I am looking forward to understand, what purpose a memory map serves in embedded system.
How does the function stack differs here, from normal unix system.
Any insights that can help me debug few memory related crashes for embedded system will be helpful.
Embedded systems, especially real-time ones, often have a lot of statically-allocated data, and/or data placed at specific locations in memory. The memory map tells you where these things are, which can be helpful when you run into problems and need to examine the state of the system. For example, you might dump all of memory and then analyze it after the fact; in such a case, the memory map will be rather handy for finding the objects you suspect might be related to the problem.
On the code side, your system might log a hardware exception that points to the address of the instruction where the exception was detected. Looking up the memory locations of functions, combined with a disassembly of the function, can help you analyze such problems.
The details really depend on what kind of embedded system you're building. If you provide more details, people may be able to give better responses.
I am not sure that I understand the question. You seem to be suggesting that a "memory map" is something unique to embedded systems or that it is a tangible software component. It is neither; it is merely a description of the layout of an application's memory usage.
All applications will have a memory map regardless of platform, the difference is that typically on an embedded system the application is linked as a single monolithic entity, so that the resultant memory layout refers to the entire system rather than an individual process as it might in an application on a GPOS platform.
It is the linker and the linker script that determines memory mapping, and your linker will be able to output a map report file that describes the layout and allocation applied. This is true of embedded and desktop applications regardless of OS or architecture.
The memory map for a RTOS is not that much different than the memory map for any computer. It defines which hardware resides at which of the processor's addresses. That hardware may be RAM, ROM, Flash, serial ports, parallel ports, timers, interrupt vectors, or any number of other parts addressable by the processor.
The memory map also describes how you intend to budget for limited resources such as RAM, ROM, or Flash in your system design.
For instance, if there's multiple tasks running, RAM might be mapped so that each task has it's own specific area of RAM allocated to it.
In turn, each tasks's part of RAM would be mapped so that there are specific areas for the stack, another for static variables, and perhaps more again for heap(s).
When you have an operating system on the target, it looks after a lot of this dynamically. However, if your application is the only software on the device, you'll have to manage these decisions yourself, usually at compile/link time. Search "link scripts" for further clues,
The Memory map is a layout of memory of system. It is present in both embedded systems and normal applications. Though it is present in normal applications, it's usage is well appreciated in embedded systems due to system constraints.
Memory map is managed by means of linker scripts or linker command files. It maps resources like Flash or Internal RAM(L1P,L1D,L2,L3) or External RAM(DDR) or ROM or peripherals (ports,serial,parallel,USB etc) or specific device registers or I/O ports with appropriate fixed addresses in the memory space of the system.
In case of embedded systems, based on the memory configuration or constraints of board and performance requirements, the segments like text segment or data segment or BSS can also be placed in the appropriate memory of choice.
There are occasions where various versions of development boards will have different configurations of memory and peripherals. In that case, we may need to edit the linker scripts according to memory configuration and peripherals of the board as an essential check-point in board bring-up.
Memory map can help in defining the shared memory too that can play a key role in multi-threaded applications and also for multi-core applications.
Crashes can be debugged by back tracing the address of crash and mapping it to the memory of the system to get an high level idea of the possible library or object causing the problem.
Related
I've learned that a process has the following structure in memory:
(Image from Operating System Concepts, page 82)
However, it is not clear to me what decides that a process looks like this. I guess processes could (and do?) look different if you have a look at non-standard OS / architectures.
Is this structure decided by the OS? By the compiler of the program? By the computer architecture? A combination of those?
Related and possible duplicate: Why do stacks typically grow downwards?.
On some ISAs (like x86), a downward-growing stack is baked in. (e.g. call decrements SP/ESP/RSP before pushing a return address, and exceptions / interrupts push a return context onto the stack so even if you wrote inefficient code that avoided the call instruction, you can't escape hardware usage of at least the kernel stack, although user-space stacks can do whatever you want.)
On others (like MIPS where there's no implicit stack usage), it's a software convention.
The rest of the layout follows from that: you want as much room as possible for downward stack growth and/or upward heap growth before they collide. (Or allowing you to set larger limits on their growth.)
