#include <stdio.h>
register int i = 10;
int main(void)
{
printf( " i = %d \n ", i );
return 0;
}
Here i declared the variable i as register. But, while compiling its showing the following error
" error: register name not specified for ‘i’ "
Why we should not use register keyword in global ?
A register variable is a type of local variable.
It is a hint to store the value in a register for faster access.
A register variable can not be global or static.
It can be defined only in a block.
Also please format the code you post
A register variable cannot be used as a "global" variable, because file scope variables have static storage, thus by definition they have an address. register variables are exactly the contrary, that are variables for which you, the programmer, promise to never take their address. So combining the two makes not much sense.
BTW, the error message that you get is not very helpful. It seems that your compiler is referring to an extension that allows to fix a register variable to a particular hardware register. If you post such an error message please also give an indication which compiler and/or platform you are using.
The reason we should not use register keyword in global is that the life of variable defined to be of register storage class is within the block in which the variable is defined.
A value stored in CPU register can always be accessed faster than the one that is stored in memory. Therefore, if a variable is used at many places in a program, it is better to declare its storage class as register.
A good example of frequently used variables is loop counters.we can name their storage class as register.
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
register int i;
for(i=1;i<=10;i++)
printf("%d\n",i);
return 0;
}
Use of register is obsolete on most modern compilers. Don't use it.
It used to be the case that compilers were not smart enough to determine which variables would be accessed most often and therefore should be assigned a permanent place in a register. But modern compilers use techniques such as static single assignment and register allocation by colouring such that the compiler is far better than you at knowing when a variable should be in a register and when it should be "spilled" out to memory.
Furthermore, register places restrictions on its variable. You can't have a pointer to a register variable, because pointers point to memory locations, and the variable isn't in memory (at least conceptually). And a register variable must be an automatic variable -- commonly known as a "stack" variable. Therefore it must be a local variable within a function, and not qualified as static or extern.
In short, using register never provides performance gains in modern compilers, but it does provide programmer headaches. Premature optimization's biggest weapon -- wasting programmer time with false promises of execution time savings -- strikes again.
Related
What I want is to ensure that file scope variables (in my program) can not be modified from outside the file. So I declare them as 'static' to preclude external linkage. But I also want to make sure that this variable can not be modified via pointers.
I want something similar to the 'register' storage class, in that
the address of any part of an object declared with storage-class
specifier register cannot be computed, either explicitly (by use of
the unary & operator) or implicitly (by converting an array name to a
pointer).
but without the limitations of the 'register' keyword (can not be used on file scope variables, arrays declared as register can not be indexed).
That is,
<new-keyword> int array[SIZE] = {0};
int a = array[0]; /* should be valid */
int *p = array; /* should be INVALID */
p = &array[3]; /* should be INVALID */
What is the best way to go about achieving this goal?
Why do I desire such a feature?
The usage scenario is that this file will be modified by many people in the future even when I can not personally overview all modifications. I want to preclude as many potential bugs as possible. In this case I want to make sure that variables meant to be 'private' to the module will remain so without having to depend just on documentation and/or discipline
No, I don't think you can do so, at least not cleanly. But I also fail to understand your usage case fully.
If your object is static, nobody knows its name outside of your module. So nobody can use & to take its address.
If you need to expose it, and don't want other parts of the program modifying it, write a function that exposes it as a constant pointer:
static int array[SIZE];
const int * get_array(void)
{
return array;
}
Then compile with warnings. If somebody casts away the const, it's their problem.
Assuming you are concerned with security issues, here are a few things to consider:
The purpose of register keyword was to recommend the compiler to keep that variable in a register, as it will be intensively used. As the registers don't have a memory address, it is impossible to get it (although this wasn't the primary purpose of this keyword; it is merely a side-effect). As compilers got better at generating efficient code, this is not needed any more.
Even if you could make all objects in your code "addess-proof" (impossible to get their address), the program will still not be 100% safe. Those objects are still stored in memory, which is still visible. By analysing the binary files, using debuggers, analysing the memory map and so on, one could find out those memory addresses.
