C string literal as parameter equals -1 in avr-gcc? - c

I am developing a software for AVR microcontroller. Saying in fromt, now I only have LEDs and pushbuttons to debug. The problem is that if I pass a string literal into the following function:
void test_char(const char *str) {
if (str[0] == -1)
LED_PORT ^= 1 << 7; /* Test */
}
Somewhere in main()
test_char("AAAAA");
And now the LED changes state. On my x86_64 machine I wrote the same function to compare (not LED, of course), but it turns out that str[0] equals to 'A'. Why is this happening?
Update:
Not sure whether this is related, but I have a struct called button, like this:
typedef struct {
int8_t seq[BTN_SEQ_COUNT]; /* The sequence of button */
int8_t seq_count; /* The number of buttons registered */
int8_t detected; /* The detected button */
uint8_t released; /* Whether the button is released
after a hold */
} button;
button btn = {
.seq = {-1, -1, -1},
.detected = -1,
.seq_count = 0,
.released = 0
};
But it turned out that btn.seq_count start out as -1 though I defined it as 0.
Update2
For the later problem, I solved by initializing the values in a function. However, that does not explain why seq_count was set to -1 in the previous case, nor does it explain why the character in string literal equals to -1.
Update3
Back to the original problem, I added a complete mini example here, and same occurs:
void LED_on() {
PORTA = 0x00;
}
void LED_off() {
PORTA = 0xFF;
}
void port_init() {
PORTA = 0xFF;
DDRA |= 0xFF;
}
void test_char(const char* str) {
if (str[0] == -1) {
LED_on();
}
}
void main() {
port_init();
test_char("AAAAA");
while(1) {
}
}
Update 4
I am trying to follow Nominal Animal's advice, but not quite successful. Here is the code I have changed:
void test_char(const char* str) {
switch(pgm_read_byte(str++)) {
case '\0': return;
case 'A': LED_on(); break;
case 'B': LED_off(); break;
}
}
void main() {
const char* test = "ABABA";
port_init();
test_char(test);
while(1) {
}
}
I am using gcc 4.6.4,
avr-gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=avr-gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/carl/Softwares/AVR/libexec/gcc/avr/4.6.4/lto-wrapper
Target: avr
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/carl/Softwares/AVR --target=avr --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-nls --disable-libssp --with-dwarf2
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.6.4 (GCC)