Depending on the OS and executable file format, the linker may get to choose the layout, like whether text is above or below BSS and read-write data. The OS's program loader must respect where the linker asks for sections to be loaded (at least relative to each other, for executables that support ASLR of their static code/data/BSS). Normally such executables use PC-relative addressing to access static data, so ASLRing the text relative to the data or bss would require runtime fixups (and isn't done).
Or position-dependent executables have all their segments loaded at fixed (virtual) addresses, with only the stack address randomized.
The "heap" isn't normally a real thing, especially in systems with virtual memory so each process can have their own private virtual address space. Normally you have some space reserved for the stack, and everything outside that which isn't already mapped is fair game for malloc (actually its underlying mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS) system calls) to choose when allocating new pages. But yes even modern glibc's malloc on modern Linux does still use brk() to move the "program break" upward for small allocations, increasing the size of "the heap" the way your diagram shows.
I think this is recommended by some committee and then tools like GCC conform to that recommendation. Binary format defines these segments and operating system and its tools facilitate the process of that format to run on system. lets say ELF is recommended by system V and then adopted by unix; and gcc produce the ELF binaries to be run on unix. so i feel story may start from binary format as it decides about memory mappings(code, data/heap/stack). binary format,among other hacks, defines memory mappings to be mapped for loading programs. As for example ELF defines segments (arrange code in text,data,stack to be loaded in memory), GCC generates that segments of ELF binary while loader loads these segments. operating system also has freedom in adjusting the values of these segments like stack size. These are debatable loud thoughts which I try to consolidate.
That figure represents a a specific implementation or an idealized one. A process does not necessarily have that structure. On many systems a process looks only somewhat similar to what is in the diagram.
The flat memory model(linear memory model) provides maximum execution speed, occupies minimum CPU real estate and has direct access to memory without any segmentation / paging. It seems that flat memory model is ideal for small realtime application or single threaded realtime application.
However, is it possible to use real-time application that is multi-threaded/multi-tasking along with requirement of high resource allocation/protection in flat memory model ?
Thanks
I don't think the memory model has much to do here, except for the (RT)OS itself which you use to get multi-threading / multi-tasking done.
Paging or segmentation, if provided, is useful for the OS primarily for implementing memory protection features. It is only possible this way that the OS may protect itself and running user mode tasks against improperly written code in others which would accidentally write in memory out of their intended domain. (You can't get memory protection without some kind of paging or segmentation since you can't guard every single memory access)
In 32 bit AVR processors there is even a distinction between Memory management unit (MMU) and Memory protection unit (MPU). The first is the more complex unit supporting those kinds of paging features like modern PC processors (for example even making it possible to realize virtual memory), while the latter is a simpler subset only giving you tools for realizing memory protection (for example by the OS, to protect itself and tasks against each other), while it does not have any remapping capability (by a given address you always access the same cell of memory) like the MMU does. (Why the distinction? Because some cheaper AVR32's, where that's sufficient, only have an MPU)
So on a simple flat memory model what important thing you won't get are the protection features. If you can get by without those, it should go just fine.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Per my understanding, virtual memory is as follows:
Programs/applications/executables reside in a storage device. Storage device access is much slower than RAM. Hence, programs is copied from storage memory to main memory for execution. Since computers have limited main memory (RAM), when all of the RAM is being used (e.g., if there are many programs open simultaneously or if one very large program is in use), a computer with virtual memory enabled will swap data to the HDD and back to memory as needed, thus, in effect, increasing the total system memory.
As far as I know, most embedded devices do not have disk memory (like smartphones or in car infotainment systems). Code is directly executed from Flash memory. RAM is mainly used as a scratchpad area (local variables, return address etc).
So why do we need virtual memory in embedded systems? (e.g. WinCE and QNX support virtual memory)
Your understanding is completely wrong. You are confusing virtual memory with swapping or page files. There are systems that have virtual memory and no swap or page files and there are systems that swap without virtual memory.
Virtual memory just means that a process has a view of memory that is different from the physical mapping. Among other things, it allows processes to have their own virtual address space.
Storage device access is much slower than RAM. Hence programs is copied from storage memory to main memory for execution. Since computers have limited main memory (RAM), when all of the RAM is being used (e.g., if there are many programs open simultaneously or if one very large program is in use), a computer with virtual memory enabled will swap data to the HDD and back to memory as needed, thus, in effect, increasing the total system memory.
