I learned to program with Pascal in high school, and more recently I decided to get out of the sandbox and try to figure out how my computer actually works. So I installed ubuntu on my iMac (i686) and started learning C, which seemed like a good way to get "under the hood."
One of the basic things I'm trying to figure out is where the kernel ends and the standard libraries begin. A book told me that the linux system calls (which I understand to be the interface between the kernel and the libraries) could be found in the header file unistd.h, so this seemed like a good place to start. But when I tried to find the header on my system (using locate unistd.h), I got this result:
/usr/include/unistd.h
/usr/include/asm-generic/unistd.h
/usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/asm/unistd.h
/usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/bits/unistd.h
/usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/sys/unistd.h
/usr/include/linux/unistd.h
/usr/lib/syslinux/com32/include/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/alpha/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/arm/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/avr32/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/blackfin/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/c6x/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/cris/include/arch-v10/arch/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/cris/include/arch-v32/arch/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/cris/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/frv/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/h8300/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/hexagon/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/ia64/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/m32r/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/m68k/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/microblaze/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/mips/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/mn10300/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/openrisc/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/parisc/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/s390/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/score/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/sh/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/sparc/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/tile/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/unicore32/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/x86/include/asm/ia32_unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/x86/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/arch/xtensa/include/asm/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/include/asm-generic/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27/include/linux/unistd.h
/usr/src/linux-headers-3.5.0-27-generic/include/linux/unistd.h
Why the heck are there so many versions of this file--and other header files--in my system? Some of them seem to be for other CPUs (like sparc), so why did ubuntu bother to install them on my computer? And how does the all of this fit with what Eric Raymond calls the SPOT rule: "every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system." (The Art of Unix Programming, p. 91.)
Thanks in advance for any help. I'm happy to read big books if necessary.
I think these header files are directly from linux-3.5.0-27 source code. Ubuntu developers didn't know what kind of target they are dealing with. Maybe Intel x86/powerPC/ or even a mobile hand set(ARM), so they just copy all the head files and make a simple link.
Related
I was writing much java code lately and got quite used to IDE features like jumping to definitions.
Now I'm working on C (reading some kernel code) and wonder if there is any similar tooling for that language, too.
I am aware of ctags, cscope, and lxr, but they seem to rely much on pattern matching and do not really understand the code.
For example I have some code using struct file, how do I navigate to the definition of that struct in order to determine the available fields?
Even if I know that it is defined in fs.h and it contains a field of type fmode_t defined in types.h as unsigned __bitwise__, is there a way to get the semantics of the single bits? (Probably by finding the FMODE_* constants in fs.h again.)
Is this kind of (eclipse-like) direct navigating possible, or do I really have to do much guessing if I do not know all of this before?
If you like eclipse try nsight. It's for cuda, but I think it gives you what you want.
Try QtCreator for the Linux kernel. I wrote how to use it here.
It is the best IDE for Linux kernel development I have ever seen.
I've been looking at examples of C code that is compiled for some lesser known processors (like ZPU) using the gcc cross compiler.
Most of the working examples I see assume a certain arquitecture (Memory map and set of peripherals) and simply give you a recipe to compile for these and they work.
However I can find very little information on what needs to modified if you use the same cpu with a different memory map and set of peripherals.
From what I've read. There are two main files that I need to make sure that are done "right". The linker script that is used and the crt0.o (Which if I need to modify means recompiling the crt0.S which is assembler). On this last one, especially I find very little information on what is actually supposed to do (other that setting up reset there is no clear info, and I'm talking conceptually not for an specific processor. Although something for this would also be useful).
Can any one tell me what is the relationship between a the c files for the code of program (bare metal development), the crt0.S (specially why it is needed) and it's relationship with a working linker script?
PD: Answers of the form "read this book" are welcome and I would love them.
PD: I realize this kind of question is usually vague and closed quickly but I don't know where else to turn, so I ask for a bit of leniency.
I have created my very own (very simple) byte code language, and a virtual machine to execute it. It works fine, but now I'd like to use gcc (or any other freely available compiler) to generate byte code for this machine from a normal c program. So the question is, how do I modify or extend gcc so that it can output my own byte code? Note that I do NOT want to compile my byte code to machine code, I want to "compile" c-code to (my own) byte code.
I realize that this is a potentially large question, and it is possible that the best answer is "go look at the gcc source code". I just need some help with how to get started with this. I figure that there must be some articles or books on this subject that could describe the process to add a custom generator to gcc, but I haven't found anything by googling.
