I'll look for a BSD printf.

Regarding, the pragma message, its not necessary but I was try to inform the user that they need to enable its support in the kernel to use this code. What would you suggest.


On Thu, Jul 9, 2015, 9:11 PM Anna Lyons <Anna.Lyons@nicta.com.au> wrote:
Hi Wink,

You might want to take note of licensing, particularly relating to your
libsel4printf - the kernel is GPL, so your libsel4printf has to be GPL,
which means any userspace that uses this library must be all GPL. Our
userspace is generally BSD. Not sure if this is a problem for you, but
it may limit others use of this library.

Additionally, is this line necessary?
https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4benchmark/blob/master/include/sel4/benchmark.h#L51

CONFIG_BENCHMARK is generally not defined unless benchmarking, which
isn't the normal case. We don't really want to pollute build output.

Cheers,
Anna.

On 10/07/2015 11:32 am, Wink Saville wrote:
> Things are working for me, I've created pull requests for:
>
> seL4: https://github.com/seL4/seL4/pull/16
> lisel4test: https://github.com/seL4/libsel4test/pull/1
> libsel4allocman: https://github.com/seL4/libsel4allocman/pull/1
> libsel4utils: https://github.com/seL4/libsel4utils/pull/2
>
> In addition, these new libraries are needed to streamline libsel4 are here:
>
> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4assert
> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4benchmark
> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4printf
> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4putchar
> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4
> <https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4putchar>startstop
>
> And I have these apps which I used to test individual features for nolibc:
>
> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4_app-min-app
> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4-app-hi
> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4-app-helloworld
> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4-app-bootinfo
> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4-app-assert
> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4-app-myassert
>
> And this app combines the above into a single test:
>
> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4-app-test-nolibc
>
> Finally, here is an issue I created:
>
> https://github.com/seL4/seL4/issues/15
>
> Thanks for considering this work.
>
> -- Wink
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:01 PM Wink Saville <wink@saville.com> wrote:
>
>> I've created an issue for this change (
>> https://github.com/seL4/seL4/issues/15).
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:49 PM Wink Saville <wink@saville.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've addressed the comments from both Matthew and Adrian.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/winksaville/seL4/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>
>>> I've made the change for seL4_CompileTimeAssert to incorporate
>>> the extern of compile_time_assert style. I used just the "no
>>> _Static_assert" path for now and didn't define _Static_assert to keep
>>> things simple. We should consider only having one version.
>>>
>>> Also, for now I've left in the declaration of __assert_fail, since that
>>> seems "better" to me. But I'm certainly not strong on that decision and
>>> will do whatever people want.
>>>
>>> -- Wink
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:34 PM Wink Saville <wink@saville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Working on Mattew's suggestion too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:17 PM Matthew Fernandez <
>>>> matthew.fernandez@nicta.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle, so I'll stop objecting to
>>>>> this change wholesale ;) but
>>>>> just some nitpicks of my own... By the way, is there an open PR for
>>>>> this so we can comment inline?
>>>>>
>>>>>   * The changes you've made to syscall_stub_gen.py seem to indicate
>>>>> that you expect this to be run
>>>>> in two environments, "sel4" and "libsel4." By their names, I would
>>>>> guess these are the kernel and
>>>>> userspace, respectively. However, as far as I'm aware, this script is
>>>>> only used for generating
>>>>> userspace stubs. Have I misunderstood the purpose of this? These
>>>>> changes are also a bit messy,
>>>>> leaving existing code in place but commented out.
>>>>>
>>>>>   * You remove the following comment from types.h: "/*
>>>>> seL4_ARM_PageCacheable |
>>>>> seL4_ARM_ParityEnabled */" Looking at this comment, I think it's on the
>>>>> wrong line (should pertain
>>>>> to seL4_ARM_Default_VMAttributes), but it shouldn't be removed. I think
>>>>> it must have been bumped
>>>>> accidentally during a previous merge.
>>>>>
>>>>>   * You change the header guards on benchmark.h. Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>   * Does __assert_fail even need to be prototyped? It looks like the
>>>>> only things that refer to it
>>>>> are conditionally defined macros. The alternatives of (a) prototyping
>>>>> it and expecting it to be
>>>>> provided externally or (b) not prototyping it at all both seem a bit
>>>>> fraught. I'm unsure which is
>>>>> preferable.
>>>>>
>>>>>   * Your definition of a compile-time assertion uses a typedef. I
>>>>> realise this matches the kernel's
>>>>> definition, but in the systems I build I found this did not reliably
>>>>> trigger a compiler error on
>>>>> failure. This was my motivation for modifying libutils' compile-time
>>>>> assertion [0] to be an extern
>>>>> declaration. I found this to be more reliable in practice. What are
>>>>> other people's
>>>>> thoughts/experiences about this?
>>>>>
>>>>>   * You define the STR_JOIN macro which never seems to be used.
>>>>> Oversight?
>>>>>
>>>>>   * The usage information you've added to syscall_stub_gen.py indicates
>>>>> -e is an alias for
>>>>> --environment, which it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> [0]:
>>>>> https://github.com/seL4/libutils/blob/master/include/utils/compile_time.h#L32-33
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/15 10:48, Adrian Danis wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Wink,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Change is looking good. Now I just have a couple of minor nitpicks
>>>>> that I might as well mention now
>>>>>> before you try and do a pull request
>>>>>> * In Kconfig you change 'default y' to 'default n', why?
>>>>>> * There are changes to the Makefile to add arch .c files as well as
>>>>> .S files, I believe these are
>>>>>> now all gone from the change again?
>>>>>> * There is no reason to have a distinction between a
>>>>> CompileTimeAssert and a DebugCompileTimeAssert.
>>>>>> Compile time asserts add no run time over head or memory overhead, so
>>>>> they should always be tested,
>>>>>> regardless of debug mode or not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything else looks good to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding __assert_fail, I'm fine with it being an 'int' for now. We
>>>>> can change it in the future,
>>>>>> but given line counts should stay <2^31 this shouldn't cause any