That's swapping (or paging). It has nothing to do with virtual memory except that most modern operating systems implement swapping using virtual memory. Swapping actually existed before virtual memory.
I think you're probably incorrect about these devices running code directly from flash memory. The read speed of flash is pretty low and RAM is very cheap. My bet is that most of the systems you mention don't run code directly from flash and instead use virtual memory to fault code into RAM as needed.
embedded systems, the term itself has a wide range of applications. you could call a small microcontroller with flash program space measured in kbytes or less and ram measured in either bits or bytes (not enough to be kbytes) an embedded system. Likewise a tivo running a full blown operating system on a pretty much full blown computer motherboard (replace tivo with xbox as another example) as an embedded system. So you need to be less vague about your question. virtual memory has little to do with any of that its applications cross those boundaries.
There are many answers above, David S has the best of course that virtual memory simply means the memory address on one side of the virtual memory boundary is different than the physical address that is used on the other side of that boundary. Where, how, why, etc is there a boundary varies.
A popular use for virtual memory, and I might argue a primary use case is for operating systems. One benefit is that for example all applications could be compiled for the same address space, all applications might be compiled such that from the programs perspective they all start at say address 0x8000, and as far as that program when it runs and accesses memory it accesses stuff based on that address. A combination of the hardware and the operating system change that virtual address that the program is using to a physical address. If the operating system allows for multitasking, then each task might think they are in the same address space but the physical addresses are different for each of those tasks. I wont elaborate further on why using an assumed, fixed address space, is a benefit. Another aspect that operating systems use is memory management. Many MMU's will let you segment the memory however. If a user wants to allocate 100 Megabytes of memory the program may access in its virtual address space that 100 meg as if it were linear and in that address space it is linear, but that 100 meg might be broken down into say 4Kbyte chunks that are scattered all about the physical address space, not always likely but certainly technically possible that no two chunks of that physical memory is next to any other chunk of that 100 meg. your memory management doesnt necessarily have to try to keep large physical chunks of memory available for applications to allocate. Note not all MMUs are exactly the same and 4Kbytes is just an example. A third major benefit from virtual address space to an operating system is protection. If the application is bound to the virtual address space, it is often quite easy to prevent that application from touching the memory of any other application or the operating system. the application in this case would operate/execute at a proection level such that all accesses are considered virtual and have to go through a translation to physical, the tables that are used to define that virtual to physical can contain protection flags. If the application addresses a memory address in its virtual space that it has no business accessing, the hardware can trap that and let the operating system take action as to how to handle it (virtualize some hardware, pop up an error and kill the app, pop up a warning and not kill the app but at the same time feed the app bogus data for their transaction, etc).
There are lots of ways this can be used in an embedded system. first off many embedded systems run operating systems, so all of the above, ease of compiling the program for the address space, relative ease of memory management, and protection of the other applications and operating system and other benefits not mentioned. (virtualization being one, being able to enable/disable instruction/data caching on a block by block basis is another)
The bottom line though is what David S pointed out. virtual memory simply means the virtual address is not necessarily equal to the physical address, it can be but doesnt have to be, there is some boundary, some hardware, usually table driven, that translates the virtual address into a physical address. Lots of reasons why you would want to do this, since some embedded systems are indistinguishable from non-embedded systems any reason that applies to a non-embedded system can apply to an embedded system.
As much as folks may want you to believe that a system has a flat address space, it is often an illusion. In a microcontroller for example you might have multiple flash banks and one or more ram banks. Each of these banks has a physical, generally zero based address. Even if there is no mmu or anything else like that there is a place somewhere between the address bus on the processor and the address bus on the flash or ram memory that decodes the address on the processor and uses that to address into the specific memory bank. Often the lower bits match and upper bits are responsible for the bank choices (this is often the case with an mmu as well) so in that sense the processor is living in a virtual address space. (not limited to microcontrollers, this is generally how processors address busses are treated) With microcontrollers depending on a pin being pulled high or low or some other mechanism you might have a chip feature that allows one flash bank to be used to boot the processor or another. You might tie an input pin high and the processors built in bootloader allows you to access and debug the system for example reprogram the application flash. Or perhaps tie that line low and boot the application flash instead of the vendors debugger/boot flash. some chips get even more complicated letting you boot one flash then the program writes a register somewhere instantly changing the memory architecture moving things around, for example allowing ram to be used for the interrupt vector table so your application can be changed after boot rather than a vector table in flash that is not as easy to change at will.
