Preface:
Linux and RT is a new realm of discovery, as I am mostly familiar with the Windows environment & Visual Studio C++ development.
Goal:
Execute a few sample 'C' programs on RTLinux, for analysis of deadlines and timing.
Method:
I do not currently have a "target" hardware device. However, I do have a PC with an Intel Core i5.
Questions:
Can I install in a dual boot configuration to preserve my every day
Windows 7 configuration? Will it work with Ubuntu? This is my biggest concern unless I purchase another PC.
Can RTLinux install and execute correctly? I do see it supports x86
but has this been done successfully on a PC configuration - and does it have a GUI to work with?
Are there are reliable simulators that can run on Windows, bypassing installing the OS, that will give good benchmarks of
timing, say of a context switch?
Any other options to run sample programs on RTLinux that I may not be
aware of ?
You can install Ubuntu on a PC with Windows 7 but you will need a separate disk partition and things can go wrong. I have different versions of Ubuntu and other Linux 32 bit and 64 bit distros installed on USB sticks, USB disks and an eSATA disk. The USB devices, at least for Ubuntu, all boot successfully on my desktops and laptops. Booting time and details of my Linux programs are in the following. All are compiled and run from command lines, where commands are provided with the source codes that are free to download.
http://www.roylongbottom.org.uk/linux%20benchmarks.htm
The distros are copied to bootable USB sticks or CDs/DVDs. At least older releases of Ubuntu were easily installed on USB devices or on an hard disk partition but bootable from USB. For later ones, I installed the distros on a laptop, with the disk drive disconnected. Then you can’t go wrong.
I believe that RTLinux uses the same GCC compiler as other Linuxes.
Related
How to run a virtual machine with qemu on an Ubuntu 18.04 x86_64 host system, when I want the guest system to be ARMv8 (Raspberry Pi 3, more specifically interested in the Cortex A53 processor)?
Background:
I want to compile a project for a real machine with ARMv8 on the mentioned host system. Currently, this is done with cross compile directly in the host system. For many different reasons, I want to set up a virtual machine which compiles binaries (virtually) native for the ARMv8. The binaries need to be runable on the real ARMv8 machine later.
Apart from Qemu and the right qemu-system-aarch64 to be installed on the host system, there is an image of the operating system needed. Ideally the same as the one running on the real ARMv8 device. The Ubuntu IoT Core 18.04 64-bit is available at https://ubuntu.com/download/raspberry-pi and I saved it to a local folder with the name ubuntu18045arm64rpi3.img.xz.
After extracting it, I got the extracted image 'ubuntu18045arm64rpi3.img'
To start a virtual machine with the given image and the wanted architecture, I type this:
sudo qemu-system-aarch64 -m 1024 -cpu cortex-a53 -M virt -drive if=none,file=ubuntu18045arm64rpi3.img,id=hd0
which gives me a window like that:
Now my main questions are:
I expected a virtual machine to boot up, where I can install the OS from the given image. What did I do wrong or how to achieve this goal?
Later on, I want to install a compiler (if not already there) on the guest ARMv8 machine and compile my project there. Afterwards I plan to transfer the compiled binaries to the real ARMv8 machine and expect them to run without difficulties. Is this possible with the current approach?
You can't just pass a disk image to the aarch64 QEMU and have it boot. You need to either pass a kernel to boot, or a BIOS (probably UEFI) image (which can then read a kernel off a disk image).
This blog post has an example of running Debian on QEMU; getting Ubuntu booting is probably similar.
https://translatedcode.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/installing-debian-on-qemus-64-bit-arm-virt-board/
Your link is to a raspberry pi specific disk image -- since you are not asking QEMU to model a raspberry pi board I would recommend against using that. You want whatever Ubuntu provides as their most normal/generic aarch64 image. If you're going the "boot via UEFI" route then you want a disk image intended for SBSA/UEFI systems.
On your second question about portability of compiled binaries, this is the same as for any two Linux systems, really. If the two systems have the same OS/distro version (so they have the same library versions etc), and the same sets of runtime libraries installed, and you didn't tell the compiler to compile to use CPU features that the destination CPU doesn't have, then it should work.
Compiling inside this emulated setup is going to be significantly slower than either your current cross-compile setup or compiling the binaries directly on the real AArch64 hardware, incidentally.
