c syntax in kernel code and its working - c

I have a doubt about a syntax used in linux kernel code. I have an intuition of what it does but I want to know it more formally. I am using kernel v3.5.4
In file /include/linux/sched.h the following is defined
struct task_struct {
volatile long state;
//some more data members
};
and in file /include/linux/init_task.h file the following is defined:
#define INIT_TASK(tsk) {
.state = 0, \
//some more initializations
}
I am confused about two things:
a) I feel it is used for initialization but can anyone suggest some good read for this type of initialization for structures.
b) I do not understand how the following initialization works. Like how this #define and the corresponding task_struct structure are related.
[EDIT]
I noticed the following things also:
c) Is \ at the end of every line necessary.
d) There are many parts of kernel doe wrapped in #ifdef #endif. If you want to initialize a data member wrapped in #ifdef #endif can we use this form of initialization. I mean can we use #ifdef #endif inside INIT_TASK() like this
#define INIT_TASK(tsk) {
.state = 0, \
//some more initializations
#ifdef CX
.tickets = 5, \
#endif
}

struct task_struct whatever = INIT_TASK(someTsk);
This results in the following code:
struct task_struct whatever = { .state = 0 };
which is valid C syntax to initialize fields in a struct via their name instead of their position. Doing so makes the code safe against struct members that are not added at the last position.
Regarding the backslashes: Yes, they are necessary so the preprocessor knows that the macro continues on the next line.
No, you cannot use #ifdef inside a macro.

Related

error: section attribute not allowed when used in macro

I'm trying to move every declaration of the following macro into another memory segment. It works fine without the section attribute. Any ideas on why I can't use it here, and how I could make it work?
#define RINGBUFFER_DECLARE_MEMB(var, sz) \
uint8_t var ## __buf[sz] __attribute__((section(".rambss"))); \
struct ring_buffer var __attribute__((section(".rambss")))
device.h:91:29: error: section attribute not allowed for
'__iso_buf__buf'
RINGBUFFER_DECLARE_MEMB(__iso_buf, BUF_SIZE_ISOLATED);
Stupid me, the problem was that the macro was used in a structure defenition:
struct a {
RINGBUFFER_DECLARE_MEMB(umama, 3);
};
Which is ofcourse not allowed

Generate C struct constructors automatically?

I want to implement a new language, and I would like to do it in C, with the famous flex+yacc combination. Well, the thing is, writing the whole AST code is very time consuming. Is there a tool that automatically generate the constructors for the structs?
I would like something with the following behavior:
input:
enum AgentKind {A_KIND1, A_KIND2};
typedef struct Agent_st
{
enum AgentKind kind;
union {
struct {int a, b, c} k1;
struct {int a, GList* rest} k2;
} u;
} Agent;
output:
Agent* agent_A_KIND1_new(int a, b, c)
{
Agent* a = (Agent*)malloc(sizeof(Agent));
a->kind = A_KIND1;
a->k1.a = a;
...
...
return a;
}
Agent* agent_A_KIND2_new(int a, GList* rest)
{ ... }
Thank you!
You might be able to get something working with clever use of pre-processor macros.
First the header file:
#ifndef AST_NODE
# define AST_NODE(token) \
struct AST_ ## token \
{ \
int kind; \
};
#endif
AST_NODE(TokenType1)
AST_NODE(TokenType2)
Then the source file:
#define AST_NODE(token) \
struct AST_ ## token *AST_ ## token ## _new() \
{ \
struct AST_ ## token *node = malloc(sizeof(AST_ ## token); \
node->kind = token; \
return node; \
}
#include "ast.h"
If you include the "ast.h" file in any other file, you will have two structures: AST_TokenType1 and AST_TokenType2.
The source file described above creates two functions: AST_TokenType1_new() and AST_TokenType2_new() which allocate the correct structure and sets the structure member kind.
Well, since there was no tool I decided to code something this afternoon.
I started something that looks like a nice project, and I would like to continue it.
I coded a somewhat simple (just a bunch of nested folds inside the IO monad) code generator in Haskell, based in builtin haskell types.
The AST type declaration:
http://pastebin.com/gF9xF1vf
The C code generator, based on the AST declaration:
http://pastebin.com/83Z4GH38
And the generated result:
http://pastebin.com/jJPgm5PE
How can somebody not love Haskell?
:)
ps: I coded this because the project I'm currently working on is going to suffer a huge amount of changes in the near future, and those changes will invalidade the AST, thus forcing me to code another AST module...
Now I can do it quite fast!
Thanks for the answer though.