now when you talk about virtual memory as far as swapping to and from a disk, that is a trick often employed by operating systems to give the illusion of having more ram. I mentioned that above under the category of virtualization. virtual memory in the sense that it isnt really there, I have X bytes but will let the software think there are Y bytes (where Y is larger than X) available. The operating system through the virtual tables used by the hardware, manages which memory chunks are tied to physical ram and are allowed to complete as is by the hardware, or are marked as not available in some way, causing an exception to the operating system, upon inspection the operating system determines that this is a valid address for this application, but the data behind this address has been swapped to disk. The operating system then finds through some algorithm another chunk of ram belonging to whomever (part of the algorithm) and it copies that chunk of ram to disk, marks the table related to that virtual to physical as not valid, then copies the desired chunk from disk to ram, marks that chunk as valid and lets the hardware complete the memory cycle.
Not any different than say how vmware or other virtual machines work. You can execute instructions natively on the hardware using virtual memory until such time as you cause an exception, the virtual machine might think you have an xyz network interface and might have a driver that is accessing a register in that xyz network interface, but the reality is you have no xyz hardware and/or you dont want the virtual machine applications to access that hardware, so you virtualize it, you trap that register access, and using software that simulates the hardware you fake that access and let the program on the virtual machine continue. This obviously not the only way to do virtual machines, but it is one way if the hardware supports it, to let a virtual machine run very fast as a percentage of the time it is actually running instructions on the hardware. The slowest way to virtualize of course is to virtualize everything including the processor, every instruction in that case would be simulated, this is quite slow but has its own features (virtualizing an arm system on an x86 or x86 on an arm, xyz on an abc, fill in the blanks). And if that is the type of virtual memory you are talking about in an embedded system, well if the embedded system is for the most part indistinguishable from a non-embedded system (an xbox or tivo for example) then well for the same reasons you could allow such a thing. If you were on a microcontroller, well the use cases there would generally mean if you needed more memory you would buy a bigger microcontroller, or add more memory to the system ,or change the needs of the application such that it doesnt need as much memory. there may be exceptions, but it mostly depends on your application and requirements, a general purpose or general purpose like system which allows for applications or their data to be larger than the available ram, will require some sort of solution. the microcontroller in your keyless entry key fob thing or in your tv remote control or clock radio or whatever normally would not have a need to allow "applications" to require more resources than are physically there.
The more important benefit of using virtual memory is that every process gets its own address space which is isolated from every other process's. That way virtual memory helps keep faults contained and improves security and stability. I should note that it is still possible for two processes to share a bit of memory, to facilitate communication (shared mem IPC).
Also you can do other tricks like conserving memory via mapping shared parts into more than one process's (libc comes to mind for embedded use) address space but only having it once in physical mem. Also this gives it a speed boost, you can even enhance it further the way linux does cheapen fork/clone by only copying the in kernel descriptors and leaving the memory image alone up until the first write access is done with a similar idea.
As a last benefit, in modern systems, it's common to do file I/O via mapping the file into the process space (cf. mmap for example).
It's interesting to note that one can get some of the benefits of "virtual memory" without needing a full-fledged MMU. The hardware requirements can sometimes be amazingly light. The PIC 16C505 has a 5-bit address space and 40 bytes of RAM; addresses 0x10 to 0x1F can map to either of two groups of 16 bytes of RAM. When writing an application which needed to manage two different data streams, I arranged so that all the variables associated with one data stream would be in the first group of 16 "switchable" memory locations, and those associated with the other would be at the corresponding addresses in the second group. I could then use the same code to manage both data streams. Simply set the banking bit one way, call the routine, set it the other way, and call the routine again.
One of the reasons Virtual Memory exists is so that your device can multitask. It can also act as your RAM does, thus taking the load off of your physical RAM and swapping the load back and forth.
I have a doubt regarding the reset due to power up:
As I know that microcontroller is hardwired to start with some particular memory location say 0000H on power up. At 0000h, whether interrupt service routine is written for reset(initialization of stack pointer and program counter etc) or the reset address is there at 0000h(say 7000) so that micro controller jumps at 7000 address and there initialization of stack and PC is written.
