(i+1,n), S1(i+2,n), S1(i+3,n)
uint8_t lut[] = {S4(0,4)};
void main()
{
uint8_t val, i;
for(i=0; i<4; i++)
{
val = lut[i];
}
}
If I compile this code I get warnings about the sin function. Further in the assembly there is nothing in the section .data. If I just remove the sin in the third line I get the data in the assembly. Clearly all information are available at compile time.
Can you tell me if there is a way to achieve what I intent: The compiler calculates as many values as offline possible? Or is the best way to go using an external script/program/... to calculate the table entries and add these to a separate file that will just be #included?
The general problem here is that sin call makes this initialization de facto illegal, according to rules of C language, as it's not constant expression per se and you're initializing array of static storage duration, which requires that. This also explains why your array is not in .data section.
C11 (N1570) §6.6/2,3 Constant expressions (emphasis mine)
A constant expression can be evaluated during translation rather than
runtime, and accordingly may be used in any place that a constant may
be.
Constant expressions shall not contain assignment, increment,
decrement, function-call, or comma operators, except when they are
contained within a subexpression that is not evaluated.115)
However as by #ShafikYaghmour's comment GCC will replace sin function call with its built-in counterpart (unless -fno-builtin option is present), that is likely to be treated as constant expression. According to 6.57 Other Built-in Functions Provided by GCC:
GCC includes built-in versions of many of the functions in the
standard C library. The versions prefixed with __builtin_ are always
treated as having the same meaning as the C library function even if
you specify the -fno-builtin option.
What you are trying is not part of the C language. In situations like this, I have written code following this pattern:
#if GENERATE_SOURCECODE
int main (void)
{
... Code that uses printf to write C code to stdout
}
#else
// Source code generated by the code above
... Here I paste in what the code above generated
// The rest of the program
#endif
Every time you need to change it, you run the code with GENERATE_SOURCECODE defined, and paste in the output. Works well if your code is self contained and the generated output only ever changes if the code generating it changes.
First of all, it should go without saying that you should evaluate (probably by experiment) whether this is worth doing. Your lookup table is going to increase your data size and programmer effort, but may or may not provide a runtime speed increase that you need.
If you still want to do it, I don't think the C preprocessor can do it straightforwardly, because it has no facilities for iteration or recursion.
The most robust way to go about this would be to write a program in C or some other language to print out C source for the table, and then include that file in your program using the preprocessor. If you are using a tool like make, you can create a rule to generate the table file and have your .c file depend on that file.
On the other hand, if you are sure you are never going to change this table, you could write a program to generate it once and just paste it in.
I have an interface with which I want to be able to statically link modules. For example, I want to be able to call all functions (albeit in seperate files) called FOO or that match a certain prototype, ultimately make a call into a function in the file without a header in the other files. Dont say that it is impossible since I found a hack that can do it, but I want a non hacked method. (The hack is to use nm to get functions and their prototypes then I can dynamically call the function). Also, I know you can do this with dynamic linking, however, I want to statically link the files. Any ideas?
Put a table of all functions into each translation unit:
struct functions MOD1FUNCS[]={
{"FOO", foo},
{"BAR", bar},
{0, 0}
};
Then put a table into the main program listing all these tables:
struct functions* ALLFUNCS[]={
MOD1FUNCS,
MOD2FUNCS,
0
};
Then, at run time, search through the tables, and lookup the corresponding function pointer.
This is somewhat common in writing test code. e.g., you want to call all functions that start with test_. So you have a shell script that grep's through all your .C files and pulls out the function names that match test_.*. Then that script generates a test.c file that contains a function that calls all the test functions.
e.g., generated program would look like:
int main() {
initTestCode();
testA();
testB();
testC();
}
Another way to do it would be to use some linker tricks. This is what the Linux kernel does for its initialization. Functions that are init code are marked with the qualifier __init. This is defined in linux/init.h as follows:
#define __init __section(.init.text) __cold notrace
This causes the linker to put that function in the section .init.text. The kernel will reclaim memory from that section after the system boots.
For calling the functions, each module will declare an initcall function with some other macros core_initcall(func), arch_initcall(func), et cetera (also defined in linux/init.h). These macros put a pointer to the function into a linker section called .initcall.
At boot-time, the kernel will "walk" through the .initcall section calling all of the pointers there. The code that walks through looks like this:
extern initcall_t __initcall_start[], __initcall_end[], __early_initcall_end[];
static void __init do_initcalls(void)
{
initcall_t *fn;
for (fn = __early_initcall_end; fn < __initcall_end; fn++)
do_one_initcall(*fn);
/* Make sure there is no pending stuff from the initcall sequence */
flush_scheduled_work();
}
The symbols __initcall_start, __initcall_end, etc. get defined in the linker script.
In general, the Linux kernel does some of the cleverest tricks with the GCC pre-processor, compiler and linker that are possible. It's always been a great reference for C tricks.
You really need static linking and, at the same time, to select all matching functions at runtime, right? Because the latter is a typical case for dynamic linking, i'd say.
You obviusly need some mechanism to register the available functions. Dynamic linking would provide just this.
I really don't think you can do it. C isn't exactly capable of late-binding or the sort of introspection you seem to be requiring.
Although I don't really understand your question. Do you want the features of dynamically linked libraries while statically linking? Because that doesn't make sense to me... to static link, you need to already have the binary in hand, which would make dynamic loading of functions a waste of time, even if you could easily do it.