Rewritten from scratch, to hopefully clear up some of the confusion.
First, some important background:
AVR microcontrollers have separate address spaces for RAM and ROM/Flash ("program memory").
GCC generates code that assumes all data is always in RAM. (Older versions used to have special types, such as prog_char, that referred to data in the ROM address space, but newer versions of GCC do not and cannot support such data types.)
When linking against avr-libc, the linker adds code (__do_copy_data) to copy all initialized data from program memory to RAM. If you have both avr-gcc and avr-libc packages installed, and you use something like avr-gcc -Wall -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -mmcu=AVRTYPE source.c -o binary.elf to compile your source file into a program binary, then use avr-objcopy to convert the elf file into the format your firmware utilities support, you are linking against avr-libc.
If you use avr-gcc to only produce an object file source.o, and some other utilities to link and upload your program to your microcontroller, this copying from program memory to RAM may not happen. It depends on what linker and libraries your use.
As most AVRs have only a few dozen to few hundred bytes of RAM available, it is very, very easy to run out of RAM. I'm not certain if avr-gcc and avr-libc reliably detect when you have more initialized data than you have RAM available. If you specify any arrays containing strings, it is very likely you're already overrun your RAM, causing all sorts of interesting bugs to appear.
The avr/pgmspace.h header file is part of avr-libc, and defines a macro, PROGMEM, that can be used to specify data that will only be referred to by functions that take program memory addresses (pointers), such as pgm_read_byte() or strcmp_P() defined in the same header file. The linker will not copy such variables to RAM -- but neither will the compiler tell you if you're using them wrong.
If you use both avr-gcc and avr-libc, I recommend using the following approach for all read-only data:
#include <avr/pgmspace.h>
/*
* Define LED_init(), LED_on(), and LED_off() functions.
*/
void blinky(const char *str)
{
while (1) {
switch (pgm_read_byte(str++)) {
case '\0': return;
case 'A': LED_on(); break;
case 'B': LED_off(); break;
}
/* Add a sleep or delay here,
* or you won't be able to see the LED flicker. */
}
}
static const char example1[] PROGMEM = "AB";
const char example2[] PROGMEM = "AAAA";
int main(void)
{
static const char example3[] PROGMEM = "ABABB";
LED_init();
while (1) {
blinky(example1);
blinky(example2);
blinky(example3);
}
}
Because of changes (new limitations) in GCC internals, the PROGMEM attribute can only be used with a variable; if it refers to a type, it does nothing. Therefore, you need to specify strings as character arrays, using one of the forms above. (example1 is visible within this compilation unit only, example2 can be referred to from other compilation units too, and example3 is visible only in the function it is defined in. Here, visible refers to where you can refer to the variable; it has nothing to do with the contents.)
The PROGMEM attribute does not actually change the code GCC generates. All it does is put the contents to .progmem.data section, iff without it they'd be in .rodata. All of the magic is really in the linking, and in linked library code.
If you do not use avr-libc, then you need to be very specific with your const attributes, as they determine which section the contents will end up in. Mutable (non-const) data should end up in the .data section, while immutable (const) data ends up in .rodata section(s). Remember to read the specifiers from right to left, starting at the variable itself, separated by '*': the leftmost refers to the content, whereas the rightmost refers to the variable. In other words,
const char *s = p;
defines s so that the value of the variable can be changed, but the content it points to is immutable (unchangeable/const); whereas
char *const s = p;
defines s so that you cannot modify the variable itself, but you can the content -- the content s points to is mutable, modifiable. Furthermore,
const char *s = "literal";
defines s to point to a literal string (and you can modify s, ie. make it point to some other literal string for example), but you cannot modify the contents; and
char s[] = "string";
defines s to be a character array (of length 6; string length + 1 for end-of-string char), that happens to be initialized to { 's', 't', 'r', 'i', 'n', 'g', '\0' }.
All linker tools that work on object files use the sections to determine what to do with the contents. (Indeed, avr-libc copies the contents of .rodata sections to RAM, and only leaves .progmem.data in program memory.)
Carl Dong, there are several cases where you may observe weird behaviour, even reproducible weird behaviour. I'm no longer certain which one is the root cause of your problem, so I'll just list the ones I think are likely:
If linking against avr-libc, running out of RAM
AVRs have very little RAM, and copying even string literals to RAM easily eats it all up. If this happens, any kind of weird behaviour is possible.
Failing to linking against avr-libc
If you think you use avr-libc, but are not certain, then use avr-objdump -d binary.elf | grep -e '^[0-9a-f]* <_' to see if the ELF binary contains any library code. You should expect to see at least <__do_clear_bss>:, <_exit>:, and <__stop_program>: in that list, I believe.
Linking against some other C library, but expecting avr-libc behaviour
Other libraries you link against may have different rules. In particular, if they're designed to work with some other C compiler -- especially one that supports multiple address spaces, and therefore can deduce when to use ld and when lpm based on types --, it might be impossible to use avr-gcc with that library, even if all the tools talk to each other nicely.
Using a custom linker script and a freestanding environment (no C library at all)
Personally, I can live with immutable data (.rodata sections) being in program memory, with myself having to explicitly copy any immutable data to RAM whenever needed. This way I can use a simple microcontroller-specific linker script and GCC in freestanding mode (no C library at all used), and get complete control over the microcontroller. On the other hand, you lose all the nice predefined macros and functions avr-libc and other C libraries provide.
In this case, you need to understand the AVR architecture to have any hope of getting sensible results. You'll need to set up the interrupt vectors and all kinds of other stuff to get even a minimal do-nothing loop to actually run; personally, I read all the assembly code GCC produces (from my own C source) simply to see if it makes sense, and to try to make sure it all gets processed correctly.
Questions?

I faced a similar problem (inline strings were equal to 0xff,0xff,...) and solved it by just changing a line in my Makefile
from :
.out.hex:
$(OBJCOPY) -j .text \
-j .data \
-O $(HEXFORMAT) $< $#
to :
.out.hex:
$(OBJCOPY) -j .text \
-j .data \
-j .rodata \
-O $(HEXFORMAT) $< $#
or seems better :
.out.hex:
$(OBJCOPY) -R .fuse \
-R .lock \
-R .eeprom \
-O $(HEXFORMAT) $< $#
You can see full problem and answer here : https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment/2943846#comment-2943846

Related

How can I access interpreter path address at runtime in C?

