So I have a minimal OS that doesn't do much. There's a bootloader, that loads a basic C kernel in 32-bit protected mode. How do I port in a C library so I can use things like printf? I'm looking to use the GNU C Library. Are there any tutorials anywhere?
Ok, porting in a C library isn't that hard, i'm using Newlib in my kernel. Here is a tutorial to start: http://wiki.osdev.org/Porting_Newlib.
You basically need to:
Compile the library (for example Newlib) using your cross compiler
Provide stub-implementations for a list of system functions (like fork, fstat, etc.) in your kernel
Link the library and your kernel together
If you want to use functions like malloc or printf (which uses malloc internally), you need some kind of memory management and simplest working implementation of sbrk.
I strongly recommend against glibc. It is a beast.
Try newlib instead. Porting it to a new kernel is easy. You just need to write a few support functions, as explained here.
Another new kid on the block is musl which specifically aims to improve the situation in embedded space.
It's probably not the best choice for a beginner, though, since it's still pretty much work in progress.
Better look for a small libc, like uClibc. The GNU C library is huge. And as the comments tell, the first step is to get a C compiler going.
What are you trying to do? Building a full operating system is a job for a group of people lasting a few years... better start with something that already works, and hack on the parts that most interest you.
Related
Context:
Creating a toy OS, written in assembly and C.
X86. 32-bits first, 64-bits then.
Currently read how to make a C library and try to understand the underlyings.
My question comes from the reading on this page.
I read the other SO questions concerning runtime libraries but still don't get it.
Question:
Ok, a runtime library seems to help providing low level functionalities that an application library cannot provide.
What wonders can I do with a runtime library ?
My searches on the subject lead to theoretical explanations (MSDN and so on).
I need a practical, visual explanation.
Update:
I saw the question the admins refer to, and I obviously read it already. But it was not enough high level. But that is fine :)
Thanks
A C runtime library is more a part of your C implementation than it is a core part of the operating system, especially if the C implementation provides only static linking, as might be the case in a toy OS.
Among other things, though, the C runtime library provides all the functions necessary for programs to obtain services from the OS, such as memory allocation and I/O. These are not necessarily the same functions the OS kernel uses internally for the same or similar purposes.
Programs written in other languages may or may not rely on the C language runtime (they may provide their own, independent one instead), and statically-linked C programs include all necessary functions in their own images, instead of relying on dynamically loading them from a library at run time. In a sense, the C runtime library is distributed and duplicated across all statically-linked programs built from C sources.
I am planning to study about operating systems. I met with 2 doubts. Why we should not use library functions while creating an operating system?
What is the drawback in it?
Why we should not use library functions while creating an operating system? What is the drawback in it?
It depends on what you mean by "library functions".
You absolutely should try to use someone else's version of the functions from <string.h>, for example. If you're writing an OS, you've got plenty to do, why re-invent the wheel with something simple like strcpy?
You should use whatever open-source code you can that has no dependencies. I mean simple "leaf" functions like strcpy that have no dependencies. If you look at the Linux kernel source code, you will certainly see standard library functions like memcpy, and strlen, etc. But you'll also see things like strncpy_from_user which are adapted to particular uses in the kernel (in this case copying a string from user-space to kernel-space).
What you shouldn't try to use (if it isn't obvious already) are things like fopen. fopen is a wrapper around some code that makes a system call to the kernel to handle the actual opening of a file. Well clearly, if you are the kernel, you can't use this in your kernel.
Is it possible to run a written code or written library that only uses initial c libraries, on every platform?
For example:
Windows,
ARM Microprocessors,
PIC microprocessors,
They have their compilers seperately and this difference is not important for me, I can compile in different compilers for need. But do I have to change code totally or partially to run on this platforms?
Note: For libraries, I will just use default c libraries.
It depends. If your library use only standard C and the multiplatform you are about to port has a compiler compatiable to standard C, you can always write the library code. But if your library have to call native API of each platform, you have to encapsulate these code seperately.
In embedded systems you will need to implement certain functions that the operating system gives you (like _sbrk, _read, etc.) for standard library functions like malloc and printf.
If you take care of that I don't see a reason for your code not to work so long as you take GREAT CARE in how you write it. By GREAT CARE, I mean be very careful with floating points, processor word size and any other things that are not common between your desired targets.
Short answer: possible, but not easy.
I've run into an issue with writing some code in c. My basic problem is that I am pressed for time and the code I am dealing with has lots of bugs which I have to "erradicate" before tomorrow evening.
The bigger part of the problem is that there is no adequate IDE that can do real time debugging, especially when using threads or spawning processes with fork(). I tried Mono, Eclipse, and finally NetBeans, and have concluded that those are very good but not for coding in C. More over the learning curve to utilize the command line debugger properly is quite steep. (Like I mentioned earlier... I am pressed on time.)
