I am working with IJVM and trying to use the GOTO instruction using a local variable in place of a static offset (or label). It won't work. I suppose it is simply treating the variable name as a label and trying to branch to it, but no such label exists. Is there any way I can force it to read the contents of the variable (which contains an offset), or some other solution?
Thanks in advance.
For security reasons, JVM bytecode doesn't let you jump to arbitrary instructions based on the contents of a variable. This restriction makes it possible for the JVM to verify various security properties of the bytecode by statically enumerating all control paths through a particular method. If you were able to jump anywhere, the static analyzer couldn't prove that all necessary program invariants held.
If you do need to jump to an arbitrary index, consider looking into the tableswitch or lookupswitch instructions, which would let you enumerate possible destinations in advance. It's not exactly what you're looking for, but to the best of my knowledge the sort of arbitrary jump you're trying to make isn't possible in JVM bytecode.
Hope this helps!
The GOTO instruction is implemented in MIC1. It interprets the 2 bytes after the opcode as an offset to the PC at the start of the instruction.
I think that the assignment must be asking you to write a new GOTO in MIC1 that interprets the byte after the opcode as the offset to a local variable that contains the branch offset.
Related
I'm using dexlib2 to programmatically instrument some methods in a dex file, for example, if I find some instructions like this:
invoke-virtual {v8, v9, v10}, Ljava/lang/Class;->getMethod(Ljava/lang/String;[Ljava/lang/Class;)Ljava/lang/reflect/Method;
I'd like to insert an instruction before it, and therefore at runtime I can know the exact arguments of Class.getMethod().
However, now I run into some questions about how to allocate registers to be used in my inserted monitoring instruction?
I know of two ways, but either way has its problems:
I can use DexRewriter to increase the registerCount of this method (e.g from .register 6 to .register 9), so that I can have extra (3) registers to be used. But first this is restricted by 16 registers; second when I increase the registerCount, the parameters will be passed into the last ones, and therefore I have to rewrite all instructions in this method that use parameters, which is tiring.
Or I can reuse registers. This way I have to analysis the liveness of every registers, while dexlib2 seems does not have existing API to construct CFG and def-use chain, which means I have to write it myself.
Besides, I doubt whether by this way I can get enough available registers.
So am I understanding this problem right? are there any existing tools/algorithms to do this? Or any advice that I can do it in a better way?
Thanks.
A few points:
You're not limited to 16 registers in the method. Most instructions can only address the first 16 registers, but there are mov instructions that can can use to swap values out with higher registers
If you can get away with not having to allocate any new registers, your life will be much easier. One approach is to create a new static method with your instrumented logic, and then add a call to that static method with the appropriate values from the target method.
One approach I've seen used is to increase the register count, and then add a series of move instructions at the beginning of the method to move all the parameter registers back down to the same registers they were in before you incremented the register count. This makes it so that you don't have to rewrite all the existing instructions, and guarantees that the new registers at the end of the range are unused. The main annoyance with this approach is when the new registers are v16 or higher, you'll have to do some swaps before and after the point at where they're used to get the value back down into a low register, and then restore whatever was in that register afterward.
You may code like this:
if (it.opcode == Opcode.INVOKE_VIRTUAL || it.opcode == Opcode.INVOKE_STATIC) { logger.warn("${it.opcode.name} ${(it as DexBackedInstruction35c).reference}") }
Format of Opcode.INVOKE_VIRTUAL is Format35c, so the type of instruction is DexBackedInstruction35c.
I'm aware this might be a broad question (there's no specific code for you to look at), but I'm hoping I'd get some insights as to what to do, or how to approach the problem.
To keep things simple, suppose the compiler that I'm writing performs these three steps:
parse (and bind all variables)
typecheck
codegen
Also the language that I'm building the compiler for wants to support late-analysis/late-binding (ie., it has a function that takes a String, which is to be compiled and executed as a piece of source-code during runtime).
Now during parse-phase, I have a piece of context that I need to keep around till run-time for the sole benefit of the aforementioned function (because it needs to parse and typecheck its argument in that context).
So the question, how should I do this? What do other compilers do?
Should I just serialise the context object to disk (codegen for it) and resurrect it during run-time or something?
Thanks
Yes, you'll need to emit the type information (or other context, you weren't very specific) in your object/executable files, so that your eval can read it at runtime. You might look at Java's .class file format for inspiration; Java doesn't have eval as such, but you can dynamically spin new bytecode at runtime that must be linked in a type-safe manner. David Conrad's comment is spot-on: this information can also be used to implement reflection, if your language has such a feature.
That's as much as I can help you without more specifics.
I am programming in elisp, and I would like to associate a symbol with a function such that an attempt to access the variable instead calls the function. In particular, I want to trigger a special error message when lisp code attempts to access a certain variable. Is there a way to do this?