By using the objdump command I figured that the address 0x02a8 in memory contains start the path /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, and this path ends with a 0x00 byte, due to the C standard.
So I tried to write a simple C program that will print this line (I used a sample from the book "RE for beginners" by Denis Yurichev - page 24):
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
printf(0x02a8);
return 0;
}
But I was disappointed to get a segmentation fault instead of the expected /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 output.
I find it strange to use such a "fast" call of printf without specifiers or at least pointer cast, so I tried to make the code more natural:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
char *p = (char*)0x02a8;
printf(p);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
And after running this I still got a segmentation fault.
I don't believe this is happening because of restricted memory areas, because in the book it all goes well at the 1st try. I am not sure, maybe there is something more that wasn't mentioned in that book.
So need some clear explanation of why the segmentation faults keep happening every time I try running the program.
I'm using the latest fully-upgraded Kali Linux release.
Disappointing to see that your "RE for beginners" book does not go into the basics first, and spits out this nonsense. Nonetheless, what you are doing is obviously wrong, let me explain why.
Normally on Linux, GCC produces ELF executables that are position independent. This is done for security purposes. When the program is run, the operating system is able to place it anywhere in memory (at any address), and the program will work just fine. This technique is called Address Space Layout Randomization, and is a feature of the operating system that nowdays is enabled by default.
Normally, an ELF program would have a "base address", and would be loaded exactly at that address in order to work. However, in case of a position independent ELF, the "base address" is set to 0x0, and the operating system and the interpreter decide where to put the program at runtime.
When using objdump on a position independent executable, every address that you see is not a real address, but rather, an offset from the base of the program (that will only be known at runtime). Therefore it is not possible to know the position of such a string (or any other variable) at runtime.
If you want the above to work, you will have to compile an ELF that is not position independent. You can do so like this:
gcc -no-pie -fno-pie prog.c -o prog
It no longer works like that. The 64-bit Linux executables that you're likely using are position-independent and they're loaded into memory at an arbitrary address. In that case ELF file does not contain any fixed base address.
While you could make a position-dependent executable as instructed by Marco Bonelli it is not how things work for arbitrary executables on modern 64-bit linuxen, so it is more worthwhile to learn to do this with position-independent ones, but it is a bit trickier.
This worked for me to print ELF i.e. the elf header magic, and the interpreter string. This is dirty in that it probably only works for a small executable anyway.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
int main(){
// convert main to uintptr_t
uintptr_t main_addr = (uintptr_t)main;
// clear bottom 12 bits so that it points to the beginning of page
main_addr &= ~0xFFFLLU;
// subtract one page so that we're in the elf headers...
main_addr -= 0x1000;
// elf magic
puts((char *)main_addr);
// interpreter string, offset from hexdump!
puts((char *)main_addr + 0x318);
}
There is another trick to find the beginning of the ELF executable in memory: the so-called auxiliary vector and getauxval:
The getauxval() function retrieves values from the auxiliary vector,
a mechanism that the kernel's ELF binary loader uses to pass certain
information to user space when a program is executed.
The location of the ELF program headers in memory will be
#include <sys/auxv.h>
char *program_headers = (char*)getauxval(AT_PHDR);
The actual ELF header is 64 bytes long, and the program headers start at byte 64 so if you subtract 64 from this you will get a pointer to the magic string again, therefore our code can be simplified to
#include <stdio.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <sys/auxv.h>
int main(){
char *elf_header = (char *)getauxval(AT_PHDR) - 0x40;
puts(elf_header + 0x318); // or whatever the offset was in your executable
}
And finally, an executable that figures out the interpreter position from the ELF headers alone, provided that you've got a 64-bit ELF, magic numbers from Wikipedia...
#include <stdio.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <sys/auxv.h>
int main() {
// get pointer to the first program header
char *ph = (char *)getauxval(AT_PHDR);
// elf header at this position
char *elfh = ph - 0x40;
// segment type 0x3 is the interpreter;
// program header item length 0x38 in 64-bit executables
while (*(uint32_t *)ph != 3) ph += 0x38;
// the offset is 64 bits at 0x8 from the beginning of the
// executable
uint64_t offset = *(uint64_t *)(ph + 0x8);
// print the interpreter path...
puts(elfh + offset);
}
I guess it segfaults because of the way you use printf: you dont use the format parameter how it is designed to be.
When you want to use the printf function to read data the first argument it takes is a string that will format how the display will work int printf(char *fmt , ...) "the ... represent the data you want to display accordingly to the format string parameter
so if you want to print a string
//format as text
printf("%s\n", pointer_to_beginning_of_string);
//
If this does not work cause it probably will it is because you are trying to read memory that you are not supposed to access.
try adding extra flags " -Werror -Wextra -Wall -pedantic " with your compiler and show us the errors please.

