How do make sure if a variable defined with "register" specifier got stored in CPU register? - c

I want to know, How do we make sure if a variable defined with register specifier got stored in CPU register?

Basically, you cannot. There is absolutely nothing in the C standard that gives you the control.
Using the register keyword is giving the compiler a hint that that the variable maybe stored into a register (i.e., allowed fastest possible access). Compiler is free to ignore it. Each compiler can have a different way of accepting/rejecting the hint.
Quoting C11, chapter §6.7.1, (emphasis mine)
A declaration of an identifier for an object with storage-class specifier register
suggests that access to the object be as fast as possible. The extent to which such
suggestions are effective is implementation-defined.
FWIW, most modern-day compilers can detect the mostly-used variables and allocate them in actual register, if required. Remember, CPU register is a scarce resource.

Disassemble the code and check. It may not really be clear at that point, because variables don't really exist, they're just names that link producers with consumers. So, there is not necessarily a register reserved for that variable - maybe it disappeared entirely, maybe it lives in several registers over its lifetime, maybe none of the above.

Historically, the register keyword was introduced decades ago as an optimization hint to the compiler. Nowadays, when the processors have more general purpose registers, the compiler usually places variables in registers even without being told so (when the code is compiled with optimizations).
Being just a hint and not an enforcement, you cannot do anything to force it. You can, however, write that part of the code in assembler. This way you have complete control of where your variables are stored.

If the variable is stored in a register means it is not stored in memory.
So, the bull's eye is try to access the address of the variable using printf. If the output gives some address, conclusion is it is stored in memory so it would act as auto storage class variable (and it is not stored in register).
But if it gives error "incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'printf' "..this means the variable is stored in register and would behave as register storage class variable..

Maybe calling Assembly instructions will help with it:
/// Function must be something like this:
int check_register_storing()
{
__asm__ (
pushad // Save registers
and ebx, ebx // Set Zero
and eax, eax
and ecx, ecx
and edx, edx
);
// Set test number.
register int a = 8; // Initial value;
int from_register = 0;
asm(
add eax, ebx // If, 'a' variable set on CPU register,
add eax, ecx // Some of main usage registers must contain 8
add eax, edx // Others must contain 0
mov %from_register, eax
popad // Return default parameters to registers
}
/// Check result
printf( "Original saved number: %d, Returned number from main registers: %d\n", a, from_register );
}

I don't know if I am wrong or right, but we know that a normal variable is stored in memory which has address, but we know that if we write register int a; then a register may be allocated for the variable, but we know that registers have names, not address, so we can't assign pointer to point to a registers because pointers stores address only, so if we write as follow:-
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
register int reg = 5;
int *p = ®
printf("%d",reg);
}
then it should give error as: "address of register variable ‘reg’ requested" if the register has successfully allocated to our variable, and if register is not allocated then memory addres can be assigned to pointer hence no error should be there.
IMPORTANT:-This is my first answer on stackoverflow, I may be wrong, please correct me if i am, I'm still learning.

