I was reading here: http://asm.sourceforge.net/articles/startup.html#st
Apparently, the stack layout for ELF binaries is like this:
argc Number of arguments, which is the size of argv
argv[0] Program name
------------
argv[1] Arguments that get passed to the program
...
argv[argc-1]
------------
NULL
------------
env[0] Environmental variables
...
env[n]
-----------
NULL
There are two things to notice here, and I think they are a bit inconsistent.
Both argv and env are NULL terminated.
Only argv has a separate variable for the size.
Since they are NULL terminated, argc is strictly speaking not necessary, even if it can make some things a bit easier. Like that you don't have to go through the whole array to find the size. But these benefits also apply for env.
What's the rationale here? Why did they choose different approaches?
I have no special insight into the minds of early Unix designers. But for one thing, there are plenty of situations where you want to know the number of command line arguments, e.g. if (argc < 3) usage();. But I can't think of any situation where you actually care about how many variables are set in the environment. It's understood that the user may have set any number of environment variables which aren't relevant to your program, and that your program should just ignore them. So whether there are 5 or 500 entries in the environment array is not something your program should care about; you should just look for the ones that you have documented as having an effect on your program.
As such, the only reason for having an envc variable would be to do something like
int i;
for (i = 0; i < envc; i++) {
if (strncmp(env[i], "FROB=", strlen("FROB=")) == 0) {
frob();
}
}
But that is just as easily written as
char **p;
for (p = env; *p; p++) {
if (strncmp(*p, "FROB=", strlen("FROB=")) == 0) {
frob();
}
}
On the other hand, if argc weren't provided, then something like if (argc < 3) usage(); would require several more lines of code.
So having argc, which technically not necessary, is convenient; while having envc would be truly redundant.
Related
I'm looking for WP options/model that could allow me to prove basic C memory manipulations like :
memcpy : I've tried to prove this simple code :
struct header_src{
char t1;
char t2;
char t3;
char t4;
};
struct header_dest{
short t1;
short t2;
};
/*# requires 0<=n<=UINT_MAX;
# requires \valid(dest);
# requires \valid_read(src);
# assigns (dest)[0..n-1] \from (src)[0..n-1];
# assigns \result \from dest;
# ensures dest[0..n] == src[0..n];
# ensures \result == dest;
*/
void* Frama_C_memcpy(char *dest, const char *src, uint32_t n);
int main(void)
{
struct header_src p_header_src;
struct header_dest p_header_dest;
p_header_src.t1 = 'e';
p_header_src.t2 = 'b';
p_header_src.t3 = 'c';
p_header_src.t4 = 'd';
p_header_dest.t1 = 0x0000;
p_header_dest.t2 = 0x0000;
//# assert \valid(&p_header_dest);
Frama_C_memcpy((char*)&p_header_dest, (char*)&p_header_src, sizeof(struct header_src));
//# assert p_header_dest.t1 == 0x6265;
//# assert p_header_dest.t2 == 0x6463;
}
but the two last assert weren't verified by WP (with default prover Alt-Ergo). It can be proved thanks to Value analysis, but I mostly want to be able to prove the code not using abstract interpretation.
Cast pointer to int : Since I'm programming embedded code, I want to be able to specify something like:
#define MEMORY_ADDR 0x08000000
#define SOME_SIZE 10
struct some_struct {
uint8_t field1[SOME_SIZE];
uint32_t field2[SOME_SIZE];
}
// [...]
// some function body {
struct some_struct *p = (some_struct*)MEMORY_ADDR;
if(p == NULL) {
// Handle error
} else {
// Do something
}
// } body end
I've looked a little bit at WP's documentation and it seems that the version of frama-c that I use (Magnesium-20151002) has several memory model (Hoare, Typed , +cast, +ref, ...) but none of the given example were proved with any of the model above. It is explicitly said in the documentation that Typed model does not handle pointer-to-int casts. I've a lot of trouble to understand what's really going on under the hood with each wp-model. It would really help me if I was able to verify at least post-conditions of the memcpy function. Plus, I have seen this issue about void pointer that apparently are not very well handled by WP at least in the Magnesium version. I didn't tried another version of frama-c yet, but I think that newer version handle void pointer in a better way.