Simplifying compilation with each of a list of options

I've got a list of definitions: MASTER, SLAVE0, SLAVE1, ... SLAVE9 to control which array of audio data is programmed into a microcontroller. The micro can hold no more than one sound file, so I have included the following definitions at the top of my main.c file:
#define MASTER
#define SLAVE0
#define SLAVE1
....
#define SLAVE9
Then, I write the following in my audio array:
#if defined(MASTER)
uint8_t sound[4096] PROGMEM = {127,126, ... }
#elif defined(SLAVE0)
uint8_t sound[4096] PROGMEM = {126,128, ... }
....
#else
#ERROR "One of MASTER-SLAVE9 must be defined!"
#endif
The person wishing to compile must then go through and comment out one and only one of the #define lines. This is not only tedious, but also error-prone. So, I'm looking to simplify the process. Any pointers for any of the following tasks would be helpful:
How can I test a list of macros for the presence of one and only one of these options? A simple if defined(MASTER) && !(defined(SLAVE0) || defined(SLAVE1) ...) would require 11 such tests, each with 11 subtly different conditions. It's a one time expense, but it's kinda ugly. It feels like this might be a common need, and that there ought to be a better way.
How can I simplify the compilation process? I've been using AVRStudio with WinAVR t0 compile. It has an 'export makefile' option, but I have no experience with it. I'm stuck doing this on Windows. An ideal process would build all 11 configurations in a single command, and then I could go through and program each one to the microcontroller individually. The current, very much less-than-ideal build process involves editing the source each time I want to build, and renaming/moving the output file.
You can use a single test to ensure that only one of the macros is defined.
#if (defined(MASTER) + defined(SLAVE1) + defined(SLAVE2)) != 1
#error "Too many macros defined"
#endif
As for the definition itself, most compilers allow you to define a macro using a command line option; this might be cleaner than a file with a "configurable options list." You would then be able to create multiple build configurations, each of which defines a different macro, and build them each in sequence (I'm not familiar with your build system to be able to explain how exactly you need to do that).
I would just make a block comment with the name of all possible constants, and follow it with a single define. Who wants to compile just writes what he wants. First time he will check the comment to see the list, then he will just write.
Or even better, keep this list in a comment (for reference) and use the -D option that most compilers have (-DMASTER to define master for example) and if your tool supports it, make a build configuration for each where you change the -D value. Using a different build configuration i guess you could also change the output file name, so that would kill two birds with a stone.
Why not something like:
#define ARRAY_NAME (SLAVE0)
...
#if (ARRAY_NAME == MASTER)
// blah
#elif (ARRAY_NAME == SLAVE0)
// blah
// etc.
or even better, just:
#define ARRAY_MASTER { 1, 2, 3, 4 }
#define ARRAY_SLAVE0 { 5, 6, 7, 8 }
// etc.
...
const uint8_t sound[] = ARRAY_MASTER;
You are need an error message when you deined mre than one macro? Well, just write:
#ifdef MASTER
uint8_t sound = { ... };
#endif
#ifdef SLAVE0
uint8_t sound = { ... };
#endif
#ifdef SLAVE1
uint8_t sound = { ... };
#endif
And compiler will complain that one identifier defined multiple times.
Also why not use this?
#define SLAVE <n>
uint8_t sound_master = { ... };
uint8_t sound_slave_0 = { ... };
uint8_t sound_slave_1 = { ... };
uint8_t sound_slave_2 = { ... };
#define XCAT(a,b) a##b
#define CAT(a,b) XCAT(a,b)
#ifdef SLAVE
#define sound CAT(sound_slave_,SLAVE)
#endif
#ifdef MASTER
#ifdef sound
/* warnin or so. but if you need an error just remove this ifdef **/
#endif
#define sound sound_master
#endif

Clear tutorial explaining modular programming in C?