Related

Determining return address of function on ARM Cortex-M series

I want to determine the return address of a function in Keil. I opened diassembly section at debugging mode in Keil uvision. What is shown is some assembly code like this:
My intention is to inject a simple binary code to microcontroller via using buffer overflow at microcontroller.see: Buffer overflow
I want to determine the return address of "test" function . Is it a must to know how to read assembly code or are there any trick to find the return address?
I am newbie to assembly.
R14 or in other name LR hold the return address. On the left you can see it in the picture. It is 0x08000287.
When a function is called, R14 will be overwritten with the address following the call ("BL" or "BLX") instruction. If that function doesn't call any other functions, R14 will often be left holding the return address for its duration. Further, if the function tail-calls another function, the tail call may be replaced with a branch ("B" or "BX"), with R14 holding the return address of the original caller. If a function makes a non-tail call to another function, it will be necessary to save R14 "somewhere" (typically the stack, but possibly to another previously-used caller-saved register) at some time before that, and retrieve that value from the stack at some later time, but if optimizations are enabled the location where R14 is saved will generally be unpredictable.
Some compilers may have a mode that would stack things consistently enough to be usable, but code will be very compiler-dependent. The technique most likely to be successful may be to do something like:
extern int getStackAddress(uint8_t **addr); // Always returns zero
void myFunction(...whavever...)
{
uint8_t *returnAddress;
if (getStackAddress(&returnAddress)) return; // Put this first.
}
where the getStackAddress would be a machine-code function that stores R14 to the address in R0, loads R0 with zero, and then branches to R14. There are relatively few code sequences that would be likely to follow that, and if a code examines instructions at the address stored in returnAddress and recognizes one of these code sequences, it would know that the return address for myFunction is stored in a spot appropriate for the sequence in question. For example, if it sees:
test r0,r0
be ...
pop {r0,pc}
It would know that the caller's address is second on the stack. Likewise if it sees:
cmp r0,#0
bne somewhere:
somewhere: ; Compute address based on lower byte of bne
pop {r0,r1,r2,r4,r5,pc}
then it would know that the caller's address is sixth.
There are a few instructons compilers could use to test a register against zero, and some compilers might use be while others use bne, but for the code above compilers would be likely to use the above pattern, and so counting how many bits are set in the pop instruction would reveal the whereabouts of the return address on the stack. One wouldn't know until runtime whether this test would actually work, but in cases where it claims to identify the return address it should actually be correct.
You can find all the answers in the Cortex-M documentation
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0337h/Chdedegj.html

When initializing variables in C does the compiler store the intial value in the executable

When Initializing variables in C I was wondering does the compiler make it so that when the code is loaded at run time the value is already set OR does it have to make an explicit assembly call to set it to an initial value?
The first one would be slightly more efficient because you're not making a second CPU call just to set the value.
e.g.
void foo() {
int c = 1234;
}
A compiler is not required to do either of them. As long as the behavior of the program stays the same it can pretty much do whatever it wants.
Especially when using optimization, crazy stuff can happen. Looking at the assembly code after heavy optimization can be confusing to say the least.
In your example, both the constant 1234 and the variable c would be optimized away since they are not used.
If it's a variable with static lifetime, it'll typically become part of the executable's static image, which'll get memcpy'ed, along with other statically known data, into the process's allocated memory when the process is started/loaded.
void take_ptr(int*);
void static_lifetime_var(void)
{
static int c = 1234;
take_ptr(&c);
}
x86-64 assembly from gcc -Os:
static_lifetime_var:
mov edi, OFFSET FLAT:c.1910
jmp take_ptr
c.1910:
.long 1234
If it's unused, it'll typically vanish:
void unused(void)
{
int c = 1234;
}
x86-64 assembly from gcc -Os:
unused:
ret
If it is used, it may not be necessary to put it into the function's frame (its local variables on the stack)—it might be possible to directly embed it into an assembly instruction, or "use it as an immediate":
void take_int(int);
void used_as_an_immediate(int d)
{
int c = 1234;
take_int(c*d);
}
x86-64 assembly from gcc -Os:
used_as_an_immediate:
imul edi, edi, 1234
jmp take_int
If it is used as a true local, it'll need to be loaded into stack-allocated space:
void take_ptr(int*);
void used(int d)
{
int c = 1234;
take_ptr(&c);
}
x86-64 assembly from gcc -Os:
used:
sub rsp, 24
lea rdi, [rsp+12]
mov DWORD PTR [rsp+12], 1234
call take_ptr
add rsp, 24
ret
When pondering these things Compiler Explorer along with some basic knowledge of assembly are your friends.
TL;DR: Your examples declares and initializes an automatic variable. It has to be initialized each time the function is called. So there will be some instruction to do this.
As an adjusted duplicate of my answer to How compile time initialization of variables works internally in c?:
The standard defines no exact way of initialization. It depends on the environment your code is developed and run on.
How variables are initialized depends also on their storage duration. You didn't mention it in the text, your example is an automatic variable. (Which is most probably optimized away, as commenters point out.)
Initialized automatic variables will be written each time their declaration is reached. The compiled program executes some machine code for this to happen.
Static variables are always intialized and only once before the program startup.
Examples from the real world:
Most (if not all) PC systems store the initial values of explicitly (and not zero-) initialized static variables in a special section called data that is loaded by the system's loader to RAM. That way those variables get their values before the program startup. Static variables not explicitly initialized or with zero-like values are placed in a section bss and are filled with zeroes by the startup code before program startup.
Many embedded systems have their program in non-volatile memory that can't be changed. On such systems the startup code copies the initial values of the section data into its allocated space in RAM, producing a similar result. The same startup code zeroes also the section bss.
Note 1: The sections don't have to be named liked this. But it is common.
This startup code might be part of the compiled program, or might not. It depends, see above. But speaking of efficience it doesn't matter which program initializes variables. It just has to be done.
Note 2: There are more kinds of storage duration, please see chapter 6.2.4 of the standard.
As long as the standard is met, a system is free to implement any other kind of initialization, including writing the initial values into their variables step by step.
Firstly, its important to have a common understanding of the word 'compiler', else we can end-up arguing endlessly.
In simple words,
a compiler is a computer program that translates computer code written
in one programming language (the source language) into another
programming language (the target language). The name compiler is
primarily used for programs that translate source code from a
high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g.,
assembly language, object code, or machine code) to create an
executable program.
(Ref: Wikipedia)
With this common understanding, let's now find answer you question: The answer is 'yes, the final code contains explicit assembly call to set it to an initial value' for any kind of variables. It is so because finally the variables are either stored in some memory location, or they live in some CPU register in case the number of variables are so less that the variable can be accommodated into some CPU registers such as your code snippet running on lets say most modern servers (Side note: different systems have different number of registers).
For the variables that are stored in registers, there has to be a mov (or equivalent) kind of instruction to load that initial value into the register. Without such an instruction the assigned register cannot be assigned with the intended value.
For the variables that are stored in memory, depending on the architecture and the compiler efficiency, the init value has to be somehow pushed to the given/assigned address, which takes at least a couple of asm instructions.
Does this answer your question?