Who writes this reset service routine? Is it the manufacturer of microcontroller chip(Intel or microchip etc) or any programmer can change this reset service routine(For example, programmer changed the PC to 4000h from 7000h on power up reset resulting into the first instruction to be fetched from 4000 instead of 7000).
How the stack pointer and program counter are initialized to the respective initial addresses as on power up microcontroller is not in the state to put the address into stack pointer and program counter registers(there is no initialization done till reset service routine).
What should be the steps in the reset service routine considering all possibilities?
With reference to your numbering:
The hardware reset process is processor dependent and will be fully described in the data sheet or reference manual for the part, but your description is generally the case - different architectures may have subtle variations.
While some microcontrollers include a ROM based boot-loader that may contain start-up code, typically such bootloaders are only used to load code over a communications port, either to program flash memory directly or to load and execute a secondary bootloader to RAM that then programs flash memory. As far as C runtime start-up goes, this is either provided with the compiler/toolchain, or you write it yourself in assembler. Normally even when start-up code is provided by the compiler vendor, it is supplied as source to be assembled and linked with your application. The compiler vendor cannot always know things like memory map, SDRAM mapping and timing, or processor clock speed or what oscillator crystal is used in your hardware, so the start-up code will generally need customisation or extension through initialisation stubs that you must implement for your hardware.
On ARM Cortex-M devices in fact the initial PC and stack-pointer are in fact loaded by hardware, they are stored at the reset address and loaded on power-up. However in the general case you are right, the reset address either contains the start-up code or a vector to the start-up code, on pre-Cortex ARM architectures, the reset address actually contains a jump instruction rather than a true vector address. Either way, the start-up code for a C/C++ runtime must at least initialise the stack pointer, initialise static data, perform any necessary C library initialisation and jump to main(). In the case of C++ it must also execute the constructors of any global static objects before calling main().
The processor cores normally have as you say a starting address of some sort of table either a list of addresses or like ARM a place where instructions are executed. Wrapped around that core but within the chip can vary. Cores that are not specific to the chip vendor like 8051, mips, arm, xscale, etc are going to have a much wider range of different answers. Some microcontroller vendors for example will look at strap pins and if the strap is wired a certain way when reset is released then it executes from a special boot flash inside the chip, a bootloader that you can for example use to program the user boot flash with. If the strap is not tied that certain way then sometimes it boots your user code. One vendor I know of still has it boot their bootloader flash, if the vector table has a valid checksum then they jump to the reset vector in your vector table otherwise they sit in their bootloader mode waiting for you to talk to them.
When you get into the bigger processors, non-microcontrollers, where software lives outside the processor either on a boot flash (separate chip from the processor) or some ram that is managed somehow before reset, etc. Those usually follow the rule for the core, start at address 0xFFFFFFF0 or start at address 0x00000000, if there is garbage there, oh well fire off the undefined instruction vector, if that is garbage just hang there or sit in an infinite loop calling the undefined instruction vector. this works well for an ARM for example you can build a board with a boot flash that is erased from the factory (all 0xFFs) then you can use jtag to stop the arm and program the flash the first time and you dont have to unsolder or socket or pre-program anything. So long as your bootloader doesnt hang the arm you can have an unbrickable design. (actually you can often hold the arm in reset and still get at it with the jtag debugger and not worry about bad code messing with jtag pins or hanging the arm core).
The short answer: How many different processor chip vendors have there been? There are many different solutions, as many as you can think of and more have been deployed. Placing a reset handler address in a known place in memory is the most common though.
EDIT:
Questions 2 and 3. if you are buying a chip, some of the microcontrollers have this protected bootloader, but even with that normally you write the boot code that will be used by the product. And part of that boot code is to initialize the stack pointers and prepare memory and bring up parts of the chip and all those good things. Sometimes chip vendors will provide examples. if you are buying a board level product, then often you will find a board support package (BSP) which has working example code to bring up the board and perhaps do a few things. Say the beagleboard for example or the open-rd or embeddedarm.com come with a bootloader (u-boot or other) and some already have linux pre-installed. boards like that the user usually just writes some linux apps/drivers and adds them to the bsp, but you are not limited to that, you are often welcome to completely re-write and replace the bootloader. And whoever writes the bootloader has to setup the stacks and bring up the hardware, etc.