I'm just getting started with modular programming in C. I think I'm doing something wrong with the inclusions, because I'm getting a lot of conflicting types for 'functionName' and previous declaration of 'functionName' was here errors. I did put inclusion guards in place.
Do you know a clear tutorial that explains modular programming in C, especially how the inclusions work?
Update: I have tried to isolate my issue. Here's some code, as requested.
Update 2: updated code is below. The errors have been updated, too.
/*
* main.c
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include "aStruct.h"
int main() {
aStruct asTest = createStruct();
return 0;
}
/*
* aStruct.h
*/
#ifndef ASTRUCT_H_
#define ASTRUCT_H_
struct aStruct {
int value1;
int value2;
struct smallerStruct ssTest;
};
typedef struct aStruct aStruct;
aStruct createStruct();
#endif /* ASTRUCT_H_ */
/*
* smallerStruct.h
*/
#ifndef SMALLERSTRUCT_H_
#define SMALLERSTRUCT_H_
struct smallerStruct {
int value3;
};
typedef struct smallerStruct smallerStruct;
smallerStruct createSmallerStruct();
#endif /* SMALLERSTRUCT_H_ */
/*
* aStruct.c
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include "smallerStruct.h"
#include "aStruct.h"
aStruct createStruct() {
aStruct asOutput;
printf("This makes sure that this code depends on stdio.h, just to make sure I know where the inclusion directive should go (main.c or aStruct.c).\n");
asOutput.value1 = 5;
asOutput.value2 = 5;
asOutput.ssTest = createSmallerStruct();
return asOutput;
}
/*
* smallerStruct.c
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include "smallerStruct.h"
smallerStruct createSmallerStruct() {
smallerStruct ssOutput;
ssOutput.value3 = 41;
return ssOutput;
}
This generates the following error messages:
At aStruct.h:10
field 'ssTest' has incomplete type
At main.c:8
unused variable `asTest' (this one makes sense)
The base of inclusion is to make sure that your headers are included only once. This is usually performed with a sequence like this one:
/* header.h */
#ifndef header_h_
#define header_h_
/* Your code here ... */
#endif /* header_h_ */
The second point is to take care of possible name conflicts by handling manually pseudo namespaces with prefixes.
Then put in your headers only function declarations of public API. This may imply to add typedefs and enums. Avoid as much as possible to include constant and variable declarations: prefer accessor functions.
Another rule is to never include .c files, only .h. This is the very point of modularity: a given module dependant of another module needs only to know its interface, not its implementation.
A for your specific problem, aStruct.h uses struct smallerStruct but knows nothing about it, in particular its size for being able to allocate an aStruct variable. aStruct.h needs to include smallerStruct.h. Including smallerStruct.h before aStruct.h in main.c doesn't solve the issue when compiling aStruct.c.
The multiple definition problem is most likely coming from the way you're including the code. You are using #include "aStruct.c" as opposed to #include "aStruct.h". I suspect you are also compiling the .c files into your project in addition to the #include. This causes the compiler to become confused due to the multiple definitions of the same function.
If you change the #include to #include "aStruct.h" and make sure the three source files are compiled and linked together, the error should go away.
Such errors mean that function declaration (return type or parameter count/types) differs from other function declarations or function definition.
previous declaration message points you to the conflicting declaration.

Get a pointer to the current function in C (gcc)?