who decide actual storage of register storage class?

Recently I have been asked following Q in a interview :
Who actually decide that where register variable will be store(in RAM or register).
I have searched on google, the ans I got that compiler decide.
but how can compiler decide ? It should be decided at run time as per my understanding.
what if we compile and run program in different machine , then how can compiler decide where to store register storage class value.
The register storage class specifier is a hint to the compiler that accesses to a variable ought to be “as fast as possible”, implying (on register architectures) that its storage should be allocated to a register. This prohibits a few things, like taking the address of the variable—registers don’t have addresses. However, the compiler is free to ignore this hint (§6.7.1¶5):
A declaration of an identifier for an object with storage-class specifier register suggests that access to the object be as fast as possible. The extent to which such suggestions are effective is implementation-defined.
When compiling your code, the compiler must choose how to map local variables and arithmetic operations into operations on CPU registers and stack memory. This is called register allocation; these decisions are made at compile time, and baked into the compiled code of a function.
Suppose we have a very naïve compiler that does precisely what we say, and doesn’t optimise anything. If we give it this code:
int x;
x = 2;
x += 5;
Then we might expect to see this output, on an x86 machine:
sub esp, 4 ; allocate stack space for an integer
mov dword [esp], 2
add dword [esp], 5
But if we write:
register int x;
x = 2;
x += 5;
Then we might expect to see:
mov eax, 2
add eax, 5
The latter is more efficient because it prefers register accesses over memory accesses. In practice, contemporary compilers have intelligent register allocation algorithms that make this storage class specifier unnecessary.
Several types of optimisations are made by compiler,during compile time and depending upon these optimisations, the request is granted or refused.
The third last phase of compilation --- intermediate code generation keeps the basis of generating an intermediate three-address(opcode) based
coding,which is further optimised in the second last phase of
compiler-optimisation. The last phase of compiler --- target
code generation makes it guaranteed whether the register storage
class variable will be granted the register or not.
The request of granting register access to the variable is made by the program,but,finally, it is the compiler who decides the allocation of variable's memory in the register depending on :-
Availability of registers in the CPU.
More stable optimisations,etc.