I need a Mac to write a native Codename One interface for iOS. I would like to use it in the future for the same purpose. I need to be able to open with Xcode the native code generated by the build server, add the implementation in Objective-C of the native methods and test the code on my iPhone X, to connect to the Mac via usb.
I found the following refurbished computer, I would like to ask you a secure confirmation that it goes well for the above purposes, before buying it:
Model MacBook Pro 13″ (MacBookPro9,2) - A1278 - MD101LL/A - 2012
Intel Core i5 3210M "Ivy Bridge" 2.5GHz "Ivy Bridge" processor with turbo boost up to 3.1GHz
Installed Ram 8 GB PC3-12800 (1600 MHz) DDR3 SO-DIMM
Intel HD Graphics 4000 integrated video card - 1.5GB of shared video memory
Installed Hard Disk Drive 500GB SATA 2.5″ HDD
13.3 inch (diagonal) LED backlit display - 1280×800 pixels
Operating System macOS 10.15 Catalina
Keyboard Layout QWERTY US - International
2x USB 3.0, 2x Thunderbolt, 1x SD-card slot, 1x Jack 3.5″ Devices
Right now seems OK, my one serious concern is the SATA disk and not SSD. Up until recently I used the 2013 version with 16gb, SSD and i7 which is still a great machine (screen broke in a fall on hard tile floor).
I can't tell if it will work well in the future but for now the important line is:
Operating System macOS 10.15 Catalina
That's the latest. So it will be able to run the latest xcode which should be compatible for Codename One development for a while.
Since this is an 8 year old machine and Apple is transitioning to ARM devices don't expect more than 2 years from this machine though.
Another option you can consider is a Mac mini. They are often an amazing value for the money, even when new.
I'm trying to find a solution to allow me to compile C code to a DOS executable from Windows 7 64-bit. I recently updated from XP 32-bit to Win7 64-bit, and now my Borland C++ 5.0 compiler won't work. I get an error when it tries to call tlink.exe 16-bit. I'm trying to avoid bringing over another computer with XP but that will have to be my course of action if I can't figure something else out soon.
My target is an embedded x86 running FreeDOS. As much as I'd like to transition to Linux I can't afford the time that would transition would take. Aside from the learning curve of never having used Linux, much of my code is DOS-dependent and would have to be re-written.
I'm hoping there's a windows setting I can just change but my research so far leads me to believe I need a more drastic change to my process. I've sniffed around at Turbo C 2.01, DJGPP, DOSbox... not really too confident to go down any of those alleys without some outside input
Run Virtual XP or VirtualBox and install Borland C++ inside. BTW, there is version 5.02 with some fixes (in case your version is exactly 5.0).
If you can find an old Microsoft Compiler, like 16 bit C / C++ 1.52 (which is included on the 32 bit C / C++ 4.1 cd-rom), or C 8.00 or earlier, it runs using a dos extender or in a 32 bit dos console window.
Why can't you run the Borland compiler using FreeDOS?
You could try to create a virtual machine with MSDOS on it, but you'd have to find a way to install MSDOS 6.22 on the virtual machine. At Microsoft's support site, they have links to a bootable ISO file for MSDOS 6.22. I still have the original floppies and started with those on an old system that has a floppy drive. It's a bit awkward to import / export files to / from the virtual machine.
This is the config.sys that I use that seems to work with Win 7 virtual machine. I had to increase buffers, stacks, and files to avoid a stack overflow problem with this setup.
dos=high,umb
buffers=40,0
files=60
lastdrive=e
shell=c:\command.com c:\ /e:1024 /p
stacks=64,512
switches=/f
device=c:\dos\himem.sys /numhandles:64 /testmem:off
device:c:\dos\emm683.exe ram i=b100-b7ff i=c600-c7ff i=cc00-cfff i=e600-efff frame=d000 a=32 d=128 notr
devicehigh=c:vmadd\cdrom.sys /d:mscd001
This is the autoexec.bat that I use (smartdrv is a bit pointless in this case so I commented it out with "rem" prefix) .
c:\dos\emm386 auto
lh c:\dos\mscdex.exe /d:mscd001 /m:7
rem lh c:\dos\smartdrv.exe
lh c:\vmadd\mouse.com
set path=c:\dos
set blaster=a220 i5 d1 h5 p330 t6
prompt $p$g
As for a compiler, Open Watcom seems to me to be the best choice in your situation. FrameworkPascal (written in the old version of Watcom) provides a 32 bit extender. Regarding the creation of a FreeDOS virtual machines, pickup the tools from Microsoft SysInteral. They include a tool that create a VHD. Once you get a FreeDOS running in a VM you can simply SYS the VHD and start it anywhere. There are plenty ready to run ISO images for FreeDOS, one worth mentioning is Seagate Seatools for DOS which is being distributed with the FreeDOS kernel.