Example: suppose I want the variable current-time to evaluate to whatever (current-time-string) evaluates to at the time the variable is accessed. Is this possible?
Note that I do not control the code that attempts to access the variable, so that code could be compiled, so walking the tree and manually replacing variable accesses with function calls is not really an option.
You are looking for the Common Lisp define-symbol-macro.
Emacs Lisp lacks this feature, you cannot accomplish what you are trying to do.
However, not all is lost if you just want an error on accessing a variable.
Just makunbound it and access will error out (unless, of course, someone else nds it first).
I don't think you can do that.
As Sam says, define-symbol-macro would be the closest thing in Lisp (tho you make it sound like the accesses might be compiled beforehand, in which case even define-symbol-macro would be powerless). The closest thing in Elisp would be cl-symbol-macrolet, but that is even more limiting than define-symbol-macro since it has to be placed lexically around the accesses.
I could not find any good document on internet about STM32 programming. STM's own documents do not explain anything more than register functions. I will greatly appreciate if anyone can explain my following questions?
I noticed that in all example programs that STM provides, local variables for main() are always defined outside of the main() function (with occasional use of static keyword). Is there any reason for that? Should I follow a similar practice? Should I avoid using local variables inside the main?
I have a gloabal variable which is updated within the clock interrupt handle. I am using the same variable inside another function as a loop condition. Don't I need to access this variable using some form of atomic read operation? How can I know that a clock interrupt does not change its value in the middle of the function execution? Should I need to cancel clock interrupt everytime I need to use this variable inside a function? (However, this seems extremely ineffective to me as I use it as loop condition. I believe there should be better ways of doing it).
Keil automatically inserts a startup code which is written in assembly (i.e. startup_stm32f4xx.s). This startup code has the following import statements:
IMPORT SystemInit
IMPORT __main
.In "C", it makes sense. However, in C++ both main and system_init have different names (e.g. _int_main__void). How can this startup code can still work in C++ even without using "extern "C" " (I tried and it worked). How can the c++ linker (armcc --cpp) can associate these statements with the correct functions?
you can use local or global variables, using local in embedded systems has a risk of your stack colliding with your data. with globals you dont have that problem. but this is true no matter where you are, embedded microcontroller, desktop, etc.
I would make a copy of the global in the foreground task that uses it.
unsigned int myglobal;
void fun ( void )
{
unsigned int myg;
myg=myglobal;
and then only use myg for the rest of the function. Basically you are taking a snapshot and using the snapshot. You would want to do the same thing if you are reading a register, if you want to do multiple things based on a sample of something take one sample of it and make decisions on that one sample, otherwise the item can change between samples. If you are using one global to communicate back and forth to the interrupt handler, well I would use two variables one foreground to interrupt, the other interrupt to foreground. yes, there are times where you need to carefully manage a shared resource like that, normally it has to do with times where you need to do more than one thing, for example if you had several items that all need to change as a group before the handler can see them change then you need to disable the interrupt handler until all the items have changed. here again there is nothing special about embedded microcontrollers this is all basic stuff you would see on a desktop system with a full blown operating system.
Keil knows what they are doing if they support C++ then from a system level they have this worked out. I dont use Keil I use gcc and llvm for microcontrollers like this one.
Edit:
Here is an example of what I am talking about
https://github.com/dwelch67/stm32vld/tree/master/stm32f4d/blinker05
stm32 using timer based interrupts, the interrupt handler modifies a variable shared with the foreground task. The foreground task takes a single snapshot of the shared variable (per loop) and if need be uses the snapshot more than once in the loop rather than the shared variable which can change. This is C not C++ I understand that, and I am using gcc and llvm not Keil. (note llvm has known problems optimizing tight while loops, very old bug, dont know why they have no interest in fixing it, llvm works for this example).
Question 1: Local variables
The sample code provided by ST is not particularly efficient or elegant. It gets the job done, but sometimes there are no good reasons for the things they do.
In general, you use always want your variables to have the smallest scope possible. If you only use a variable in one function, define it inside that function. Add the "static" keyword to local variables if and only if you need them to retain their value after the function is done.
In some embedded environments, like the PIC18 architecture with the C18 compiler, local variables are much more expensive (more program space, slower execution time) than global. On the Cortex M3, that is not true, so you should feel free to use local variables. Check the assembly listing and see for yourself.
Question 2: Sharing variables between interrupts and the main loop
People have written entire chapters explaining the answers to this group of questions. Whenever you share a variable between the main loop and an interrupt, you should definitely use the volatile keywords on it. Variables of 32 or fewer bits can be accessed atomically (unless they are misaligned).
If you need to access a larger variable, or two variables at the same time from the main loop, then you will have to disable the clock interrupt while you are accessing the variables. If your interrupt does not require precise timing, this will not be a problem. When you re-enable the interrupt, it will automatically fire if it needs to.