understanding the keywords eax and mov

I am trying to understand the registers in asm but every website I look at just assumes I know something about registers and I just cannot get a grip on it. I know about a books worth of c++ and as far as I know mov var1,var2 would be the same thing as var1 = var2, correct?
But with the eax register I am completely lost. Any help is appreciated.
Consider registers as per-processor global variables. There's "eax", "ebx", and a bunch of others. Furthermore, you can only perform certain operations via registers - for example there's no instruction to read from one memory location and write it to another (except when the locations are denoted by certain registers - see movsb instruction, etc).
So the registers are generally used only for temporary storage of values that are needed for some operation, but they usually are not used as global variables in the conventional sense.
You are right that "mov var1, var2" is essentially an assignment - but you cannot use two memory-based variables as operands; that's not supported. You could instead do:
mov eax, var1
mov var2, eax
... which has the same effect, using the eax register as a temporary.
eax refers to a processor register (essentially a variable)
mov is an instruction to copy data from one register to another. So essentially you are correct (in a handwavey sense)
Do you have an example assembly block you want to discuss?
Think of eax as a location in memory where a value can be stored, much like in c++ where int, long,... and other types specify the size of the location in memory of a variable. The eax register simply points to a storage location in memory, which on x86 computers is 32 bits. The e part of eax means extended. This register -> memory location is automatically used by the multiplication and division operators and normally called the extended accumulator register.

"register" keyword in C?