Thank you very much in advance for your suggestions !
memcpy
Reasoning about the result of memcpy (or Frama_C_memcpy) is out of range of the current WP plugin. The only memory model that would work in your case is Bytes (page 13 of the manual for Chlorine), but it is not implemented.
Independently, please note that your postcondition from Frama_C_memcpy is not what you want here. You are asserting the equality of the sets dest[0..n] and src[0..n]. First, you should stop at n-1. Second, and more importantly, this is far too weak, and is in fact not sufficient to prove the two assertions in the caller. What you want is a quantification on all bytes. See e.g. the predicate memcmp in Frama-C's stdlib, or the variant \forall int i; 0 <= i < n -> dest[i] == src[i];
By the way, this postcondition holds only if dest and src are properly separated, which your function does not require. Otherwise, you should write dest[i] == \at (src[i], Pre). And your requires are also too weak for another reason, as you only require the first character to be valid, not the n first ones.
Cast pointer to int
Basically, all current models implemented in WP are unable to reason on codes in which the memory is accessed with multiple incompatible types (through the use of unions or pointer casts). In some cases, such as Typed, the cast is detected syntactically, and a warning is issued to warn that the code cannot be analyzed. The Typed+Cast model is a variant of Typed in which some casts are accepted. The analysis is correct only if the pointer is re-cast into its original type before being used. The idea is to allow using some libc functions that require a cast to void*, but not much more.
Your example is again a bit different, because it is likely that MEMORY_ADDR is always addressed with type some_stuct. Would it be acceptable to change the code slightly, and change your function as taking a pointer to this type? This way, you would "hide" the cast to MEMORY_ADDR inside a function that would remain unproven.
I tried this example in the latest version of Frama-C (of course the format is modified a little bit).
for the memcpy case
Assertion 2 fails but assertion 3 is successfully proved (basically because the failure of assertion 2 leads to a False assumption, which proves everything).
So in fact both assertion cannot be proved, same as your problem.
This conclusion is sound because the memory models used in the wp plugin (as far as I know) has no assumption on the relation between fields in a struct, i.e. in header_src the first two fields are 8 bit chars, but they may not be nestedly organized in the physical memory like char[2]. Instead, there may be paddings between them (refer to wiki for detailed description). So when you try to copy bits in such a struct to another struct, Frama-C becomes completely confused and has no idea what you are doing.
As far as I am concerned, Frama-C does not support any approach to precisely control the memory layout, e.g. gcc's PACKED which forces the compiler to remove paddings.
I am facing the same problem, and the (not elegant at all) solution is, use arrays instead. Arrays are always nested, so if you try to copy a char[4] to a short[2], I think the assertion can be proved.
for the Cast pointer to int case
With memory model Typed+cast, the current version I am using (Chlorine-20180501) supports casting between pointers and uint64_t. You may want to try this version.
Moreover, it is strongly suggested to call Z3 and CVC4 through why3, whose performance is certainly better than Alt-Ergo.
For debugging purposes, I would like to be able to induce an OpenCL error of my choosing from a kernel. My intended use case would be to use this capability like an assertion
__kernel void myKernel(...)
{
...
if(i < j){
InduceOpenCLError(-9999);
}
...
};
Is this possible, and if not, is there any other useful way to include an "assertion" which will obviously induce a runtime error if a certain assumption is not true?
This question is related, but slightly different:
OpenCL: Manually throw an exception in kernel
Unfortunately, this is something missing from OpenCL. As the question you referenced suggested you do have printf to report an error, but even that is kind of clunky and doesn't help you detect an error programmatically.
If you are really set on returning an error codes, I can think of a couple options (none easy).
First, you could pass a buffer to contain all the status values for each work item. After running the kernel, you'd need host code to go through and check the values. You could conditionally include this code as shown below just for debugging. (The following being totally untested.)
#ifndef RETURN_STATUSES
#define RETURN_STATUS(S) \
do { \
_kernel_status[get_global_id(0)] = (S); \
return; \
} while (0)
#else
#define RETURN_STATUS(S) return
#endif
kernel void myKernel(
... normal args
#ifdef RETURN_STATUSES
, global int *_kernel_status
#endif
)
{
...
if (i < j) {
RETURN_STATUS(-9999);
}
}
Another option might be to atomically set a single value. Again, this has significant performance impact and would be good for debug only.