How to eliminate unused elements in structures?

Background
I am working on a modular architecture for embedded devices where different abstraction layers have to communicate with each others. The current approach is to have plenty of functions, variables and defines mangled with the module name they belong to.
This approach is a bit painful and I would like to define some kind of common interfaces for the API. The key idea is to get a better understanding of what modules share the same HAL interface.
Proposal
I would like to use a OOP inspired architecture where I use structures as interfaces. All these structures are populated statically.
This solution looks nice but I might waste a lot of memory because the compiler doesn't know how to chop off structures and only keep what it really needs to.
The following example can be built with or without -DDIRECT and the behavior should be exactly the same.
Example
Source (test.c)
#include <stdlib.h>
int do_foo(int a) {
return 42 * a;
}
#ifdef DIRECT
int (*foo)(int) = do_foo;
int (*bar)(int);
int storage;
#else
struct foo_ts {
int (*do_foo)(int);
int (*do_bar)(int);
int storage;
} foo = {.do_foo = do_foo};
#endif
int main(char argc) {
#ifdef DIRECT
return foo(argc);
#else
return foo.do_foo(argc);
#endif
}
Makefile
CFLAGS=-O2 -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m3 -g --specs=nosys.specs
CC=arm-none-eabi-gcc
upper=$(shell echo $(1) | tr a-z A-Z)
EXEC=direct.out with_struct.out
all: $(EXEC)
%.out:test.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -D$(call upper,$(basename $#)) -o $# test.c
size $#
Output
One can notice that the memory footprint used with the struct variant is bigger because the compiler doesn't allow itself to remove the unused members.
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O2 -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m3 -g \
--specs=nosys.specs -DDIRECT -o direct.out test.c
size direct.out
text data bss dec hex filename
992 1092 36 2120 848 direct.out
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O2 -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m3 -g \
--specs=nosys.specs -DWITH_STRUCT -o with_struct.out test.c
size with_struct.out
text data bss dec hex filename
992 1100 28 2120 848 with_struct.out
Question
With this example I demonstrate that using a structure is good for readability and modularity, but it could decrease efficiency and it increases the memory usage.
Is there a way to get the advantages of both solutions? Said differently, is there a way to tell the compiler to be smarter?
OOP?
Following the comments on this question, one suggestion is to use C++ instead. Unfortunately, the same issue would occur because a Class with unused members will never be simplified by the compiler. So I am falling in the same trap with both languages.
Another raised point was the reason for unused members in structures. To address this question we can imagine a generic 3-axes accelerometer used in an application where only 1 axis is used. The HAL for this accelerometer could have the methods read_x_acc, read_y_acc and read_z_acc while only read_x_acc is used by the application.
If I declare a class in C++ or a structure in C the function pointers for unused methods/functions will still consume memory for nothing.
Let me first show you a possible approach regarding your edit, where your current interface has three functions, but sometimes you would need only one of them. You could define two interfaces:
typedef struct I1DAccel
{
double (*read)(void);
} I1DAccel;
typedef struct I3DAccel
{
union
{
I1DAccel x;
struct
{
double (*read_x)(void);
};
};
union
{
I1DAccel y;
struct
{
double (*read_y)(void);
};
};
union
{
I1DAccel z;
struct
{
double (*read_z)(void);
};
};
} I3DAccel;
Then you can make the implementation of the Accelerometer do this:
I1DAccel accel_x = { read_x_acc };
I1DAccel accel_y = { read_y_acc };
I1DAccel accel_z = { read_z_acc };
I3DAccel accel =
{
.read_x = read_x_acc,
.read_y = read_y_acc,
.read_z = read_z_acc,
};
