Re: [Tinycc-devel] ARM64 PE32+ and UEFI support
What's the outlook, folks? Do I need to make further changes are am I okay to push to mob? A On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Andrei Warkentin < andrey.warken...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, there could many reasons why someone might wish to build a EXE with > base relocs, even in a non-UEFI scenario. This is equivalent to CL's > /FIXED:NO. One use case would be enabling base randomization (something > like /DYNAMICBASE, not addressed by my work). Another one would be wishing > to LoadLibraryEx an EXE image into your existing address space, which will > most certainly not work if there are no base relocs in the image being > loaded. > > I don't really have a strong opinion. If you want it gone, I'll clean it > up. Otherwise fine? > > A > > > 9 сент. 2017 г., в 17:05, grischka написал(а): > > > > Andrei Warkentin wrote: > >> Any thoughts, folks? I reworked the changes, as requested. > > > > Well, what's now the point to have the switch > >"-Wl,-no-strip-base-relocs" > > exactly? What are people supposed to do with it? > > > > -- gr > > > >> A > >>> 26 авг. 2017 г., в 22:44, Andrei E. Warkentin < > andrey.warken...@gmail.com> написал(а): > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> So answering my own question, MS tooling does not include base relocs > for EXEs by default (although apparently a few others do, like Delphi, and > base relocs are embedded if building with ASLR) > >>> > >>> I changed the implementation to also embed base relocs if subsystem is > EFI applications, EFI boot drivers and EFI runtime drivers, and the linker > option has been changed to -Wl,-no-strip-base-relocs, as suggested. > >>> > >>> I also re-worked the cleanup patch to address Grischka's comment. We > can get rid of the clutter while still avoiding hard to understand (or > maintain) constants. > >>> > >>> PE: clean up characteristcs/subsystem code https://github.com/andreiw/ > tinycc/commit/b190796f26fe479db736b3387463bdfe262e99c5 > >>> PE: fix UEFI image generation https://github.com/andreiw/ > tinycc/commit/c0827b0eb90deba4d7d3211c0aa4c6aa4cee3fd0 > >>> PE: experimental ARM64 support https://github.com/andreiw/ > tinycc/commit/bfd77f13a45c62049fd5cf2f49534a5c75fcf7de > >>> > >>> I tested this with OVMF on QEMU, VMware Fusion, ArmVirtPkg (AArch64 > UEFI for QEMU) and a few real ARM server platforms (especially ones that > had no RAM at the preferred loading address, forcing base relocs to be > applied). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> A > >>> > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:57 AM, grischka wrote: > >>>>> Andrei E. Warkentin wrote: > >>>>> Dear tinycc-devel, > >>>>> > >>>>> A few more fixes for your review. > >>>>> > >>>>> - support for generating ARM64 PE32+ images > >>>>> - support for generating X64, ARM64, IA32 (untested) and ARM > (untested) > >>>>> UEFI images. > >>>> I don't think we want relocation entries by default in x86/x86-64 > >>>> executables. Maybe you can support -Wl,-no-strip-base-relocs > >>>> > >>>> Also pe32.h and the longish portions with > IMAGE_SUBSYSTEM_*/IMAGE_FILE_* > >>>> produce lots of visual clutter. Maybe for something that changes once > >>>> in 10 years, we can use just hex numbers as before. > >>>> > >>>> Other than that the patch seems to make sense. On which system did > >>>> you test this? > >>>> > >>>> -- gr > >>>> > >>>>> https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/ > 5267c3c291841cb3c3ad1ec88b4ab91a16afc44b > >>>>> (PE: clean up characteristcs/subsystem code) > >>>>> https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/ > 2df4e01b400211cce90b3d427bf06dbad35bb453 > >>>>> (PE: fix UEFI image generation) > >>>>> https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/ > 5cf413024d4a4a163cbf3a4f4329d75f3dd640f9 > >>>>> (PE: experimental ARM64 support) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The UEFI stuff was tested by building the following simple app (you > need > >>>>> Tiano edk2 for the headers). > >>>>> > >>>>> $ ./x86_64-win32-tcc -I ../edk2/MdePkg/Include/ -I > >>>>> ../edk2/M
Re: [Tinycc-devel] ARM64 PE32+ and UEFI support
Hi,
So answering my own question, MS tooling does not include base relocs for
EXEs by default (although apparently a few others do, like Delphi, and base
relocs are embedded if building with ASLR)
I changed the implementation to also embed base relocs if subsystem is EFI
applications, EFI boot drivers and EFI runtime drivers, and the linker
option has been changed to -Wl,-no-strip-base-relocs, as suggested.
