Hi, is it possible to make gcc make relative functioncalls only? Situation is as following: I'm developing a core system, with functions to put graphic on a display, interpret user input etc. Some other guy (probably me too...) is coding an app for that system. This app is later written into the flash (the free part where the core system isn't). So neither the coderguy, nor the compiler/linker will know the future position of the code. This will make jumps to absolute addresses impossible. If any questions are left, feel free to ask. Greetings, Lasse PS: Cortex-M3, STM32F103, Codesourcery GCC
I've been looking for something like this for a long time. There appears to be a "-fPIC" (Position Independent Code) switch in GCC. But there is not much documentation about it, neither in general nor for ARM architectures. Some descriptions claim that special tables are created and a register is reserved for a base address - but details are missing. Maybe "fPIC" works for certain other architectures only. So if anybody knows something....? Axel
So, you are basically coding API's? I use software interrupts for this. Will those work for you?
How would this solve the problems - the code still has to run from an unknown location. Axel
Yepp, it's going to be an api. And yes, I'm going to use the service calls for that. But, as axel has already pointed out, it's not really helping with the problem. Our problem is concerning the program, not the api. Ah, sorry, forgot to answer to your idea, Axel: -fpic / -fPIC seems to be doing exactly, what we want. You actually do find some information about it, eg. here: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html or in the gcc help, sections "options". Greetings, Lasse
Oh, I must have misunderstood -- so the goal is to create a relocatable library? Presumably you have some sort of loader that at least knows where the library is at runtime. If nobody ever knows where the library is, either at runtime or compile time, then you will be in trouble :) I have plenty of experience with software interrupts but none with relocatable libraries...best of luck! --Bill
Hi, it seemed so perfect, but it doesn't work. Code output is identical to compiling without -fPIC, my disassembly looks like:
1 | 0x0800185c <func+8>: bl 0x8001840 <func2> |
so no PIC at all. Has anyone got an(other) idea? Reading in the CodeSourcery List [1], i've found out, that this seems to be a bug in their compiler. But is that bug still open (That Message was from 2007)? It actually is listed in their own manual. Greetings Lasse [1]: http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/arm-gnu/msg01476.html
The machine operation BL already is PC-relative even though for your convenience the disassembly shows the calculated target address instead of the displacement. So there is not change to be expected from -fPIC at this place. The message refers to indirect function calls in C++ which are a little more complicated to make position independant.
Thanks alot, that's good news! :) Is there a way to get the listing be correct (with relative address)? I can't find such an option. Lasse
Obtain an assembly listing by -Wa,-a, then decode the instruction (low order 24 bits sign extended and multiplied by 4).
Lasse S. wrote: > Is there a way to get the listing be correct (with relative address)? I > can't find such an option. Alternatively you may want to install a free-as-in-beer evaluation version of Keil's MDK and use the command "fromelf -c <object>" to obtain a disassembled listing. All PC-relative branches will be displayed as such:
1 | 0x00000028: 3a000008 ...: BCC {pc}+0x28 ; 0x50 |
-- Marcus
Marcus Harnisch wrote:
1 | 0x00000028: 3a000008 ...: BCC {pc}+0x28 ; 0x50 |
Which however also is a convenience display mode, just a different one, because the real offset is 8*4=0x20, based on PC+8 ;-).
A. K. wrote: > Which however also is a convenience display mode, just a different one, > because the real offset is 8*4=0x20, based on PC+8 ;-). Of course, but within the listing numbers are consistent. Classical difference between user friendly and expert friendly, I suppose :-) However, the plan to simply decode the lower 24 bits would not really help either, since the OP is targeting a Cortex-M3 which doesn't use the simple ARM encoding that you suggested, but the various Thumb-2 encodings for (conditional) branches, which are rather more complex to deal with. -- Marcus
Please log in before posting. Registration is free and takes only a minute.
Existing account
Do you have a Google/GoogleMail account? No registration required!
Log in with Google account
Log in with Google account
No account? Register here.