Here
<https://github.com/winksaville/sel4-min-sel4/tree/no-libc-using-libsel4_gen>
is another try, there are now separate libs for printf, putchar and assert
plus some new simple apps. The app myassert shows overriding of the assert
methods, here is the commit message:
libsel4 without dependencies on libc.
There are now separate libs for benchmark, assert, printf and putchar:
libs/libsel4_benchmark
libs/libsel4_assert
libs/libsel4_printf
libs/libsel4_putchar
And some simple test apps:
apps/test-newlibs -> test simple things
apps/min-app -> Does nothing, just retuns 0
apps/hw -> tests putchar
apps/helloworld -> tests printf
apps/assert -> tests seL4_Asserts ..
apps/myassert -> tests that we can override _seL4_AssertFail ..
apps/bootinfo -> tests that we can access seL4_BootInfo
The primary changes are introducing sel4_types.h and removing std* types
plus porting assert and IO code from the kernel to libsel4_assert
and libsel4_printf, libsel4_putchar.
This means the code within libraries do not overload any typical libc
entities. Instead the libraries use types like seL4_Uint32 ... instead
of
uint32_t. And printf is now seL4_Printf and assert is seL4_Assert ....
Finally, the only file modified that effects kernel code is
kernel/tools/bitfield_gen.py. It needed to be modified as it generates
files for both kernel and user space. And for user space the generated
code
(types_gen.h) needed to use the new types and asserts. The changes
should
not change what is generated for the kernel and I did a comparison of
kernel_final.{c|s} before and after my change and the only differences
were time stamps.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:47 PM Adrian Danis <adrian.da...@nicta.com.au>
wrote:
> My main problem with this change remains bringing in all of this IO
> implementation into the C library. As far as I can tell all of the putchar,
> printf, varargs, halt etc is introduced just to support assertions. Why not
> rely on the user system to provide the actual assertion implementation,
> allowing all of the I/O code to be moved out of this library?
>
> i.e. define assert to something like
>
> #ifdef NDEBUG
> #define libsel4_assert(x) (void)0
> #else
> #define libsel4_assert(x) ((void)((x) || (__assert_fail(#x, __FILE__,
> __LINE__, __func__),0)))
> #endif
> void __assert_fail (const char *, const char *, int, const char *);
>
> And then rely on the user code to provide an implementation of
> __assert_fail, which if they are linking against the muslc library is
> already provided.
>
>
> Adrian
>
>
> On 03/07/15 13:11, Wink Saville wrote:
>
> @Harry,
>
> I'll fix the comment.
>
> Using print_string is a good idea, I'll look into how to create a string
> with __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__ at compile time rather than runtime,
> maybe just using paste ("#") will work.
>
> I guess my feeling is asserts should work without the user having to do
> extra steps, so there should be a default one in any case. Also, I believe
> it can be overridden at link time by the user supplying their own
> implementation.
>
> On using "assert 0" to eliminate duplicate code, do you mean eliminate
> "_seL4_Fail" and just have "_seL4_AssertFail"?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:52 PM Wink Saville <w...@saville.com> wrote:
>
>> Moving sel4_benchmark.h into libsel4 was something I was thinking we
>> might do. I'm thinking longer maybe it could significantly expand and
>> possibly have supporting c sources so that's why I kept it separate for now.
>>
>> On using error rather than message, NP, I chose message because I didn't
>> want to always force people to change the configuration, but maybe that
>> would be error is better.
>>
>> Some what related, I've chosen to always assume putchar would be
>> available in some configurations, so I created
>> sel4_debug_printf.h/sel4_debug_assert.h which uses NDEBUG to conditionally
>> turn off/on asserts and printf. Where as sel4_printf.h/sel4_assert.h
>> assumes putchar would always be available. So this a different behavior
>> then previously and people may not like it.
>>
>> As I said, still quite a bit to discuss and of course, the main one: is
>> having libsel4 independent of libc something that's desirable? Which,
>> obviously you don't think it is, but others seem to like it, so we'll see
>> what happens.