>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/07/15 10:42, Wink Saville wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've attempted to address all of your comments but I have one small
>>>>> concern. I originall defined
>>>>>>> __assert_fail in libs/libsel4/include/sel4/assert.h as with line as
>>>>> an unsigned int:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     void __assert_fail(const char*  str, const char* file, unsigned
>>>>> int line, const char* function);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in libs/libmuslc/include/assert.h its a "regular" int:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   void __assert_fail (const char *, const char *, int, const char *);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I had to change it so as not to get a compile error. I'd chosen
>>>>> unsigned int because that's how
>>>>>>> it was in the kernel and looking on the internet I seehere
>>>>>>> <
>>>>> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.1/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/baselib---assert-fail-1.html
>>>>>> ,in
>>>>>>> the linux documentation, its also unsigned int. Hence, this could be
>>>>> problematic in the future, so
>>>>>>> we may want to make it __sel4_assert_fail or some such, your call.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Wink
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/seL4/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4test/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4allocman/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4utils/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4test/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4assert
>>>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4benchmark
>>>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4printf
>>>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4putchar
>>>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4startstop
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:39 AM Adrian Danis <
>>>>> Adrian.Danis@nicta.com.au
>>>>>>> <mailto:Adrian.Danis@nicta.com.au>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Hi Wink,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I started reading the commit to the kernel
>>>>>>>     (
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/seL4/commit/c25d8e1af9126e242e220164e30a5ef6c1b132b9)
>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>     liked a lot of it, but I still have a few comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     * You appear to have added several files to the top level of the
>>>>> include directory and
>>>>>>>     prefixed them with 'sel4_' to try and prevent header name
>>>>> collisions. Why not put them in the
>>>>>>>     'sel4' subdirectory like we already do (here and in all our
>>>>> other libraries)? In doing this
>>>>>>>     you have left headers, for backwards compatibility I assume, in
>>>>> the sel4 directory that then
>>>>>>>     include new ones in the top level directory. This all makes no
>>>>> sense to me.
>>>>>>>     * I still do not like the way you are implementing assert. In my
>>>>> last e-mail I said to define
>>>>>>>     libsel4_assert to __assert_fail and then let the application be
>>>>> responsible for providing
>>>>>>>     __assert_fail. The main motivation for doing this is that in the
>>>>> case that you *are* using a C
>>>>>>>     library you need to do nothing to handle this change, as it will
>>>>> have a link time
>>>>>>>     implementation of __assert_fail.
>>>>>>>     * Why is there a prototype for halt in libsel4? It seems to
>>>>> exist because it is referenced by
>>>>>>>     your libsel4_start routines. Neither of these should be in
>>>>> libsel4
>>>>>>>     * I do not mind a definition of NULL in libsel4, but you seem to
>>>>> have renamed all the uses of
>>>>>>>     NULL->seL4_NULL and then left the definition of NULL in
>>>>> sel4_simple_types.h anyway. Either use
>>>>>>>     define NULL or seL4_NULL, not both
>>>>>>>     * sel4_vargs.h seems to be left over from some previous attempt
>>>>> at this change, but I don't
>>>>>>>     see it referenced anywhere in libsel4 itself
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The rest of the changes all good, including the syscall_stub_gen
>>>>> and bitfield_gen changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     What I would keep in mind with this change is that I would hope
>>>>> that applications that do use
>>>>>>>     a C library to require zero modifications with this change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On 07/07/15 18:13, Wink Saville wrote:
>>>>>>>>     I've got sel4test running with libsel4 not having a dependency
>>>>> on libc. I've pulled out
>>>>>>>>     libsel4assert, libsel4benchmark, libsel4printf and
>>>>> libsel4putchar from libsel4 and they are
>>>>>>>>     separate libraries
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     The biggest change is to seL4/libsel4 and
>>>>> sel4/tools/bitfield_gen.py. The changes to
>>>>>>>>     bitfield_gen.py allow it to generate the same code as before
>>>>> for the kernel but uses the new
>>>>>>>>     names for entities in user space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Please let me know what you think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     -- Wink
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/seL4/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4test/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4allocman/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4utils/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/winksaville/sel4test/tree/libsel4-no-libc-dependency
>>>>>>>>     https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4assert
>>>>>>>>     https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4benchmark
>>>>>>>>     https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4printf
>>>>>>>>     https://github.com/winksaville/libsel4putchar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>     Devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>     Devel@sel4.systems  <mailto:Devel@sel4.systems>
>>>>>>>>     https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject
>>>>> to legal professional privilege
>>>>>>>     and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no
>>>>> liability for any damage caused by
>>>>>>>     this email or its attachments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>>> Devel@sel4.systems
>>>>>> https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal
>>>>> professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited
>>>>> accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments.
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel@sel4.systems
> https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel
>


________________________________

The information in this e-mail may be confidential and subject to legal professional privilege and/or copyright. National ICT Australia Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments.

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@sel4.systems
https://sel4.systems/lists/listinfo/devel