systems like the gameboy advance or nds or the like, the vendor has some startup code that calls your startup code. so they may have the stack and such setup for them but they are handing off to you, so much of the system may be up, you just get to decide how to slice up the memorires, where you want your stack, data, program, etc.
some vendors want to keep this stuff controlled or a secret, others do not. in some cases you may end up with a board or chip with no example code, just some data sheets and reference manuals.
if you want to get into this business though you need to be prepared to write this startup code (in assembler) that may call some C code to bring up the rest of the system, then that might start up the main operating system or application or whatever. Microcotrollers sounds like what you are playing with, the answers to your questions are in the chip vendors users guides, some vendors are better than others. search for the word reset or boot in the document to try to figure out what their boot schemes are. I recommend you use "dollar votes" to choose the better vendors. A vendor with bad docs, secret docs, bad support, dont give them your money, spend your money on vendors with freely downloadable, well written docs, with well written examples and or user forums with full time employees trolling around answering questions. There are times where the docs are not available except to serious, paying customers, it depends on the market. most general purpose embedded systems though are openly documented. the quality varies widely, but the docs, etc are there.
Depends completely on the controller/embedded system you use. The ones I've used in game development have the IP point at a starting address in RAM. The boot strap code supplied from the compiler initializes static/const memory, sets the stack pointer, and then jumps execution to a main() routine of some sort. Older systems also started at a fixed address, but you manually had to set the stack, starting vector table, and other stuff in assembler. A common name for the starting assembler file is CRT0.s for the stuff I've done.
So 1. You are correct. The microprocessor has to start at some fixed address.
2. The ISR can be supplied by the manufacturer or compiler creator, or you can write one yourself, depending on the complexity of the system in question.
3. The stack and initial programmer counter are usually handled via some sort of bootstrap routine that quite often can be overriden with your own code. See above.
Last: The steps will depend on the chip. If there is a power interruption of any sort, RAM may be scrambled and all ISR vector tables and startup code should be rewritten, and the app should be run as if it just powered up. But, read your documentation! I'm sure there is platform specific stuff there that will answer these for your specific case.
I basically wanted to know what exactly a virtual processor is. At IBM's site they define it as:
"A virtual processor is a representation of a physical processor core to the operating system of a logical partition that uses shared processors. "
I understand that if there are x processors, each of which can simultaneously perform two operations, then the system can perform 2x operations simultaneously. But where does virtual processor fit into this. And i tried looking up the difference between a logical partition and other partitions such as primary but wasn't really sure.
I'd like to draw an analogy between virtual memory and virtual processors.
Start with expectations:
A user program is written against a set of expectation about what the memory looks like (an a nice flat, large, continuous memory model is the best...)
An OS system is written against a set of expectation of how the hardware performs (what CPU protection modes operation are available, how interrupts arrive and are blocked and handled, how to talk to IO devices, etc...)
Realize that expectation can be met directly by the hardware, or by an abstraction layer
Virtual memory is a set of (specialized, not found in simple chips) hardware tools and OS services that fake a user program into thinking that it has that nice, flat, large, continuous memory space, even while the OS is busily dividing the real memory into little piece, and storing some of them on disk, bringing other back, and otherwise making a real hash of it. But your code doesn't care. Everything just works.
A virtual processor system is a set of (specialized, not found in consumer CPUs) hardware tools and hypervisor services that allow your OS to believe it has direct access to one or more processors with the expected protection modes, interrupts, etc. even though the hypervisor is busily swapping whole OS contexts onto and off of one or more real processors, starting and stopping access to IO busses, and so on and so forth. But the OS doesn't care. Everything just works.
The hardware support to do this is has only recently started to be available in "desktop" CPUs, but Big Iron has had it for ages. It is useful for a couple of reasons
Protection. In a properly protected OS, it is tough for one processes or user to spy on another. But since they can be resident in the same context, it may still be possible. Virtualizing OSs divides them by another, even thinner channel and makes it that much harder for data to leak, and malicious things to be done.
Robustness. If you can swap OS contexts in and out you migrate them from one machine to anther and checkpoint and restart. Which allows for computers that detect failures on their own processors and recover gracefully.
These are the things (aside from millions of LOC of heavily debugged, mission critical code) that have kept people paying for Big Iron.