With proper link-time optimizations, the compiler could then throw away any of these global structs that isn't used by application code.
Of course, you will consume more memory if one part of your code requires only accel_x while another part requires the whole accel. You would have to hunt down these cases manually.
Of course, using "interface" structs, you will always consume more memory than without them, the pointers have to be stored somewhere. Therefore, the typical approach is indeed to just prepend the module name to the functions and call them directly, like e.g. in case of such an accelerometer:
typedef int acchndl; // if you need more than one accelerometer
double Accel_read_x(acchndl accel);
double Accel_read_y(acchndl accel);
double Accel_read_z(acchndl accel);
This is conceptually similar to what you would do in e.g. C++:
class Accel
{
double read_x();
double read_y();
double read_z();
};
double Accel::read_x()
{
// implementation here
}
With the plain C above, instead of an instance pointer, you can use any other type of "object handle", like demonstrated with the typedef to int, which is often an advantage for embedded code.
This solution looks nice but I might waste a lot of memory because the compiler doesn't know how to chop off structures and only keep what it really needs to.
...
Is there a way to get the advantages of both solutions? Said differently, is there a way to tell the compiler to be smarter?
One problem is 'C' compiles things as a module (compilation unit) and there is often no easy way to know what will and will not be used in a structure. Consider the structure can be passed from module to module as you propose. When compiling one module, there is no context/information to know that some other module will use the structure or not.
Okay, so that leads to some possible solutions. gcc has the option -fwhole-program See: -fipa-struct-reorg as well as gold and LTO. Here you must structure your makefile so that the compiler (code generator) has all of the information available to know if it may remove structure members. This is not to say that these options will do what you want with a current gcc, just that they are a requirement to get things to work.
C++
You can do most anything in 'C' that you can in C++; just not as programmer efficiently. See: Operator overloading in 'C'. So how might a 'C' compiler implement your virtual functions? Your C++ virtuals might look like this underneath,
struct foo_ts_virtual_table {
int my_type /* RTTI value for polymorphism. */
int (*do_foo)(int);
int (*do_bar)(int);
} foo_vtable = {.my_type = ENUM_FOO_TS; .do_foo = foo};
struct foo_ts {
void * vtable; /* a foo_ts_virtual_table pointer */
int storage;
} foo = {.vtable = foo_vtable};
This is a win memory wise if you have multiple foo_ts structures. A down side of this is that a function pointer is difficult to in-line. Often a simple functions body maybe less than the call overhead on an ARM CPU. This results in more code memory and slower execution.
C++ compilers will be geared to eliminate these extraneous functions, just because this is a common issue in C++. A 'C' compilers analysis is confounded by your custom code/notation and the language definition of structure and compilation units.
Other possibilities are to wrap the function calls in macros and emit data to a non-linked section. You can examine the non-linked section to see whether or not to include a function (and pointer) in the final link. What is a win or not depends on lots of different design objectives. It is certainly going to complicate the build process and confound other developers.
As well, the ARM Linux MULTI_CPU maybe of interest. This is only to eliminate function pointers if only one 'type' is needed at run time.
If you insist on function pointers, there will be occasions where this actually generates more code. C++ compilers will do book keeping to see when a virtual might be in-lined as well as possibly not emitting unused member functions in a virtual table (and the implementation of the function). These issues maybe more pronounced than the extra structure overhead.