What does the register keyword do in C language? I have read that it is used for optimizing but is not clearly defined in any standard. Is it still relevant and if so, when would you use it?
It's a hint to the compiler that the variable will be heavily used and that you recommend it be kept in a processor register if possible.
Most modern compilers do that automatically, and are better at picking them than us humans.
I'm surprised that nobody mentioned that you cannot take an address of register variable, even if compiler decides to keep variable in memory rather than in register.
So using register you win nothing (anyway compiler will decide for itself where to put the variable) and lose the & operator - no reason to use it.
It tells the compiler to try to use a CPU register, instead of RAM, to store the variable. Registers are in the CPU and much faster to access than RAM. But it's only a suggestion to the compiler, and it may not follow through.
I know this question is about C, but the same question for C++ was closed as a exact duplicate of this question. This answer therefore may not apply for C.
The latest draft of the C++11 standard, N3485, says this in 7.1.1/3:
A register specifier is a hint to the implementation that the variable so declared will be heavily used. [ note: The hint can be ignored and in most implementations it will be ignored if the address of the variable is taken. This use is deprecated ... —end note ]
In C++ (but not in C), the standard does not state that you can't take the address of a variable declared register; however, because a variable stored in a CPU register throughout its lifetime does not have a memory location associated with it, attempting to take its address would be invalid, and the compiler will ignore the register keyword to allow taking the address.
I have read that it is used for optimizing but is not clearly defined in any standard.
In fact it is clearly defined by the C standard. Quoting the N1570 draft section 6.7.1 paragraph 6 (other versions have the same wording):
A declaration of an identifier for an object with storage-class
specifier register suggests that access to the object be as fast
as possible. The extent to which such suggestions are effective is
implementation-defined.
The unary & operator may not be applied to an object defined with register, and register may not be used in an external declaration.
There are a few other (fairly obscure) rules that are specific to register-qualified objects:
Defining an array object with register has undefined behavior.
Correction: It's legal to define an array object with register, but you can't do anything useful with such an object (indexing into an array requires taking the address of its initial element).
The _Alignas specifier (new in C11) may not be applied to such an object.
If the parameter name passed to the va_start macro is register-qualified, the behavior is undefined.
There may be a few others; download a draft of the standard and search for "register" if you're interested.
As the name implies, the original meaning of register was to require an object to be stored in a CPU register. But with improvements in optimizing compilers, this has become less useful. Modern versions of the C standard don't refer to CPU registers, because they no longer (need to) assume that there is such a thing (there are architectures that don't use registers). The common wisdom is that applying register to an object declaration is more likely to worsen the generated code, because it interferes with the compiler's own register allocation. There might still be a few cases where it's useful (say, if you really do know how often a variable will be accessed, and your knowledge is better than what a modern optimizing compiler can figure out).
The main tangible effect of register is that it prevents any attempt to take an object's address. This isn't particularly useful as an optimization hint, since it can be applied only to local variables, and an optimizing compiler can see for itself that such an object's address isn't taken.
It hasn't been relevant for at least 15 years as optimizers make better decisions about this than you can. Even when it was relevant, it made a lot more sense on a CPU architecture with a lot of registers, like SPARC or M68000 than it did on Intel with its paucity of registers, most of which are reserved by the compiler for its own purposes.
Actually, register tells the compiler that the variable does not alias with
anything else in the program (not even char's).
That can be exploited by modern compilers in a variety of situations, and can help the compiler quite a bit in complex code - in simple code the compilers can figure this out on their own.
Otherwise, it serves no purpose and is not used for register allocation. It does not usually incur performance degradation to specify it, as long as your compiler is modern enough.
Storytime!
C, as a language, is an abstraction of a computer. It allows you to do things, in terms of what a computer does, that is manipulate memory, do math, print things, etc.
But C is only an abstraction. And ultimately, what it's extracting from you is Assembly language. Assembly is the language that a CPU reads, and if you use it, you do things in terms of the CPU. What does a CPU do? Basically, it reads from memory, does math, and writes to memory. The CPU doesn't just do math on numbers in memory. First, you have to move a number from memory to memory inside the CPU called a register. Once you're done doing whatever you need to do to this number, you can move it back to normal system memory. Why use system memory at all? Registers are limited in number. You only get about a hundred bytes in modern processors, and older popular processors were even more fantastically limited (The 6502 had 3 8-bit registers for your free use). So, your average math operation looks like:
load first number from memory
load second number from memory
add the two
store answer into memory
A lot of that is... not math. Those load and store operations can take up to half your processing time. C, being an abstraction of computers, freed the programmer the worry of using and juggling registers, and since the number and type vary between computers, C places the responsibility of register allocation solely on the compiler. With one exception.
When you declare a variable register, you are telling the compiler "Yo, I intend for this variable to be used a lot and/or be short lived. If I were you, I'd try to keep it in a register." When the C standard says compilers don't have to actually do anything, that's because the C standard doesn't know what computer you're compiling for, and it might be like the 6502 above, where all 3 registers are needed just to operate, and there's no spare register to keep your number. However, when it says you can't take the address, that's because registers don't have addresses. They're the processor's hands. Since the compiler doesn't have to give you an address, and since it can't have an address at all ever, several optimizations are now open to the compiler. It could, say, keep the number in a register always. It doesn't have to worry about where it's stored in computer memory (beyond needing to get it back again). It could even pun it into another variable, give it to another processor, give it a changing location, etc.
tl;dr: Short-lived variables that do lots of math. Don't declare too many at once.