This is not a good practice. In order for someone to get the variable of an object in a module, that object must be global, which is bad. So you should worry about having global variables, not about their visibility. Here you can find more details about why is it bad to have variables in the global scope.
As a semi-solution to your "problem", you can declare them const static. This way they cannot be accessed from outside the module and if it happens, no one can change their value.
In gcc you can declare a thread local variable, for example, as shown below.
__thread long thread_local_variable;
Also, in gcc you can specify a variable to use a certain register, for example, as shown below.
long register_variable asm ("r15" );
I want to combine these two concepts, that is, I want to declare a thread local variable that uses a certain register. How can I do that?
You don't need to do anything special. Your example:
long register_variable asm ("r15" );
is already declaring a thread-local variable, merely due to the fact that each thread has its own set of register values.
There is no possible way to make GCC's global register-storage variables shareable between threads. The fact that this is not well documented speaks to how ill-thought-out and hackish the whole idea of register-storage global variables is...
If you think about it, that couldn't work.
For a thread local variable, each thread needs it's own instance of storage. There's only a single r15 register (or one per core. more precisely), so there's simply no place to put the storage for additional threads.
Also, to put it in GCC's documentation's terms:
The __thread specifier may be used alone, with the extern or static specifiers, but with no other storage class specifier.
the register keyword is a storage class specifier, so cannot be used with __thread.
When threads swap out, they typically save the entire register state of the processor onto a stack somewhere. When the thread is restored, the register state is read from memory back into the registers.
So, if the language you used allowed it then you could in theory make this work. Each thread would have its own copy of the r15 register while it was running. However...
GCC Thread storage just wasn't designed that way. It stores the data in RAM somewhere, so you can later pass the pointer to another thread if you want to.
If you think of it, you don't need anything special for it. register variables always have a lifetime that is the current invocation of the function in which they are defined. These always are "thread local" variables.
The gcc extension __thread and the C11 feature _Thread_local are completely different concepts. They specify that a variable of static storage is instantiated on a per thread base. These kind of variables are never register variables. The register keyword in C forbids you to take the address of a variable, and forces the variable otherwise to be similar to auto variables.
While reading from a site a read that you can not make a global variable of type register.Why is it so?
source:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxpcomp/v8v101/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.xlcpp8l.doc/language/ref/regdef.htm
In theory, you could allocate a processor register to a global scope variable - that register would simply have to remain allocated to that variable for the whole life of the program.
However, C compilers don't generally get to see the entire program during the compile phase - the C standard was written so that each translation unit (roughly corresponding to each .c file) could be compiled independently of the others (with the compiled objects later linked into a program). This is why global scope register variables aren't allowed - when the compiler is compiling b.c, it has no way to know that there was a global variable allocated to a register in a.c (and that therefore functions in b.c must preserve the value in that register).
Actually, GCC allows this. A declaration in global scope in the form:
register int foo asm ("r12");
Allocates the register "r12" (on x86_64) for the global "foo". This has a number of limitations and the corresponding manual page is probably the best reference to all the hassle global register variables would make:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Explicit-Reg-Vars.html
Because it would be senseless. Global variables exist all the time the application is working. There surely is no free processor register for such a long time ;)
The register keyword has a different meaning than what its name seems to indicate, nowadays it has not much to do with a register of the processing environment. (Although it probably once was chosen for this.) The only text that constrains the use of a variable that is declared with register is this
The operand of the unary & operator
shall be either a function designator,
the result of a [] or unary *
operator, or an lvalue that designates
an object that is not a bit-field and
is not declared with the register
storage-class specifier
So it implements a restriction to automatic variables (those that you declare in a function) such that it is an error to take the address of such a variable. The idea then is that the compiler may represent this variable in whatever way pleases, as a register or as an immediate assembler value etc. You as a programmer promise that you wouldn't take an address of it. Usually this makes not much sense for global variables (they have an address, anyhow).
To summarize:
No, the register keyword is not
ignored.