global variable always initialized zero

I've been writing an OS using this tutorial. I am at the part where
the boot loader is completed and C is used for programming (and then linked together ...). But that just as a note, I believe the problem I have is related to gcc.
I build an i386-elf cross compiler for the OS. And everything works fine, I can execute my code everything works. Except that all global variables are initialized zero, although I provided a default value.
int test_var = 1234;
// yes, void main() is correct (the boot-loader will call this)
void main() {}
If I debug this code with GDB, I get: (gcc-7.1.0, target: i328-elf)
(gdb) b main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x1554: file src/kernel/main.c, line 11.
(gdb) c
Continuing.
Breakpoint 1, main () at src/kernel/main.c:11
11 void main() {
(gdb) p test_var
$1 = 0
If i run the same code on my local machine (gcc-6.3.0, target: x86_64), it prints 1234.
My question is: Did I misconfigure gcc, is this a mistake in my OS, is this a known problem? I couldn't find anything about it.
My entire source-code: link
I use the following commands to compile my stuff:
# ...
i386-elf-gcc -g -ffreestanding -Iinclude/ -c src/kernel/main.c -o out/kernel/main.o
# ...
i386-elf-ld -e 0x1000 -Ttext 0x1000 -o out/kernel.elf out/kernel_entry.o out/kernel/main.o # some other stuff ...
i386-elf-objcopy -O binary out/kernel.elf out/kernel.bin
cat out/boot.bin out/kernel.bin > out/os.bin
qemu-system-i386 -drive "format=raw,file=out/os.bin"
EDIT: As #EugeneSh. suggested here some logic to make sure, that it's not removed:
#include <cpu/types.h>
#include <cpu/isr.h>
#include <kernel/print.h>
#include <driver/vga.h>
int test_var = 1234;
void main() {
vga_text_init();
switch (test_var) {
case 1234: print("That's correct"); break;
case 0: print("It's zero"); break;
// I don't have a method like atoi() in place, I would use
// GDB to get the value
default: print("It's something else");
}
}
Sadly it prints It's zero
Compiler never clears uninitialized global variables to zero, its logic in built inside loader,
So when you allocate memory for data segment then it size contains bss section also. So you have to check bss section offset, alignment & size withing data segment and memset() them to '0'.
As you are writing your OS so may be all the library routines are not available so better write memset() function using assembly.

Why isn't my char* passing correctly?

Problem statement (using a contrived example):
Working as expected ('b' is printed to screen):
void Foo(const char* bar);
void main()
{
const char bar[4] = "bar";
Foo(bar);
}
void Foo(const char* bar)
{
// Pointer to first text cell of video memory
char* memory = (char*) 0xb8000;
*memory = bar[0];
}
Not working as expected (\0 is printed to screen):
void Foo(const char* bar);
void main()
{
Foo("bar");
}
void Foo(const char* bar)
{
// Pointer to first text cell of video memory
char* memory = (char*) 0xb8000;
*memory = bar[0];
}
In other words, if I pass the const char* directly, it doesn't pass correctly. The const char* I get in Foo points to zeroed out memory somehow. What am I doing wrong?
Background info (as requested):
I am developing an operating system for fun, using a guide I found here. The guide generally assumes you are on a unix-based machine, but I'm developing on a PC, so I'm using MinGW so that I have access to gcc, ld, etc.
In the guide, I am currently on page 54, where you have just bootstrapped your custom kernel. Rather than simply displaying an 'X' as the guide teaches, I decided to use my existing knowledge of C/C++ to attempt to write my own rudimentary print string function. The function is supposed to take a const char* and write it, char by char, into video memory.
Three files are currently involved in the project:
The boot sector - compiled through NASM to a .bin file
The kernel entry routine - compiled without linking through NASM to a .o, linked against the kernel
The kernel - compiled through gcc, linked along with the kernel entry routine through the ld command, which produces a .bin which is appended to the .bin file produced by the boot sector
Once the combined .bin file is generated, I am converting it to .VDI (VirtualBox Disk Image) and running it in a VM I have set up.
Additional info:
I just noticed that when VirtualBox is converting the .bin file to .vdi, it is reporting different sizes for the two examples. I had a hunch that maybe the string was getting omitted entirely from the compiled product. Sure enough, when I look at .bin for the first example in a hex editor, I can find the text "bar", but I can't when I look at a hex dump for the .bin of the second example.
This leads me to believe that the compilation process I'm using has a flaw in it somewhere. Here are the commands I'm using:
nasm boot_sector.asm -f bin -o boot_sector.bin
nasm kernel_entry.asm -f elf -o kernel_entry.o
gcc -ffreestanding -c kernel.c -o kernel.o
ld -T NUL -o kernel.tmp -Ttext 0x1000 kernel_entry.o kernel.o
objcopy -O binary -j .text kernel.tmp kernel.bin
copy /b boot_sector.bin+kernel.bin os_image.bin
os_image.bin is what is converted to the .vdi file which is used in the vm.
With your first example, the compiler will (or at least, can) put the data to initialize the automatic array right in the code (.text section - moves with immediate values are used when I try this out).
With your second example, the string literal is put in the .rodata section, and the code will contain a reference to that section.
Your objcopy command only copies the .text section, so the string will be missing in the final binary. You should add the .rodata section, or remove the -j .text entirely.