is there a magic variable in gcc holding a pointer to the current function ?
I would like to have a kind of table containing for each function pointer a set of information.
I know there's a __func__ variable containing the name of the current function as a string but not as a function pointer.
This is not to call the function then but just to be used as an index.
EDIT
Basically what i would like to do is being able to run nested functions just before the execution of the current function (and also capturing the return to perform some things.)
Basically, this is like __cyg_profile_func_enter and __cyg_profile_func_exit (the instrumentation functions)... But the problem is that these instrumentation functions are global and not function-dedicated.
EDIT
In the linux kernel, you can use unsigned long kallsyms_lookup_name(const char *name) from include/linux/kallsyms.h ... Note that the CONFIG_KALLSYMS option must be activated.
void f() {
void (*fpointer)() = &f;
}
Here's a trick that gets the address of the caller, it can probably be cleaned up a bit.
Relies on a GCC extension for getting a label's value.
#include <stdio.h>
#define MKLABEL2(x) label ## x
#define MKLABEL(x) MKLABEL2(x)
#define CALLFOO do { MKLABEL(__LINE__): foo(&&MKLABEL(__LINE__));} while(0)
void foo(void *addr)
{
printf("Caller address %p\n", addr);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
CALLFOO;
return 0;
}
#define FUNC_ADDR (dlsym(dlopen(NULL, RTLD_NOW), __func__))
And compile your program like
gcc -rdynamic -o foo foo.c -ldl
I think you could build your table using strings (the function names) as keys, then look up by comparing with the __func__ builtin variable.
To enforce having a valid function name, you could use a macro that gets the function pointer, does some dummy operation with it (e.g. assigning it to a compatible function type temporary variable) to check that it's indeed a valid function identifier, and then stringifies (with #) the function name before being used as a key.
UPDATE:
What I mean is something like:
typedef struct {
char[MAX_FUNC_NAME_LENGTH] func_name;
//rest of the info here
} func_info;
func_info table[N_FUNCS];
#define CHECK_AND_GET_FUNC_NAME(f) ({void (*tmp)(int); tmp = f; #f})
void fill_it()
{
int i = -1;
strcpy(table[++i].func_name, CHECK_AND_GET_FUNC_NAME(foo));
strcpy(table[++i].func_name, CHECK_AND_GET_FUNC_NAME(bar));
//fill the rest
}
void lookup(char *name) {
int i = -1;
while(strcmp(name, table[++i]));
//now i points to your entry, do whatever you need
}
void foo(int arg) {
lookup(__func__);
//do something
}
void bar(int arg) {
lookup(__func__);
//do something
}
(the code might need some fixes, I haven't tried to compile it, it's just to illustrate the idea)
I also had the problem that I needed the current function's address when I created a macro template coroutine abstraction that people can use like modern coroutine language features (await and async). It compensates for a missing RTOS when there is a central loop which schedules different asynchronous functions as (cooperative) tasks. Turning interrupt handlers into asynchronous functions even causes race conditions like in a preemptive multi-tasking system.
I noticed that I need to know the caller function's address for the final return address of a coroutine (which is not return address of the initial call of course). Only asynchronous functions need to know their own address so that they can pass it as hidden first argument in an AWAIT() macro. Since instrumenting the code with a macro solution is as simple as just defining the function it suffices to have an async-keyword-like macro.
This is a solution with GCC extensions:
#define _VARGS(...) _VARGS0(__VA_ARGS__)
#define _VARGS0(...) ,##__VA_ARGS__
typedef union async_arg async_arg_t;
union async_arg {
void (*caller)(void*);
void *retval;
};
#define ASYNC(FUNCNAME, FUNCARGS, ...) \
void FUNCNAME (async_arg_t _arg _VARGS FUNCARGS) \
GENERATOR( \
void (*const THIS)(void*) = (void*) &FUNCNAME;\
static void (*CALLER)(void*), \
CALLER = _arg.caller; \
__VA_ARGS__ \
)
#define GENERATOR(INIT,...) { \
__label__ _entry, _start, _end; \
static void *_state = (void*)0; \
INIT; \
_entry:; \
if (_state - &&_start <= &&_end - &&_start) \
goto *_state; \
_state = &&_start; \
_start:; \
__VA_ARGS__; \
_end: _state = &&_entry; \
}
#define AWAIT(FUNCNAME,...) ({ \
__label__ _next; \
_state = &&_next; \
return FUNCNAME((async_arg_t)THIS,##__VA_ARGS__);\
_next: _arg.retval; \
})
#define _I(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define IF(COND,THEN) _IF(_I(COND),_I(THEN))
#define _IF(COND,THEN) _IF0(_VARGS(COND),_I(THEN))
#define _IF0(A,B) _IF1(A,_I(B),)
#define _IF1(A,B,C,...) C
#define IFNOT(COND,ELSE) _IFNOT(_I(COND),_I(ELSE))
#define _IFNOT(COND,ELSE) _IFNOT0(_VARGS(COND),_I(ELSE))
#define _IFNOT0(A,B) _IFNOT1(A,,_I(B))
#define _IFNOT1(A,B,C,...) C
#define IF_ELSE(COND,THEN,ELSE) IF(_I(COND),_I(THEN))IFNOT(_I(COND),_I(ELSE))
#define WAIT(...) ({ \
__label__ _next; \
_state = &&_next; \
IF_ELSE(_I(__VA_ARGS__), \
static __typeof__(__VA_ARGS__) _value;\
_value = (__VA_ARGS__); \
return; \
_next: _value; \
, return; _next:;) \
