I realize this may be a really dumb question. Please humor me:
True or False: The only way to compile a program to run on a VxWorks platform is to purchase a development environment like Tornado or Workbench from WindRiver.
(I'm looking for an free/open-source solution to compile for a VxWorks platform.)
Outside of an academic license (which would use a VxWorks installation anyway), there is not any way to legally compile your code for a vxWorks platform.
Technically, you CAN obtain the GNU toolchain used to compile code for VxWorks.
The issue you will run into is that you won't have access to the header files necessary for compiling your code or the libraries to link against.
One can use a generic GNU cross-compiler to generate ELF files, and load them onto a running VxWorks system using the ld command. However, I don't recommend it for anything beyond proof-of-concept or initial experimentation -- the VxWorks libraries and Wind River's superb documentation of them are both necessary.
On the development host:
powerpc-elf-eabi-gcc -c foo.c
Then on the target-resident shell, that has mounted a filesystem from the development host (for example, over NFS):
-> ld < foo.o
-> main()
(Where the function main() comes from foo.c)
Since VxWorks is proprietary, they made it so you need their tools (Workbench/Tornado), which they supply, in order to develop for their OS.
Related
I have an embedded project for ARM platform, specifically aarch64.
Up until now I was using Make. I recently set up CMake with no particular issues.
I moved to CMake because I was under the impression it was a more modern build tool that would have allowed a smarter configuration.
For example, I can compile my project using different toolchains (aarch64-elf-gcc-linaro, aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc,...) and I would like CMake to try if any of those are installed on the system and use whichever is found first by default.
Is this possible (or meant to)? I'd expect it to be an easy feat for the tool, but after searching for a while I can't seem to find the right track.
Yes, you can make your CMake project to search for available tool-chains installed in your OS, choose one and compile your project. I also write a CMake program for ARM embedded project, because now it is universal transferable between different OS system Windows and Unix. On Linux there is ARM ToolChain installed and on Windows there is Keil-MDK. If you have different tool-chains to choose between, you can write CMake script which will find paths with command like find_path() and then call correct "toolchianxx.cmake" script with right compiler flags for chosen compiler.
In your particular problem just use find_path commands and use hits to find installed compilers in "pre-set" known paths.
I'm doing some experiments with an evaluation version of the WindRiver dcc diab compiler. I would like to do some testing on my Windows PC.
However I think I have the wrong target setup.
I've got as far as using the 'dctrl -t' command to get the list of target architectures, but selecting options so far hasn't produced anything i can run on windows.
I'm simply doing:
dcc main.c -o main.exe
Am I missing a step?
do I have the wrong target?
or is it simply not possible to create windows binaries?
I believe that the Diab compiler targets a free-standing environment, so would not produce a Windows executable. Moreover x86 is not a supported target processor in any case; see the product brief.
The compiler is intended for use with VxWorks, though can be separately licensed. The toolchain includes an instruction-set simulator for executing target code in a simulated environment, and if you are using VxWorks, that includes a VxWorks simulator.
If you want to build your code as a native Windows application; you will have to use a Windows targeted compiler. I suggest MinGW/GCC since WindRiver support both their own WindRiver/Diab compiler and GCC for Vxworks development, and they share a great deal of commonality with respect to compiler switches and extension syntax.
We have a storage controller that is used as target, it runs MIPS and has some additional hardware that goes with it. Development is done with Green Hills Compiler. Can we use VALGRIND to perform analysis on the code base ?
If your target is not running Linux or an OS with a POSIX API it is unlikely that you will be able to build and execute Valgrind natively. One possibility is to build your embedded code on Linux in a suitable test harness and execute tests on that.
Having server x86/x64, how best develop software under AIX6/7 on C++?
Someone personally tried to do it and that advise from personal experience:
Can have any IBM compilers for x64, which ensures portability compilation on PowerPC AIX or can be have a virtual machine under Windwos x64 with emulate PowerPC x64 to install AIX and compile under it, or may be better buy cloud's service with AIX to develop and where can I do it?
As I know QEMU does not support AIX.
What do you say about Simics, OVPSim and Bochs or other?
I'm not clear on the question but if you don't have the AIX include files, you are going to have trouble trying to develop code that will compile on AIX. AIX often throws in some oddity that needs to be worked around in the include files.
As far as which compiler, I use gcc. Start by pulling down the gcc from IBM: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/aix/linux/toolbox/ezinstall.html Then pick a GCC and compile it using the GCC you pulled down. Then use the new GCC for your development. An alternative would be to pull down the GCC from perzl: http://www.perzl.org/aix/index.php?n=Main.Gcc -- I've never tried that but I've heard good things about them.