Yes, it can only be used for stack
variables if you want to be standard conformant
Originally, register variables were meant to be stored in processor registers, but global variables have to be stored in the data or the BSS section to be accessible from every function. Today, compilers don't interpret the register storage class strictly, so it remains largely for compatibility reasons.
The register word is used in C/C++ as request to the compiler to use registers of processor like variables. A register is a sort of variable used by CPU, very very fast in access because it isn't located in memory (RAM). The use of a register is limited by the architecture and the size of the register itself (this mean that some could be just like memory pointers, other to load special debug values and so on).
The calling conventions used by C/C++ doesn't use general registers (EAX, EBX and so on in 80x86 Arch) to save parameters (But the returned value is stored in EAX), so you could declare a var like register making code faster.
If you ask to make it global you ask to reserve the register for all the code and all your source. This is impossible, so compiler give you an error, or simply make it a usual var stored in memory.
Some compilers provide a means of dedicating a register permanently to a variable. The register keyword, however, is insufficient. A compiler's decision to allocate the local variables for a routine in registers generally does not require coordination with anything in other source modules (while some development systems do register optimization between routines, it's far more common to simply define the calling convention so that all routines are allowed to freely alter certain registers (so a caller is responsible for saving the contents if they're needed after the function call) but must not alter others (so the called routine is responsible for saving and restoring the contents if the registers are needed in the function). Thus, a linker doesn't need to concern itself with register usage.
Such an approach is fine for local register variables, but useless for global ones. For global register variables to be useful, the programmer must generally tell the compiler which register is to be used for what variable, and make sure that such reservations are known to the compiler when compiling all modules--even those that don't use the register otherwise. This can be useful in embedded systems, especially with variables that are used by interrupts, but there's usually a very limited number (e.g. 2 or so) of such variables allowed in a system.
So do we all agree now? Do we all see that making a global variable a register variable would be a really, really bad idea? If the original C definition did not forbid it, it was probably because nobody thought anyone would actually implement it that way -- as they should not have especially back in CISC days.
Besides: modern optimizing compilers do a better job of deciding when to keep variables in registers than humans can do. If yours can't do it, then you really, REALLY need to get a better compiler.
Because they're in registers. It's a contradiction in terms.
Where is a volatile variable stored in the program memory (in which section)?
volatile is a type qualifier not a storage class specifier, so it does not determine storage location at all; it affects the definition of a variable's type, not its storage.
It simply forces the compiler to explicitly read a variable whose type is volatile from the variable's storage location (wherever that may be) rather than assuming that some previously read value in a register for example remains valid.
In C volatile just tells the compiler - "You don't have enough knowledge to assume the value of this variable hasn't changed". There is no "section" eg BSS, CSS for it.
Consider it a flag to the compiler to prevent certain types of optimisations. Its very handy in embedded programming, where memory at a certain address may "change" due to a hardware device input.
Here's a good explanation: http://www.embedded.com/columns/programmingpointers/174300478?_requestid=137658
The volatility of a variable does not change the place in which a variable is stored. What it changes is the semantics around how it is accessed with respect to reads and writes.
I do not believe the C standard says anything about the implementation of volatile. But typically, volatile guarantees release semantics for write operations on a variable and aquire semantics on read operations of a variable. This will not be true for every implementation though and you should read up on what your specific compiler guarantees
volatile has nothing to deal with storage class.
volatile just tells the compiler or force the compiler to "not to do the optimization" for that variable.
so compiler would not optimize the code for that variable and reading the value from the specified location, not through interal register which holds the previous value.
So, by declaring variable as volatile.. it gives garrantee that you will get the latest value, which may be alterred by an external event.
your code may be work fine if haven't declare that variable as volatile, but there may be chance of not getting correct value sometimes..
so to avoid that we should declare variable as volatile.
volatile is generally used when dealing with external events, like interrupts of hardware related pins.
example.
reading adc values.
const voltile means
you can not modify or alter the value of that variable in code. only external event can change the value.
controller pins are generally defines as volatile.
may be by declaring variable as volatile controller will do "read by pin" not "read by latch"... this is my assumtion. may be wrong...
but still there is lots of confusion when to choose variable as volatile..