I also re-worked the cleanup patch to address Grischka's comment. We can
get rid of the clutter while still avoiding hard to understand (or
maintain) constants.
PE: clean up characteristcs/subsystem code
https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/b190796f26fe479db736b3387463bdfe262e99c5
PE: fix UEFI image generation
https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/c0827b0eb90deba4d7d3211c0aa4c6aa4cee3fd0
PE: experimental ARM64 support
https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/bfd77f13a45c62049fd5cf2f49534a5c75fcf7de
I tested this with OVMF on QEMU, VMware Fusion, ArmVirtPkg (AArch64 UEFI
for QEMU) and a few real ARM server platforms (especially ones that had no
RAM at the preferred loading address, forcing base relocs to be applied).
[image: Inline image 1]
[image: Inline image 2]
A
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:57 AM, grischka wrote:
> Andrei E. Warkentin wrote:
>
>> Dear tinycc-devel,
>>
>> A few more fixes for your review.
>>
>> - support for generating ARM64 PE32+ images
>> - support for generating X64, ARM64, IA32 (untested) and ARM (untested)
>> UEFI images.
>>
>
> I don't think we want relocation entries by default in x86/x86-64
> executables. Maybe you can support -Wl,-no-strip-base-relocs
>
> Also pe32.h and the longish portions with IMAGE_SUBSYSTEM_*/IMAGE_FILE_*
> produce lots of visual clutter. Maybe for something that changes once
> in 10 years, we can use just hex numbers as before.
>
> Other than that the patch seems to make sense. On which system did
> you test this?
>
> -- gr
>
> https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/5267c3c291841cb3c3a
>> d1ec88b4ab91a16afc44b
>> (PE: clean up characteristcs/subsystem code)
>> https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/2df4e01b400211cce90
>> b3d427bf06dbad35bb453
>> (PE: fix UEFI image generation)
>> https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/5cf413024d4a4a163cb
>> f3a4f4329d75f3dd640f9
>> (PE: experimental ARM64 support)
>>
>>
>> The UEFI stuff was tested by building the following simple app (you need
>> Tiano edk2 for the headers).
>>
>> $ ./x86_64-win32-tcc -I ../edk2/MdePkg/Include/ -I
>> ../edk2/MdePkg/Include/X64/ ../efitest.c -Wl,-subsystem=efiapp -nostdlib
>> -o ../efitest.x64.efi -v
>>
>> $ ./arm64-win32-tcc -I ../edk2/MdePkg/Include/ -I
>> ../edk2/MdePkg/Include/AArch64/ ../efitest.c -Wl,-subsystem=efiapp
>> -nostdlib -o ../efitest.aa64.efi
>>
>> -->
>> #include
>>
>> CHAR16 *gHello = L"Hello from a TinyCC compiled UEFI binary!\r\n";
>>
>> EFI_STATUS EFIAPI
>> _start(EFI_HANDLE Handle,
>>EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *SystemTable)
>> {
>> CHAR16 *StackString = L"String pointer on the stack\r\n";
>> SystemTable->ConOut->OutputString(SystemTable->ConOut, StackString);
>> SystemTable->ConOut->OutputString(SystemTable->ConOut, gHello);
>> return EFI_SUCCESS;
>> }
>> -->
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tinycc-devel mailing list
>> Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>
--
A
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Tinycc-devel] ARM64 PE32+ and UEFI support
Dear tinycc-devel,
A few more fixes for your review.