I am busy porting gcc to an 8-bit processor we design earlier. I is kind of a difficult task for our machine because it is 8-bit and we have only one accumulator, but if you have more resources it can became easy. This is how we are trying to manage it with gcc 4.9 and using cygwin:
Download gcc 4.9 source
Add your architecture name to config.sub around line 250 look for # Decode aliases for certain CPU-COMPANY combinations. In that list add | my_processor \
In that same file look for # Recognize the basic CPU types with company name. add yourself to the list: | my_processor-* \
Search for the file gcc/config.gcc, in the file look for case ${target} it is around line 880, add yourself in the following way:
;;
my_processor*-*-*)
c_target_objs="my_processor-c.o"
cxx_target_objs="my_processor-c.o"
target_has_targetm_common=no
tmake_file="${tmake_file} my_processor/t-my_processor"
;;
Create a folder gcc-4.9.0\gcc\config\my_processor
Copy files from an existing project and just edit it, or create your own from scratch. In our project we had copied all the files from the msp430 project and edited it all
You should have the following files (not all files are mandatory):
my_processor.c
my_processor.h
my_processor.md
my_processor.opt
my_processor-c.c
my_processor.def
my_processor-protos.h
constraints.md
predicates.md
README.txt
t-my_processor
create a path gcc-4.9.0/build/object
run ../../configure --target=my_processor --prefix=path for my compiler --enable-languages="c"
make
make install
Do a lot of research and debugging.
Have fun.
It is hard work.
For example I also design my own "architecture" with my own byte code and wanted to generate C/C++ code with GCC for it. This is the way how I make it:
At first you should read everything about porting in the manual of GCC.
Also not forget too read GCC Internals.
Read many things about Compilers.
Also look at this question and the answers here.
Google for more information.
Ask yourself if you are really ready.
Be sure to have a very good cafe machine... you will need it.
Start to add machine dependet files to gcc.
Compile gcc in a cross host-target way.
Check the code results in the Hex-Editor.
Do more tests.
Now have fun with your own architecture :D
When you are finished you can use c or c++ only without os-dependet libraries (you have currently no running OS on your architecture) and you should now (if you need it) compile many other libraries with your cross compiler to have a good framework.
PS: LLVM (Clang) is easier to port... maybe you want to start there?
It's not as hard as all that. If your target machine is reasonably like another, take its RTL (?) definitions as a starting point and amend them, then make compile test through the bootstrap stages; rinse and repeat until it works. You probably don't have to write any actual code, just machine definition templates.
I'm trying to learn x86. I thought this would be quite easy to start with - i'll just compile a very small program basically containing nothing and see what the compiler gives me. The problem is that it gives me a ton of bloat. (This program cannot be run in dos-mode and so on) 25KB file containing an empty main() calling one empty function.
How do I compile my code without all this bloat? (and why is it there in the first place?)
Executable formats contain a bit more than just the raw machine code for the CPU to execute. If you want that then the only option is (I think) a DOS .com file which essentially is just a bunch of code loaded into a page and then jumped into. Some software (e.g. Volkov commander) made clever use of that format to deliver quite much in very little executable code.
Anyway, the PE format which Windows uses contains a few things that are specially laid out:
A DOS stub saying "This program cannot be run in DOS mode" which is what you stumbled over
several sections containing things like program code, global variables, etc. that are each handled differently by the executable loader in the operating system
some other things, like import tables
You may not need some of those, but a compiler usually doesn't know you're trying to create a tiny executable. Usually nowadays the overhead is negligible.
There is an article out there that strives to create the tiniest possible PE file, though.
You might get better result by digging up older compilers. If you want binaries that are very bare to the bone COM files are really that, so if you get hold of an old compiler that has support for generating COM binaries instead of EXE you should be set. There is a long list of free compilers at http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml, I assume that Borland's Turbo C would be a good starting point.
The bloated module could be the loader (operating system required interface) attached by linker. Try adding a module with only something like:
void foo(){}
and see the disassembly (I assume that's the format the compiler 'gives you'). Of course the details vary much from operating systems and compilers. There are so many!
I'm a newbie to kernel programming, and I'm stuck on something, so I'd appreciate some help. I appologize in advance if something similar was asked before, I did not find any relevant post, and could find explanations on the web which were simple enough for someone unexperienced as myself in this field to understand.
I want to experiment with my own version of ext2.
I've got the source files from kernel.org, and made the proper changes. Nothing fancy, just to check something I had in mind.
Now I want to insert it to my linux kernel (ubuntu 2.6.31-14-generic-pae if it matters).
How can I do this?
My (obviously naive) initial thought was to simply use the makefile that comes along with it (after manually setting various flags there so it has obj-m/obj-y where needed) and compile it as a kernel module.
However I keep getting errors during compile time about redifining macros, implicit declarations of functions etc. For example
ext2.h:181:1: warning: "ext2_find_first_zero_bit" redefined
balloc.c:574: error: implicit declaration of function dquot_free_block_nodirty
Obviously this is not the way to go. I guess worst case scenario is compiling the entire kernel again (with my modified ext2 code instead of the original) so it creates the relevant library with my own ext2, and rebooting from the new image. I find it hard to believe this is the best approach.
Is it even possible for a new file system to be inserted as a kernel module?
Myabe I should put my modified ext2 code in /usr/src and somehow compile only the relevant library which contains the current ext2 code?
Anyway, I'd appreciate any help on what should I be doing.
Thank you
Do a search and replace of ext2 with my_awesome_filesystem or some such.