Hope this helps
Update to Alex:
Yes. As mentioned, the gcc supplied by IBM will give you fits but it is good enough to compile your own gcc which will then be very stable. I've written device drivers using C++ for AIX, used g++, and included parts of Boost.
gcc/g++ for AIX is very stable and complete if compiled properly. Aside from that project, I have about 50 open source packages working on AIX. Most are C and not C++ but in general, if you are doing open source, gcc on AIX will give you less obstacles than xlc. Not xlc's fault. Its just what the developers assume. Like perzl, I use to upload my images as installp install images but had no users so I stopped.
Last: the customary warning is to not use GNU's ld. Use AIX's ld and assembler (as) but you can find threads that will contradict this. I have not seriously tried GNUs ld although I took a stab at it once about 6 months ago and then got side tracked.
Two of my projects you might want to look at:
https://github.com/pedz/aix-build-scripts -- this is a (probably hard to follow) set of scripts to start from ground zero and get you rolling compiling open source projects on AIX.
https://github.com/pedz/aixbin -- This is a set of two scripts that I now have ambivalent feelings about. Many open source projects (Ruby in particular) need these scripts but others (GNU Emacs) will fail if they are used.
I am a newbie to embedded developement, as figure shown. I have a small ARM board, AT91SAM7-EX256. I have also a JTAG programmer dongle, too. I am using Linux (Ubuntu x86_32) on my notebook and desktop machine. I'm using CodeSourcery Lite for cross-compiling to ARM-Linux.
Am I right that I can't use this Linux-target cross-compiler to make binary or hex files for the small ARM board (it comes without any operating system)? Should I use the version called ARM EABI instead?
As I see, it's a "generic" ARM compiler. I've read some docs, and there're lot of options to specify the processor type and instruction set (thumb, etc.), there will be no problem with it. But how can I tell the compiler, how should the image (bin/hex) looks like for the specific board (startup, code/data blocks etc.)? (In assemblers, there're the org and load directives for it.)
What software do I need to capture some debug messages from the board on my PC? I don't want to on-board debugging, I just need some detailed run-time signal, more than just blinking leds.
I have an option to use MS-Windows, I can get a dedicated machine for it. Do you recommend it, is it much easier?
Can I use inline assembly somehow in my C code? I dunno anything about that. Can I use C++ or just C?
I have also a question, which don't need to answer: are there really 4096 kind of GNU compilers and cross-compilers (from Linux_x86_32 -> Linux_x86_32, Linux_x86_32 -> Linux_ARM, OSX -> Linux_ARM, PPC_Linux -> OSX) and 16 different GNU compiler sources (as many target platforms/processors exists) around? The signs says "yes", but I can't believe it. Correct me, and show me the GNU compiler which can produce object file for any platform/processor, and the universal linker which can produce executable for any platform.
While Windows is not a "better" platform do this kind of embedded development on, it may be easier to start with since you can get a pre-built environment to work with. For example, Yagarto (which I would recommend).
Setting up an embedded development environment on Linux can require a considerable amount of knowledge, but it's not impossible.
To answer your questions:
Your Linux cross-compiler comes with libraries to build executables for a Linux environment. You have hinted that you want to build a bare-metal executable for this board. While you can do this with your compiler, it will just confuse things. I recommend building a baremetal cross-compiler. Since you're building your own baremetal executable (and thus you are the operating system, the ABI doesn't matter since you're generating all of the code and not interoperating with other previously built code.
There are several versions of the ARM instruction set (and Thumb). You need to generate code for your particular processor. If you generate the code for a newer version of the instruction set, you will likely generate code which generates a reserved instruction exception. Most prebuilt gcc cross-compiler toolchains for ARM are "multilib" and will build for a variety of architectures in both ARM and Thumb.
Not sure exactly what you're looking for here. This is a bare metal platform. You can use the debugger channel to send messages if you're debugging on target, or you'll need to build your own communication channel into the firmware you write (i.e. uart support).
See above.
Yes. See here for details on gcc's extended inline assembly syntax. You can do this in C++ and C. You can also simply link pure assembly files.
There is no universal gcc compiler / linker. You need a uniquely built compiler for each host / target combination you use.
Finally, please take a look at Atmel's documentation. They have a wealth of information on developing for this target as well as a board package with the needed linker directives and example programs. Note of course the package is for Atmel's own eval board, but it will get you started.
http://sam7stuff.blogspot.com/
I use either of the codesourcery lite versions. But I have no use for the gcc library nor a C library, I just need a compiler.
In the gcc 3 days newlib was great, modify two files worth of system support (simple open, close, read, putc type stuff) and you could compile just about anything, but with gcc 4.x you cannot even go back and cross compile gcc 3.x, you have to install an old linux distro in a virtual machine.
To get the gcc library yes you probably want to use the eabi version not the version with linux gnueabi in the file names.
You might also consider llvm (if you dont need a C library, and you will still need binutils), hmm, I wonder if newlib compiles with llvm.
I prefer to avoid getting trapped in sandboxes, learn the tools and how to manipulate the linker, etc to build your binaries.