- support for generating ARM64 PE32+ images
- support for generating X64, ARM64, IA32 (untested) and ARM (untested)
UEFI images.
https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/5267c3c291841cb3c3ad1ec88b4ab91a16afc44b
(PE: clean up characteristcs/subsystem code)
https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/2df4e01b400211cce90b3d427bf06dbad35bb453
(PE: fix UEFI image generation)
https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/5cf413024d4a4a163cbf3a4f4329d75f3dd640f9
(PE: experimental ARM64 support)
The UEFI stuff was tested by building the following simple app (you need
Tiano edk2 for the headers).
$ ./x86_64-win32-tcc -I ../edk2/MdePkg/Include/ -I
../edk2/MdePkg/Include/X64/ ../efitest.c -Wl,-subsystem=efiapp -nostdlib
-o ../efitest.x64.efi -v
$ ./arm64-win32-tcc -I ../edk2/MdePkg/Include/ -I
../edk2/MdePkg/Include/AArch64/ ../efitest.c -Wl,-subsystem=efiapp
-nostdlib -o ../efitest.aa64.efi
-->
#include
CHAR16 *gHello = L"Hello from a TinyCC compiled UEFI binary!\r\n";
EFI_STATUS EFIAPI
_start(EFI_HANDLE Handle,
EFI_SYSTEM_TABLE *SystemTable)
{
CHAR16 *StackString = L"String pointer on the stack\r\n";
SystemTable->ConOut->OutputString(SystemTable->ConOut, StackString);
SystemTable->ConOut->OutputString(SystemTable->ConOut, gHello);
return EFI_SUCCESS;
}
-->
--
A
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] TinyCC in macOS
Thank you. I followed the directions on the http://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git website. The three patches have been pushed. A On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Andrei E. Warkentin wrote: > > How does the merge process work for tinycc? Anything you want from my end? >> > > I used imprecise language. When I said "merge" I meant "push to mob". See > http://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git, in particular the section "mob" of the > repository readme. (Please rebase your work to current mob before pushing; > I'm not sure if non-fast-forwards are even accepted, but just in case to > not uglify history too much). > > > > Ciao, > Michael. > > ___ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > -- A ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] TinyCC in macOS
Hi Michael, tinycc-devel, How does the merge process work for tinycc? Anything you want from my end? A On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Andrei E. Warkentin wrote: > > > Dear tinycc-devel, > > > > Found your mailing list today looking for macOS support for TCC. I have > > some good news, in the form of a patch that enables '-run' mode and a > patch > > consisting of clang warning fixes. This should allow for further work to > be > > done, as in adding proper Mach-O support. > > > > Don't know the procedures you folks have for doing code reviews, but I've > > my own branch (https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc) which I just forked > from > > the mob one. At the very least, it provides a good way of looking at the > > changes. > > > > https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/e733d489f015c2e9df3a43e975c822 > 76a4823ee5 > > (tcc: early OSX native support) > > Merge this one. > > > https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/302fbde543a5347daa6ee93aa98733 > 260b2e3d29 > > (tcc: fixup clang warnings) > > I think introducing LINE_MACRO_OUTPUT_FORMAT_P10 for the hack of accepting > -P10 is not worth it. The cast you had to add for the O() macro in > i386-asm.c: I noticed this as well somewhen with clang which doesn't > notice that the values in question never overflow. If a cast to int works > as well please use that. Otherwise merge it as well. > > > Ciao, > Michael. > > ___ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > -- A ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Tinycc-devel] TinyCC in macOS
Dear tinycc-devel, Found your mailing list today looking for macOS support for TCC. I have some good news, in the form of a patch that enables '-run' mode and a patch consisting of clang warning fixes. This should allow for further work to be done, as in adding proper Mach-O support. Don't know the procedures you folks have for doing code reviews, but I've my own branch (https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc) which I just forked from the mob one. At the very least, it provides a good way of looking at the changes. https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/e733d489f015c2e9df3a43e975c82276a4823ee5 (tcc: early OSX native support) https://github.com/andreiw/tinycc/commit/302fbde543a5347daa6ee93aa98733260b2e3d29 (tcc: fixup clang warnings) Hopefully this will be useful for someone. If you guys think this is interesting to merge, I can definitely address any concerns you might have. -- A ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