So, since I am a C# developer by profession I was wondering whether I can pull this off in VS2003/VS2005/VS2008/VS2010. If I abstain from using system calls, can I do this?
Of particular interest are FILE* descriptor and fread(), fclose(), fseek() methods. I know they are part of the standard C library, however are they tied to the platform itself? Are the headers the same in Linux vs Windows? What about fork() or shared memory?
Maybe if I use VS2010 to build parts of the component at a time (by mocking inputs and stuff), debug those, and then migrate the working code in the overall Linux project would prove most useful?
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
The bigger part of the problem is that there is no adequate IDE that can do real time debugging, especially when using threads or spawning processes with fork().
The Eclipse CDT would probably have the best overall support for C/C++ development and integrated debugging.
Note that multithreaded and multiprocess debugging can be difficult at the best of times. Investing in a good logging framework would be advisable at this point, and probably more useful than relying on a debugger. There are many to choose from - have a look at Log4C++ and so on. Even printf in a pinch can be invaluable.
So, since I am a C# developer by profession I was wondering whether I can pull this off in VS2003/VS2005/VS2008/VS2010. If I abstain from using system calls, can I do this?
If you take care to only use portable calls and not Win32-specific APIs, you should be ok. Also, there are many libraries (for C++ libraries such as Boost++ that provide a rich set of functionality which work the same on Windows, Linux and others.
Of particular interest are FILE* descriptor and fread(), fclose(), fseek() methods. I know they are part of the standard C library, however are they tied to the platform itself? Are the headers the same in Linux vs Windows? What about fork() or shared memory?
Yes, the file I/O functions you mention are in <stdio.h> and part of the portable standard C library. They work essentially the same on both Windows and Linux, and are not tied to a particular platform.
However, fork() and the shared memory functions shmget() are POSIX functions, available on *nix platforms but not natively on Windows. The Cygwin project provides implementations of these functions in a library for ease of porting.
If you are using C++, Boost++ will give you portable versions of all these system-level calls.
Maybe if I use VS2010 to build parts of the component at a time (by mocking inputs and stuff), debug those, and then migrate the working code in the overall Linux project would prove most useful?
You could certainly do that. Just be mindful that Visual Studio has a tendency to lead you down the Win32 path, and you must be vigilant to not start using non-portable functions. Fortunately the library reference on MSDN gives you the compatibility information. In general, using standard C or POSIX calls will be portable. In my experience, it is actually easier to write on *nix and port to Windows, but YMMV.
Looks like I am the first to recommend Emacs here. Here is how Emacs works. When you install it, it is simply a text editor with a lot of extensions(debugger and C font-locking are included by default). As you start using it and install the extensions you miss, it becomes more than just an editor. It grows to become an IDE very soon and easily, then on to something that can eschew the OS under one frame.
Emacs might take long to learn, in the mean time, you could use Visual Slick Edit if you are not pressed on the cost part. I have used it on both platforms and seen it work good with version control, tags, etc.
Perhaps Code::Blocks? I love it and while it says it's for C++ it is, of course, very good for plain C as well.
I'm compiling newlib for a bespoke PowerPC platform with no OS. Reading information on the net I realise I need to implement stub functions in a <newplatform> subdirectory of libgloss.
My confusion is to how this is going to be picked up when I compile newlib. Is it the last part of the --target argument to configure e.g. powerpc-ibm-<newplatform> ?
If this is the case, then I guess I should use the same --target when compiling binutils and gcc?
Thank you
I ported newlib and GCC myself too. And i remember i didn't have to do much stuff to make newlib work (porting GCC, gas and libbfd was most of the work).
Just had to tweak some files about floating point numbers, turn off some POSIX/SomeOtherStandard flags that made it not use some more sophisticated functions and write support code for longjmp / setjmp that load and store register state into the jump buffers. But you certainly have to tell it the target using --target so it uses the right machine sub-directory and whatnot. I remember i had to add small code to configure.sub to make it know about my target and print out the complete configuration trible (cpu-manufacturer-os or similar). Just found i had to edit a file called configure.host too, which sets some options for your target (for example, whether an operation systems handles signals risen by raise, or whether newlib itself should simulate handling).
I used this blog of Anthony Green as a guideline, where he describes porting of GCC, newlib and binutils. I think it's a great source when you have to do it yourself. A fun read anyway. It took a total of 2 months to compile and run some fun C programs that only need free-standing C (with dummy read/write functions that wrote into the simulator's terminal).
So i think the amount of work is certainly manageable. The one that made me nearly crazy was libgloss's build scripts. I certainly was lost in those autoconf magics :) Anyway, i wish you good luck! :)
Check out Porting Newlib.
Quote:
I decided that after an incredibly difficult week of trying to get newlib ported to my own OS that I would write a tutorial that outlines the requirements for porting newlib and how to actually do it. I'm assuming you can already load binaries from somewhere and that these binaries are compiled C code. I also assume you have a syscall interface setup already. Why wait? Let's get cracking!