Your best (but not only) solution for running all that is probably XPMode on Windows 7 Pro. It runs Windows XP 32 which of course provide 100 percent transparent compatibility via its NTVDM with DOS 16 bit real mode, 16 bits protected (Windows 3.1), and DOS 32 bit extenders.
NTVDM by the way is a feature that can be activated on Windows 10 Pro but it yet to be seen what exactly can be done with it there.
XPMode is a free downnload from Microsoft that installs a free version of Windows XP 32 bit in a virtual machine on Windows 7 Pro with full sharing of the cutpaste/copy buffer, USB, drives, screen and network card (web access). It can be toggled between a Window and full screen. The installation of XPMode is automated (after activation of the Windows 7 Pro VM). Microsoft provide various downloadable hot fixes that update the registry to activate the VM. There is an MS support downloadable hot fix that has to be run to allow the installation on the AMD Bulldozer architecture. XPMode hibernate its desktop and virtual hard drives making it a much more productive environment than a hardware based system.
With a little extra work Windows XP 32 bits can be installed on any virtual machine including Microsoft Virtual Machine on Windows XP 64 bits as well as Oracle Box and VMWare. XPMode however is probably the smoothest solution since some installations such as MS Virtual Machine for Windows XP 64 bits do not utilized the full physical display in full screen (only about 90 percent of it). If you install your browser and email in XPMode you can live in the full screen and forget about new versions of Windows.
I am just learning linux kernel programming with the LINUX KERNEL DEVELOPMENT book(I am beginner linux kernel programming but not on linux programming). It is possible to test programs in a kernel machine with VMware viritual on Ubuntu without damage my system ?
Yes you can safely test kernel modules on a virtual machine!
I'll give you some links that may help:
watch this site
http://free-electrons.com/
in particular this book:
http://free-electrons.com/doc/books/ldd3.pdf
Also this guide:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/
An embedded distro is even better
An Ubuntu guest is fine, but I prefer to keep things minimal and use an embedded distro, as this will make things:
simpler and easier to understand and control
faster
In particular, I recommend using:
Buildroot, which is highly configurable, documented and maintained, also builds host QEMU so easy to patch it up (e.g. to add your own devices since out-of-tree devices are not possible yet ?)
QEMU emulator: small comprehensible source, ARM support, official Android emulator, kernel GDB support
Embedded distros can generate rootfs images smaller than 10MiB, and it becomes possible to understand the entire userland setup, which will make it easier to focus on the kernel.
I have made a setup to make everything as automated as possible: https://github.com/cirosantilli/linux-kernel-module-cheat
I've been using a VM for a long time for Linux kernel programming and I've never had any problem. Actually, if you manage to violate the protections of a VM then you will probably be hired by Oracle or VMWare :D
However, I recommend you to read this post: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/23452/is-it-safe-to-use-virtual-machines-when-examining-malware
I am developing a project based on OpenCV. Currently I am working on Ubuntu 10.04 system with AMD turion processor. But project need to work as an embedded system. So I am using a readymade board based on ARM11 processor with SAMSUNG S3C6410 processor. It supprot Linux 2.6.28. It also support ubuntu. So how could I port my code from the host system to my embedded system.
Thanks
This is link for the board.
http://www.minidevs.com/
I think the best way to start, is to take a look at Angstrom/OpenEmbedded.
It's a framework for building OS images for various embedded platforms. You could take the precompiled-images, but I've realized that after a while it's not worth the hassle.
Just build the target image yourself (with OpenCV for the target platform, it definitely builds for S3C2440 (tested it myself a year ago or so) and for all OMAP3 platforms (BeagleBoard, EVM and the like).
Then, use OpenEmbedded to build the cross-compiler (there is a package name for that), install it on your host machine, and you should be ready to go.
If there is no support for S3C6410, just use any other ARM11 platform out there, and install the packages. It is likely your vendor-supplied OS was built using OpenEmbedded, it quickly becomes de-facto standard.
http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/
http://www.openembedded.org
Check Linaro if the processor you are looking for is ARM. It looks promising. http://www.linaro.org/