In terms of instruction set and simplicity of emulation. I would like to implement a virtual CPU and figured why not emulate an existing one, so to be able to compile C code to it.
Moxie is a great target because it was designed specifically to be an ideal target for GCC. I am the author and would be happy to answer any questions. green at moxielogic dot com
GCC supports Moxie (originally ggx), a little architecture invented by Anthony Green for experimentation.
You, too, can follow the steps he took to invent your own small simple CPU and port GCC to it.
ZPU (an FPGA targeted 32bit processor) is very small.
Possibly the AVR ATTiny45 or similar AVR chip.
This probably isn't an uncommon question; I'd hope that most CPU/machine simulation toolkits would include a simple example implementation, but some don't.
I haven't worked with it, but Knuth's MMIX architecture (wikipedia) looks interesting. Like Moxie, it was created to "illustrate machine-level aspects of programming" and is simpler than real machines. It's supported by GCC and there appear to be multiple existing simulators that could be used as a reference in your efforts.
Maybe something from the Ti MSP430 series.
MIPS I (one of the targets of GCC) is a surprisingly easy-to-emulate 32-bit platform. Here is an short and simple emulator which can load and run a statically linked Linux MIPS I executable: https://github.com/pts/pts-mips-emulator
Related
I'm writing a teaching tutorial to teach university students and programming enthusiasts Compilation concepts on an x86.
I want an IDE tool like WinASM for them to be able to debug their work, but am aware that they may not all run Windows at home.
Is my best choice to target Jasmin? (Or have you got a better suggestion - and why?)
Another approach I've seen is to use a common teaching architecture (such as MIPS) and run it under emulation. For MIPS in particular, there are lots of interactive simulators (like SPIM), as well as full system emulators (like QEMU). The fact that the MIPS architecture is considerably simpler (and less register-starved!) than x86 is definitely a plus as well -- it means you can spend more time focusing on interesting compilation topics, rather than teaching the architecture.
This is another approach (although poor for debugging) - executing assembler inline in C++
A C repl that generates ASM - for learning about the assembler generated.
Also you could just rely on old gdb.
Have you ever considered an online debugging tool? There are a few of them out there. I personally like this asm debugger.
Unfortunately, my C app for PIC32 needs OO too much and I can't continue doing it in C.
Do you know any MIPS32 C++ compiler for PIC32?
Thanks
Microchip's XC32 tool chain now supports C++ since version 1.10
You might contact Comeau Computing; thier C++ compiler generates C code as an intermediate language so that it can then utilise a platform's existing native C compiler where only a C compiler is available, and therefore porting to new platforms is relatively quick and simple.
For various reasons the intermediate generation and compiler adaptation is not accessible to end users so you will still need Comeau to generate a PIC32/C32 port, but it probably won't take long and hopefully they would amortise the cost over sales to other users.
However if you use Commeau or any other C++ to C translator, you will suffer from the inability to use source-level debugging, and that is likley to be the killer to any attempt to use C++ sucessfully without native debugger support.
Although it is not always pretty, your best bet is probably to learn how to implement OO designs in C. Here's a whole book on the subject: http://www.planetpdf.com/codecuts/pdfs/ooc.pdf
According to this fairly recent thread on the microchip forums it looks like C++ support for PIC32 isn't available anywhere yet and isn't a high priority with Microchip. The wisdom of the respondents in that thread appears to be: don't hold your breath.
I'm a MPLAB user myself building small programs so I just take what Microchip gives me. I've never gotten to the point where I thought I needed C++, longed for yes, but never needed. As a next step you can either consider moving to another platform with C++ support or take another look at your design and ask why you need C++ that badly. Some features can be simulated in C with varying amounts of pain and suffering.
You might keep an eye on the proper GCC MIPS port. They have all the pieces, but I don't know if anyone's made C++ work with PIC32 in particular. I know it did work on sgimips.
I am a complete newbie to the ARM world. I need to be able to write C code, compile it, and then download into an ARM emulator, and execute. I need to use the GCC 4.1.2 compiler for the C code compilation.
Can anybody point me in the correct directions for the following issues?
What tool chain to use?
What emulator to use?
Are there tutorials or guides on setting up the tool chain?
building a gcc cross compiler yourself is pretty easy. the gcc library and the C library and other things not so much, an embedded library and such a little harder. Depends on how embedded you want to get. I have little use for gcclib or a c library so roll your own works great for me.
After many years of doing this, perhaps it is an age thing, I now just go get the code sourcery tools. the lite version works great. yagarto, devkitarm, winarm or something like that (the site with a zillion examples) all work fine. emdebian also has a good pre-built toolchain. a number of these places if not all have info on how they built their toolchains from gnu sources.
You asked about gcc, but bear in mind that llvm is a strong competitor, and as far as cross compiling goes, since it always cross compiles, it is a far easier cross compiler to download and build and get working than gcc. the recent version is now producing code (for arm) that competes with gcc for performance. gcc is in no way a leader in performance, other compilers I have used run circles around it, but it has been improving with each release (well the 3.x versions sometimes produce better code than the 4.x versions, but you need 4.x for the newer cores and thumb2). even if you go with gcc, try the stable release of llvm from time to time.
qemu is a good emulator, depending on what you are doing the gba emulator virtual gameboy advance is good. There are a couple of nds emulators too. GDB and other places have what appear to be ARMs own armulator. I found it hard to extract and use, so I wrote my own, but being lazy only implemented the thumb instruction set, I called mine the thumbulator. easy to use. Far easier than qemu and armulator to add peripherals to and watch and debug your code. ymmv.