You are messing with the compiler's sophisticated graph-coloring algorithm. This is used for register allocation. Well, mostly. It acts as a hint to the compiler -- that's true. But not ignored in its entirety since you are not allowed to take the address of a register variable (remember the compiler, now on your mercy, will try to act differently). Which in a way is telling you not to use it.
The keyword was used long, long back. When there were only so few registers that could count them all using your index finger.
But, as I said, deprecated doesn't mean you cannot use it.
Just a little demo (without any real-world purpose) for comparison: when removing the register keywords before each variable, this piece of code takes 3.41 seconds on my i7 (GCC), with register the same code completes in 0.7 seconds.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
register int numIterations = 20000;
register int i=0;
unsigned long val=0;
for (i; i<numIterations+1; i++)
{
register int j=0;
for (j;j<i;j++)
{
val=j+i;
}
}
printf("%d", val);
return 0;
}
I have tested the register keyword under QNX 6.5.0 using the following code:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <sys/neutrino.h>
#include <sys/syspage.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
uint64_t cps, cycle1, cycle2, ncycles;
double sec;
register int a=0, b = 1, c = 3, i;
cycle1 = ClockCycles();
for(i = 0; i < 100000000; i++)
a = ((a + b + c) * c) / 2;
cycle2 = ClockCycles();
ncycles = cycle2 - cycle1;
printf("%lld cycles elapsed\n", ncycles);
cps = SYSPAGE_ENTRY(qtime) -> cycles_per_sec;
printf("This system has %lld cycles per second\n", cps);
sec = (double)ncycles/cps;
printf("The cycles in seconds is %f\n", sec);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
I got the following results:
-> 807679611 cycles elapsed
-> This system has 3300830000 cycles per second
-> The cycles in seconds is ~0.244600
And now without register int:
int a=0, b = 1, c = 3, i;
I got:
-> 1421694077 cycles elapsed
-> This system has 3300830000 cycles per second
-> The cycles in seconds is ~0.430700
During the seventies, at the very beginning of the C language, the register keyword has been introduced in order to allow the programmer to give hints to the compiler, telling it that the variable would be used very often, and that it should be wise to keep it’s value in one of the processor’s internal register.
Nowadays, optimizers are much more efficient than programmers to determine variables that are more likely to be kept into registers, and the optimizer does not always take the programmer’s hint into account.
So many people wrongly recommend not to use the register keyword.
Let’s see why!
The register keyword has an associated side effect: you can not reference (get the address of) a register type variable.
People advising others not to use registers takes wrongly this as an additional argument.
However, the simple fact of knowing that you can not take the address of a register variable, allows the compiler (and its optimizer) to know that the value of this variable can not be modified indirectly through a pointer.
When at a certain point of the instruction stream, a register variable has its value assigned in a processor’s register, and the register has not been used since to get the value of another variable, the compiler knows that it does not need to re-load the value of the variable in that register.
This allows to avoid expensive useless memory access.
Do your own tests and you will get significant performance improvements in your most inner loops.
c_register_side_effect_performance_boost
Register would notify the compiler that the coder believed this variable would be written/read enough to justify its storage in one of the few registers available for variable use. Reading/writing from registers is usually faster and can require a smaller op-code set.
Nowadays, this isn't very useful, as most compilers' optimizers are better than you at determining whether a register should be used for that variable, and for how long.
gcc 9.3 asm output, without using optimisation flags (everything in this answer refers to standard compilation without optimisation flags):
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
int i = 3;
i++;
printf("%d", i);
return 0;
}
.LC0:
.string "%d"
main:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
sub rsp, 16
mov DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 3
add DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 1
mov eax, DWORD PTR [rbp-4]
mov esi, eax
mov edi, OFFSET FLAT:.LC0
mov eax, 0
call printf
mov eax, 0
leave
ret
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
register int i = 3;
i++;
printf("%d", i);
return 0;
}
.LC0:
.string "%d"
main:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
push rbx
sub rsp, 8
mov ebx, 3
add ebx, 1
mov esi, ebx
mov edi, OFFSET FLAT:.LC0
mov eax, 0
call printf
add rsp, 8
pop rbx
pop rbp
ret
This forces ebx to be used for the calculation, meaning it needs to be pushed to the stack and restored at the end of the function because it is callee saved. register produces more lines of code and 1 memory write and 1 memory read (although realistically, this could have been optimised to 0 R/Ws if the calculation had been done in esi, which is what happens using C++'s const register). Not using register causes 2 writes and 1 read (although store to load forwarding will occur on the read). This is because the value has to be present and updated directly on the stack so the correct value can be read by address (pointer). register doesn't have this requirement and cannot be pointed to. const and register are basically the opposite of volatile and using volatile will override the const optimisations at file and block scope and the register optimisations at block-scope. const register and register will produce identical outputs because const does nothing on C at block-scope, so only the register optimisations apply.
On clang, register is ignored but const optimisations still occur.
On supported C compilers it tries to optimize the code so that variable's value is held in an actual processor register.
Microsoft's Visual C++ compiler ignores the register keyword when global register-allocation optimization (the /Oe compiler flag) is enabled.
See register Keyword on MSDN.
Register keyword tells compiler to store the particular variable in CPU registers so that it could be accessible fast. From a programmer's point of view register keyword is used for the variables which are heavily used in a program, so that compiler can speedup the code. Although it depends on the compiler whether to keep the variable in CPU registers or main memory.
Register indicates to compiler to optimize this code by storing that particular variable in registers then in memory. it is a request to compiler, compiler may or may not consider this request.
You can use this facility in case where some of your variable are being accessed very frequently.
For ex: A looping.
One more thing is that if you declare a variable as register then you can't get its address as it is not stored in memory. it gets its allocation in CPU register.
The register keyword is a request to the compiler that the specified variable is to be stored in a register of the processor instead of memory as a way to gain speed, mostly because it will be heavily used. The compiler may ignore the request.

Resources