Question 3: main function in C++
I'm not sure. You can use arm-none-eabi-nm (or whatever nm is called in your toolchain) on your object file to see what symbol name the C++ compiler assigns to main(). I would bet that C++ compilers refrain from mangling the main function for this exact reason, but I'm not sure.
STM's sample code is not an exemplar of good coding practice, it is merely intended to exemplify use of their standard peripheral library (assuming those are the examples you are talking about). In some cases it may be that variables are declared external to main() because they are accessed from an interrupt context (shared memory). There is also perhaps a possibility that it was done that way merely to allow the variables to be watched in the debugger from any context; but that is not a reason to copy the technique. My opinion of STM's example code is that it is generally pretty poor even as example code, let alone from a software engineering point of view.
In this case your clock interrupt variable is atomic so long as it is 32bit or less so long as you are not using read-modify-write semantics with multiple writers. You can safely have one writer, and multiple readers regardless. This is true for this particular platform, but not necessarily universally; the answer may be different for 8 or 16 bit systems, or for multi-core systems for example. The variable should be declared volatile in any case.
I am using C++ on STM32 with Keil, and there is no problem. I am not sure why you think that the C++ entry points are different, they are not here (Keil ARM-MDK v4.22a). The start-up code calls SystemInit() which initialises the PLL and memory timing for example, then calls __main() which performs global static initialisation then calls C++ constructors for global static objects before calling main(). If in doubt, step through the code in the debugger. It is important to note that __main() is not the main() function you write for your application, it is a wrapper with different behaviour for C and C++, but which ultimately calls your main() function.
How does a virtual machine generate native machine code on the fly and execute it?
Assuming you can figure out what are the native machine op-codes you want to emit, how do you go about actually running it?
Is it something as hacky as mapping the mnemonic instructions to binary codes, stuffing it into an char* pointer and casting it as a function and executing?
Or would you generate a temporary shared library (.dll or .so or whatever) and load it into memory using standard functions like LoadLibrary ?
You can just make the program counter point to the code you want to execute. Remember that data can be data or code. On x86 the program counter is the EIP register. The IP part of EIP stands for instruction pointer. The JMP instruction is called to jump to an address. After the jump EIP will contain this address.
Is it something as hacky as mapping the mnemonic instructions to binary codes, stuffing it into an char* pointer and casting it as a function and executing?
Yes. This is one way of doing it. The resulting code would be cast to a pointer to function in C.
Is it something as hacky as mapping the mnemonic instructions to binary codes, stuffing it into an char* pointer and casting it as a function and executing?
Yes, if you were doing it in C or C++ (or something similar), that's exactly what you'd do.
It appears hacky, but that's actually an artifact of the language design. Remember, the actual algorithm you want to use is very simple: determine what instructions you want to use, load them into a buffer in memory, and jump to the beginning of that buffer.
If you really try to do this, though, make sure you get the calling convention right when you return to your C program. I think if I wanted to generate code I'd look for a library to take care of that aspect for me. Nanojit's been in the news recently; you could look at that.
Yup. You just build up a char* and execute it. However, you need to note a couple details. The char* must be in an executable section of memory and must have proper alignment.
In addition to nanojit you can also check out LLVM which is another library that's capable of compiling various program representations down to a function pointer. It's interface is clean and the generated code tends to be efficient.
As far as i know it compiles everything in memory because it has to run some heuristics to to optimize the code (i.e.: inlining over time) but you can have a look at the Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure 2.0 rotor release. The whole codebase is identical to .NET except for the Jitter and the GC.
As well as Rotor 2.0 - you could also take a look at the HotSpot virtual machine in the OpenJDK.
About generating a DLL: the additional required I/O for that, plus linking, plus the complexity of generating the DLL format, would make that much more complicate, and above all they'd kill performance; additionally, in the end you still call a function pointer to the loaded code, so...
Also, JIT compilation can happen one method at a time, and if you want to do that you'd generate lots of small DLLs.
About the "executable section" requirement, calling mprotect() on POSIX systems can fix the permissions (there's a similar API on Win32). You need to do that for a big memory segment instead that once per method since it'd be too slow otherwise.
On plain x86 you wouldn't notice the problem, on x86 with PAE or 64bit AMD64/Intel 64 bit machines you'd get a segfault.
Is it something as hacky as mapping
the mnemonic instructions to binary
codes, stuffing it into an char*
pointer and casting it as a function
and executing?
Yes, that works.
To do this in windows you must set PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE to the allocated block:
void (*MyFunc)() = (void (*)()) VirtualAlloc(NULL, sizeofblock, MEM_COMMIT, PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE);
//Now fill up the block with executable code and issue-
MyFunc();