A variable should be declared volatile whenever its value could change unexpectedly. In practice, only three types of variables could change:
Memory-mapped peripheral registers
Global variables modified by an interrupt service routine
Global variables within a multi-threaded application
Link : http://eetimes.com/discussion/beginner-s-corner/4023801/Introduction-to-the-Volatile-Keyword
So It is proffered to variable as volatile in such cases.
There's no reason for a volatile variable to be stored in any "special" section of memory. It is normally stored together with any other variables, including non-volatile ones. If some compiler decides to store volatile variables in some special section of memory - there's nothing to prevent it from doing so. But at the language level there's absolutely no reason for this.
Why are you asking such a question? What made you think that it should be stored in some special section of memory?
"Volatile" was used in C/C++ specifications to allow use of memory mapped devices. It directs the compiler not to optimize the variable defined with this keyword, just because the variable doesn't seem to change its state in compiler-visible code.
I have used a static global variable and a static volatile variable in file scope,
both are updated by an ISR and a main loop and main loop checks the value of the variable. here during optimization neither the global variable nor the volatile variable are optimized. So instead of using a volatile variable a global variable solves the problem.
So is it good to use global variable instead of volatile?
Any specific reason to use static volatile??
Any example program would be appreciable.
Thanks in advance..
First let me mention that a static global variable, is the same as a global variable, except that you are limiting the variable to the scope of the file. I.e. you can't use this global variable in other files via the extern keyword.
So you can reduce your question to global variables vs volatile variables.
Now onto volatile:
Like const, volatile is a type modifier.
The volatile keyword was created to prevent compiler optimizations that may make code incorrect, specifically when there are asynchronous events.
Objects declared as volatile may not be used in certain optimizations.
The system always reads the current true value of a volatile object at the point it is used, even if a previous instruction asked for a value from the same object. Also, the value of the object is written immediately on assignment. That means there is no caching of a volatile variable into a CPU register.
Dr. Jobb's has a great article on volatile.
Here is an example from the Dr. Jobb's article:
class Gadget
{
public:
void Wait()
{
while (!flag_)
{
Sleep(1000); // sleeps for 1000 milliseconds
}
}
void Wakeup()
{
flag_ = true;
}
...
private:
bool flag_;
};
If the compiler sees that Sleep() is an external call, it will assume that Sleep() cannot possibly change the variable flag_'s value. So the compiler may store the value of flag_ in a register. And in that case, it will never change. But if another thread calls wakeup, the first thread is still reading from the CPU's register. Wait() will never wake-up.
So why not just never cache variables into registers and avoid the problem completely?
It turns out that this optimization can really save you a lot of time overall. So C/C++ allows you to explicitly disable it via the volatile keyword.
The fact above that flag_ was a member variable, and not a global variable (nor static global) does not matter. The explanation after the example gives the correct reasoning even if you're dealing with global variables (and static global variables).
A common misconception is that declaring a variable volatile is sufficient to ensure thread safety. Operations on the variable are still not atomic, even though they are not "cached" in registers
volatile with pointers:
Volatile with pointers, works like const with pointers.
A variable of type volatile int * means that the variable that the pointer points to is volatile.
A variable of type int * volatile means that the pointer itself is volatile.
They are different things. I'm not an expert in volatile semantics. But i think it makes sense what is described here.
Global
Global just means the identifier in question is declared at file-scope. There are different scopes, called function (where goto-labels are defined in), file (where globals reside), block (where normal local variables reside), and function prototype (where function parameters reside). This concept just exist to structure the visibility of identifiers. It doesn't have anything to do with optimizations.
Static
static is a storage duration (we won't look at that here) and a way to give a name declared within file scope internal linkage. This can be done for functions or objects only required within one translation unit. A typical example might be a help function printing out the accepted parameters, and which is only called from the main function defined in the same .c file.