>> -- Wink
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015, 5:25 PM Matthew Fernandez <
>> matthew.fernan...@nicta.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Though I'm still opposed to this change overall, my two cents on the
>>> current state:
>>>
>>> - Should we just put the benchmarking code in libsel4bench [0]? I
>>> realise the former is for
>>> benchmarking the kernel and the latter is (arguably) for benchmarking
>>> userspace, but it seems to me
>>> a better home for it.
>>>
>>> - You've used `#pragma message` in one instance. I would prefer
>>> `#error` for consistency, though
>>> I'm aware `#pragma message` is more portable. Moreover, why are we
>>> emitting messages here in the
>>> first place? It's a perfectly valid (in fact the default) configuration
>>> to have the benchmarking
>>> syscalls disabled.
>>>
>>> [0]: https://github.com/seL4/libsel4bench
>>>
>>> On 03/07/15 10:19, Wink Saville wrote:
>>> > One other note, this isn't done. It still needs to be integrated with
>>> muslc (libc) and at a minimum
>>> > seL4_Halt needs to be properly implemented. And I'm sure there will be
>>> plenty of other changes
>>> > needed but I hope we're closer.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:11 PM Wink Saville <w...@saville.com <mailto:
>>> w...@saville.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Here <https://github.com/winksaville/sel4-min-sel4/tree/no-libc3>
>>> is try #3, I've pasted the
>>> > commit message below as it tells the story, let me know what you
>>> think:
>>> >
>>> > libsel4 with no libc dependency.
>>> > The primary changes are introducing sel4_types.h and removing
>>> std* types
>>> > plus porting assert and printf code from the kernel to
>>> libsel4. All of
>>> > this means the code within libsel4 does not overload any
>>> typical libc
>>> > entities. So now libsel4 uses types like seL4_Uint32 ...
>>> instead of
>>> > uint32_t. And printf is now seL4_Printf and assert is
>>> seL4_Assert ....
>>> > I'm also using sel4_ prefixes for various files as I felt it
>>> was more
>>> > consistent with the names of the entities within the files.
>>> > The only new library is libsel4_benchmark and since it
>>> consists of just
>>> > sel4_benchmark.h we might want to move that back into
>>> libsel4. I would
>>> > have liked to move out libsel4_assert, libsel4_printf and
>>> libsel4_putchar
>>> > but since asserts are used by low level generated code I
>>> couldn't come up
>>> > with a good way of doing that.
>>> > Finally, the only file modified that effects kernel code is
>>> > kernel/tools/bitfield_gen.py. It needed to be modified as it
>>> generates
>>> > files for both kernel and user space. And for user space the
>>> generated code
>>> > (types_gen.h) needed to use the new types and asserts. The
>>> changes should
>>> > not change what is generated for the kernel and I did a
>>> comparison of
>>> > kernel_final.{c|s} before and after my change and the only
>>> differences
>>> > were time stamps
>>> >
>>> > -- Wink
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:07 PM Wink Saville <w...@saville.com
>>> <mailto:w...@saville.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Will do.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 7:05 PM Anna Lyons <
>>> anna.ly...@nicta.com.au
>>> > <mailto:anna.ly...@nicta.com.au>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Currently there is at least one known problem, I
>>> modified
>>> > > bitfield_gen.py so types_gen.h has no asserts since at
>>> the moment the
>>> > > kernel uses assert and userspace is libsel4_assert. We
>>> could either do
>>> > > something like I've done and remove them or change the
>>> kernel to use
>>> > > libsel4_assert or something else.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > The asserts are really important to avoid horrible bugs
>>> when using
>>> > functions created by the bitfield generator, so if we go
>>> ahead with this
>>> > let's make sure they survive in some form.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Anna.
>>> >
>>> > ________________________________
>>> >
>>> > The information in this e-mail may be confidential and
>>> subject to legal professional
>>> > privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited
>>> accepts no liability for any
>>> > damage caused by this email or its attachments.
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Devel mailing list
>>> > Devel@sel4.systems
>>> > https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Devel mailing list
>>> > Devel@sel4.systems
>>> > https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
>>> >
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal
>>> professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited
>>> accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments.
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing listDevel@sel4.systemshttps://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@sel4.systems
https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