Hmmm I posted a similar answer for someone recently. Google: arm verilog and at umich you will find a file isc.tgz in which is an arm10 behavioural (as in you cannot make a chip from it therefore you can find verilog on the net) model. Which for someone wanting to learn an instruction set, watching your code execute at the gate level is about as good as it gets. Be careful, like a drug, you can get addicted then have a hard time when you go back to silicon where you have relatively zero visibility into your code while it is executing. Somewhere in stackoverflow I posted the steps involved to get that arm10 model and another file or two to turn it into an arm emulator using icarus verilog. gtkwave is a good and free tool for examining the wave (vcd) files.
Above all else you will need the ARM ARM. (The ARM Architectural Reference Manual). Just google it and find it on ARM's web site. There is pseudo code for each instruction teaching you what they do. Use the thumbulator or armulator or others if you need to understand more (mame has an arm core in it too). I make no guarantees that the thumbulator is 100% debugged or accurate, I took some common programs and compared their output to silicon both arm and non-arm to debug the core.
Toolchain you can use Yagarto http://www.yagarto.de/
Emulator you can use Proteus ISIS http://www.labcenter.com/index.cfm
(There is a demo version)
and tutorials, well, google them =)
Good luck!
Okay. I want to learn how to assemble programs on my Mac (Early 2009 MBP, Intel Core 2 Duo). So far, I understand only that Assembly languages are comprised of direct one-to-one mnemonics for CPU instructions. After some Googling, I've seen a lot of terms, mostly "x86" and "x86_64". I've also seen MASM, NASM, and GAS, among others.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
x86 and x86_64 are instruction sets. If I write something using these instruction sets (as raw machine code), I'm fine so long as my program stays on the processor it was designed for.
NASM, MASM, and GAS are all different assemblers.
There are different Assembly languages. There's the AT&T syntax and the Intel syntax, for example. Support for these syntaxes differ across assemblers.
Now, questions:
As a Mac user, which instruction sets should I be concerned about?
Xcode uses GCC. Does this mean it also uses GAS?
If it does use GAS, then should I be learning the AT&T syntax?
Is there a book I can get on this. Not a tutorial, not a reference manual on the web. Those things assume to much about me; for example, as far as I know, a register is just a little bit of memory on the CPU. That's how little I really know.
Thanks for your help.
If you want to learn assembly language, start with the x86 instruction set. That's the basic set.
A good book on the subject is Randall Hyde's the Art of Assembly Language, which is also available on his website. He uses a high-level assembler to make things easy to grasp and to get going, but deep down it uses GAS.
I don't believe that XCode comes with any assembler, but you can for example find GAS in MacPort's binutils package.
If you just want to make programs on your Mac and you're not that interested in the life of all the bits in the CPU, you're much better off with a more high-level language like Python or Ruby.
"I'm fine so long as my program stays on the processor it was designed for." Not really. In many cases, assembler programs will also make assumptions about the operating system they run on (e.g. when they call library functions or make system calls). Otherwise, your assumpptions are correct.
Onto questions:
Current Macs support both x86 and x86-64 (aka AMD64 aka EM64T aka Intel64). Both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries can be run on recent systems; Apple itself ships its libraries in "fat" (aka "universal") mode, i.e. machine code for multiple architectures.
Use "as -v" to find out what precise assembler you have; mine reports as "Apple Inc version cctools-698.1~1, GNU assembler version 1.38". So yes, it's GAS.
Yes.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4845/good-x86-assembly-book
I'll answer the first question:
Macs use Intel chips now, and modern processors are 64-bit.
Note: I know very little about the GCC toolchain, so this question may not make much sense.
Since GCC includes an Ada front end, and it can emit ARM, and devKitPro is based on GCC, is it possible to use Ada instead of C/C++ for writing code on the DS?
Edit: It seems that the target that devKitARM uses is arm-eabi.
devkitPro is not a toolchain, compiler or indeed any software package. The toolchain used to target the DS is devkitARM, one of the toolchains provided by devkitPro.
It may be possible to build the ada compiler but I doubt very much if you'll ever manage to get anything useful running on the DS itself. devkitPro will certainly never provide an ada compiler as part of the packages we produce.
Yes it is possible, see my project https://github.com/Lucretia/tamp and build the cross compiler as per my script. You would then be able to target NDS using Ada. I have build a basic RTS as well which will provide you with local exception handling.
And #Martin Beckett, why do think Ada is aimed squarely at DoD stuff? They dropped the mandate years ago and Ada is easily usable for any project, you do realise that Ada is a general purpose programming language don't you?
(Disclaimer: I don't know Ada)
Possibly.
You might be able to build devKitPro to use Ada, however, the pre-provided binaries (at least for OS X) do not have Ada support compiled in.
However, you will probably find yourself writing tons of C "glue" code to interface with the various hardware registers and the like.
One thing to consider when porting a language to the nintendo DS is the relatively small stack it has (16KB). There are possible workarounds such as swapping the SRAM stack content into DRAM (4MB) when stack gets full or just have the whole stack in DRAM (assumed to be auwfully slow).
And I second Dre on the fact that you'll have to provide yourself glue between the Ada library function you'd like to use and existing libraries on the DS (which are hopefully covering most of the hardware stuff).
On a practical plane, it is not possible.
On a theoretical plane, you could use one custom Ada parser (I found this one on the ANTLR site, but it is quite old) in order to translate Ada to C/C++, and then feed that to devkitpro.
However, the effort of building such translator is probably going to be equal (if not higher) to creating the game itself.