6.2.2/2 in a C99 draft:
If the declaration of a file scope
identifier for an object or a function
contains the storage class specifier
static, the identifier has internal
linkage.
Internal linkage means that the identifier is not visible outside the current translation unit (like the help function of above).
Volatile
Volatile is a different thing: (6.7.3/6)
An object that has volatile-qualified
type may be modified in ways unknown to
the implementation or have other
unknown side effects. Therefore any
expression referring to such an object
shall be evaluated strictly according
to the rules of the abstract machine,
as described in 5.1.2.3. Furthermore,
at every sequence point the value last
stored in the object shall agree with
that prescribed by the abstract
machine, except as modified by the
unknown factors mentioned
previously.
The Standard provides an excellent example for an example where volatile would be redundant (5.1.2.3/8):
An implementation might define a
one-to-one correspondence between
abstract and actual semantics: at
every sequence point, the values of
the actual objects would agree with
those specified by the abstract
semantics. The keyword volatile
would then be redundant.
Sequence points are points where the effect of side effects concerning the abstract machine are completed (i.e external conditions like memory cell values are not included). Between the right and the left of && and ||, after ; and returning from a function call are sequence points for example.
The abstract semantics is what the compiler can deduce from seeing only the sequence of code within a particular program. Effects of optimizations are irrelevant here. actual semantics include the effect of side effects done by writing to objects (for example, changing of memory cells). Qualifying an object as volatile means one always gets the value of an object straight from memory ("as modified by the unknown factors"). The Standard doesn't mention threads anywhere, and if you must rely on the order of changes, or on atomicity of operations, you should use platform dependent ways to ensure that.
For an easy to understand overview, intel has a great article about it here.
What should i do now?
Keep declaring your file-scope (global) data as volatile. Global data in itself does not mean the variables' value will equal to the value stored in memory. And static does only make your objects local to the current translation unit (the current .c files and all other files #include'ed by it).
The "volatile" keyword suggests the compiler not to do certain optimizations on code involving that variable; if you just use a global variable, nothing prevents the compiler to wrongly optimize your code.
Example:
#define MYPORT 0xDEADB33F
volatile char *portptr = (char*)MYPORT;
*portptr = 'A';
*portptr = 'B';
Without "volatile", the first write may be optimized out.
The volatile keyword tells the compiler to make sure that variable will never be cached. All accesses to it must be made in a consistent way as to have a consistent value between all threads. If the value of the variable is to be changed by another thread while you have a loop checking for change, you want the variable to be volatile as there is no guarantee that a regular variable value won't be cached at some point and the loop will just assume it stays the same.
Volatile variable on Wikipedia
They may not be in different in your current environment, but subtle changes could affect the behavior.
Different hardware (more processors, different memory architecture)
A new version of the compiler with better optimization.
Random variation in timing between threads. A problem may only occur one time in 10 million.
Different compiler optimization settings.
It is much safer in the long run to use proper multithreading constructs from the beginning, even if things seem to work for now without them.
Of course, if your program is not multi-threaded then it doesn't matter.
I +1 friol's answer. I would like to add some precisions as there seem to be a lot of confusions in different answers: C's volatile is not Java's volatile.
So first, compilers can do a lot of optimizations on based on the data flow of your program, volatile in C prevents that, it makes sure you really load/store to the location every time (instead of using registers of wiping it out e.g.). It is useful when you have a memory mapped IO port, as friol's pointed out.
Volatile in C has NOTHING to do with hardware caches or multithreading. It does not insert memory fences, and you have absolutely no garanty on the order of operations if two threads do accesses to it. Java's volatile keyword does exactly that though: inserting memory fences where needed.
volatile variable means that the value assinged to it is not constant, i.e if a function containing a volatile variable "a=10" and the function is adding 1 in each call of that function then it will always return updated value.
{
volatile int a=10;
a++;
}
when the above function is called again and again then the variable a will not be re-initialised to 10, it will always show the updated value till the program runs.
1st output= 10
then 11
then 12
and so on.