})
#define YIELD(...) do { \
__label__ _next; \
_state = &&_next; \
return IF(_I(__VA_ARGS__),(__VA_ARGS__));\
_next:; \
} while(0)
#define RETURN(VALUE) do { \
_state = &&_entry; \
if (CALLER != 0) \
CALLER((void*)(VALUE +0));\
return; \
} while(0)
#define ASYNCALL(FUNC, ...) FUNC ((void*)0,__VA_ARGS__)
I know, a more portable (and maybe secure) solution would use the switch-case statement instead of label addresses but I think, gotos are more efficient than switch-case-statements. It also has the advantage that you can use the macros within any other control structures easily and break will have no unexpected effects.
You can use it like this:
#include <stdint.h>
int spi_start_transfer(uint16_t, void *, uint16_t, void(*)());
#define SPI_ADDR_PRESSURE 0x24
ASYNC(spi_read_pressure, (void* dest, uint16_t num),
void (*callback)(void) = (void*)THIS; //see here! THIS == &spi_read_pressure
int status = WAIT(spi_start_transfer(SPI_ADDR_PRESSURE,dest,num,callback));
RETURN(status);
)
int my_gen() GENERATOR(static int i,
while(1) {
for(i=0; i<5; i++)
YIELD(i);
}
)
extern volatile int a;
ASYNC(task_read, (uint16_t threshold),
while(1) {
static uint16_t pressure;
int status = (int)AWAIT(spi_read_pressure, &pressure, sizeof pressure);
if (pressure > threshold) {
a = my_gen();
}
}
)
You must use AWAIT to call asynchronous functions for return value and ASYNCALL without return value. AWAIT can only be called by ASYNC-functions. You can use WAIT with or without value. WAIT results in the expression which was given as argument, which is returned AFTER the function is resumed. WAIT can be used in ASYNC-functions only. Keeping the argument with WAIT wastes one new piece of static memory for each WAIT() call with argument though so it is recommended to use WAIT() without argument. It could be improved, if all WAIT calls would use the same single static variable for the entire function.
It is only a very simple version of a coroutine abstraction. This implementation cannot have nested or intertwinned calls of the same function because all static variables comprise one static stack frame.
If you want to solve this problem, you also need to distinguish resuming an old and starting a new function call. You can add details like a stack-frame queue at the function start in the ASYNC macro. Create a custom struct for each function's stack frame (which also can be done within the macro and an additional macro argument). This custom stack frame type is loaded from a queue when entering the macro, is stored back when exiting it or is removed when the call finishes.
You could use a stack frame index as alternative argument in the async_arg_t union. When the argument is an address, it starts a new call or when given a stack frame index it resumes an old call. The stack frame index or continuation must be passed as user-defined argument to the callback that resumes the coroutine.
If you went for C++ the following information might help you:
Objects are typed, functors are functions wrapped as objects, RTTI allows the identification of type at runtime.
Functors carry a runtime overhead with them, and if this is a problem for you I would suggest hard-coding the knowledge using code-generation or leveraging a OO-heirarchy of functors.
No, the function is not aware of itself. You will have to build the table you are talking about yourself, and then if you want a function to be aware of itself you will have to pass the index into the global table (or the pointer of the function) as a parameter.
Note: if you want to do this you should have a consistent naming scheme of the parameter.
If you want to do this in a 'generic' way, then you should use the facilities you already mention (__cyg_profile_func*) since that is what they are designed for. Anything else will have to be as ad hoc as your profile.
Honestly, doing things the generic way (with a filter) is probably less error prone than any new method that you will insert on-the-fly.
You can capture this information with setjmp(). Since it saves enough information to return to your current function, it must include that information in the provided jmp_buf.
This structure is highly nonportable, but you mention GCC explicitly so that's probably not a blocking issue. See this GCC/x86 example to get an idea how it roughly works.
If you want to do code generation I would recomend GSLGen from Imatix. It uses XML to structure a model of your code and then a simple PHP like top-down generation language to spit out the code -- it has been used to generate C code.
I have personally been toying arround with lua to generate code.
static const char * const cookie = __FUNCTION__;
__FUNCTION__ will be stored at the text segment at your binary and a pointer will always be unique and valid.
Another option, if portability is not an issue, would be to tweak the GCC source-code... any volunteers?!
If all you need is a unique identifier for each function, then at the start of every function, put this:
static const void * const cookie = &cookie;
The value of cookie is then guaranteed to be a value uniquely identifying that function.

Resources