How to place a variable at a given absolute address in memory (with GCC)

The RealView ARM C Compiler supports placing a variable at a given memory address using the variable attribute at(address):
int var __attribute__((at(0x40001000)));
var = 4; // changes the memory located at 0x40001000
Does GCC have a similar variable attribute?
I don't know, but you can easily create a workaround like this:
int *var = (int*)0x40001000;
*var = 4;
It's not exactly the same thing, but in most situations a perfect substitute. It will work with any compiler, not just GCC.
If you use GCC, I assume you also use GNU ld (although it is not a certainty, of course) and ld has support for placing variables wherever you want them.
I imagine letting the linker do that job is pretty common.
Inspired by answer by #rib, I'll add that if the absolute address is for some control register, I'd add volatile to the pointer definition. If it is just RAM, it doesn't matter.
You could use the section attributes and an ld linker script to define the desired address for that section. This is probably messier than your alternatives, but it is an option.
Minimal runnable linker script example
The technique was mentioned at: https://stackoverflow.com/a/4081574/895245 but now I will now provide a concrete example.
main.c
#include <stdio.h>
int myvar __attribute__((section(".mySection"))) = 0x9ABCDEF0;
int main(void) {
printf("adr %p\n", (void*)&myvar);
printf("val 0x%x\n", myvar);
myvar = 0;
printf("val 0x%x\n", myvar);
return 0;
}
link.ld
SECTIONS
{
.mySegment 0x12345678 : {KEEP(*(.mySection))}
}
GitHub upstream.
Compile and run:
gcc -fno-pie -no-pie -o main.out -std=c99 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic link.ld main.c
./main.out
Output:
adr 0x12345678
val 0x9abcdef0
val 0x0
So we see that it was put at the desired address.
I cannot find where this is documented in the GCC manual, but the following syntax:
gcc link.ld main.c
seems to append the given linker script to the default one that would be used.
-fno-pie -no-pie is required, because the Ubuntu toolchain is now configured to generate PIE executables by default, which leads the Linux kernel to place the executable on a different address every time, which messes with our experiment. See also: What is the -fPIE option for position-independent executables in gcc and ld?
TODO: compilation produces a warning:
/usr/bin/x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: warning: link.ld contains output sections; did you forget -T?
Am I doing something wrong? How to get rid of it? See also: How to remove warning: link.res contains output sections; did you forget -T?
Tested on Ubuntu 18.10, GCC 8.2.0.
You answered your question,
In your link above it states:
With the GNU GCC Compiler you may use only pointer definitions to access absolute memory locations. For example:
#define IOPIN0 (*((volatile unsigned long *) 0xE0028000))
IOPIN0 = 0x4;
Btw http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/Variable-Attributes.html#Variable%20Attributes
Here is one solution that actually reserves space at a fixed address in memory without having to edit the linker file:
extern const uint8_t dev_serial[12];
asm(".equ dev_serial, 0x1FFFF7E8");
/* or asm("dev_serial = 0x1FFFF7E8"); */
...
for (i = 0 ; i < sizeof(dev_serial); i++)
printf((char *)"%02x ", dev_serial[i]);
In GCC you can place variable into specific section:
__attribute__((section (".foo"))) static uint8_t * _rxBuffer;
or
static uint8_t * _rxBuffer __attribute__((section (".foo")));
and then specify address of the section in GNU Linker Memory Settings:
.foo=0x800000
I had a similar issue. I wanted to allocate a variable in my defined section at a special offset. In the same time I wanted the code to be portable (no explicit memory address in my C code). So I defined the RAM section in the linker script, and defined an array with the same length of my section (.noinit section is 0x0F length).
uint8_t no_init_sec[0x0f] __attribute__ ((section (".noinit")));
This array maps all locations of this section. This solution is not suitable when the section is large as the unused locations in the allocated array will be a wasted space in the data memory.
The right answer to my opinion is the Minimal runnable linker script example one.
However, there was something not mentioned there:
If the variable is not used in code (e.g. the variable holds read-only data such as version...), it is necessary to add the 'used' attribute.
Refer to my answer at https://stackoverflow.com/a/75468786/3887115.

Resources