The lack of an efficient way to indicate error in OpenCL kernels is definitely a sore point for me too.
I'm trying to write an OpenCL implementation of memchr to help me learn how OpenCL works. What I'm planning to do is to assign each work item a chunk of memory to search. Then, inside each work item, it loops through the chunk searching for the character.
Especially if the buffer is large, I don't want the other threads to keep searching after an occurrence has already been found (assume there is only one occurrence of the character in any given buffer).
What I'm stuck on is how does a work item indicate, both to the host and other threads, when it has found the character?
Thanks,
One way you could do this is to use a global flag variable. You atomically set it to 1 when you find the value and other threads will check on that value when they are doing work.
For example:
__kernel test(__global int* buffer, __global volatile int* flag)
{
int tid = get_global_id(0);
int sx = get_global_size(0);
int i = tid;
while(buffer[i] != 8) //Whatever value we're trying to find.
{
int stop = atomic_add(&flag, 0); //Read the atomic value
if(stop)
break;
i = i + sx;
}
atomic_xchg(&flag, 1); //Set the atomic value
}
This might add more overhead than by just running the whole kernel (unless you are doing a lot of work on every iteration). In addition, this method won't work if each thread is just checking a single value in the array. Each thread must have multiple iterations of work.
Finally, I've seen instances where writing to an atomic variable doesn't immediately commit, so you need to check to see if this code will deadlock on your system because the write isn't committing.
folks!
I pass a struct full of data to my kernel, and I run into the following difficulty using it (very stripped down):
[edit: mac osx / xcode 3.2 on mac book pro; this compile is obviously for cpu]
typedef struct
{
float xoom;
int sizex;
} varholder;
float zX, xd;
__kernel void Harlan( __global varholder * vh )
{
int X = get_global_id(0), Y = get_global_id(1);
zX = ( ( X - vh->sizex/2 ) / vh->xoom + vh->sizex/2 ); // (a)
xd = zX; // (b) BOOM!!
}
after executing line (a), the line marked (b), a simple assignment, gives "LLVM compiler failed to compile a function".
if, however, we do not execute line (a), then line (b) is fine.
So, through my fiddling around a LOT with this, it seems as if it is the assignment statement (a), which uses a passed-in parameter, that messes up the future access of the variable zX. However, of course I need to be able to use the results of calculations further down the line.
I have zX and xd declared at the file level because my helper functions need them.
Any thoughts?
Thanks!
David
p.s. I'm now registered so will be able to upvote and accept answers, which I am sadly unable to do for the last person who helped me (used same username to register, but can't seem to vote on the old post; sorry!).
No, say it ain't so!
I am sincerely hoping that this is not a "correct" answer to my own question. I found on another forum (though not the same question asked!) the following, and I am afraid that it refers to what I'm trying to do:
(quote)
You're doing something the standard prohibits. Section 6.5 says:
'All program scope variables must be declared in the __constant address space.'
In other words, program scope variables cannot be mutable.
(end quote)
... well, tcha!!!! What an astoundingly inconvenient restriction! I'm sure there's reasoning behind it.
[edit: Not At All inconvenient! it was in fact astonishingly easy to work around, given a fresh start the next morning. (And no alcohol.)]
You guys & dolls all knew this, right, and didn't have the heart to tell me?...
I see qCopy, and qCopybackward but neither seems to let me make a copy in reverse order. qCopybackward only copies it in reverse order, but keeps the darn elements in the same order! All I want to do is return a copy of the list in reverse order. There has to be a function for that, right?
If you don't like the QTL, just use the STL. They might not have a Qt-ish API, but the STL API is rock-stable :) That said, qCopyBackward is just std::copy_backward, so at least they're consistent.
Answering your question:
template <typename T>
QList<T> reversed( const QList<T> & in ) {
QList<T> result;
result.reserve( in.size() ); // reserve is new in Qt 4.7
std::reverse_copy( in.begin(), in.end(), std::back_inserter( result ) );
return result;
}
EDIT 2015-07-21: Obviously (or maybe not), if you want a one-liner (and people seem to prefer that, looking at the relative upvotes of different answers after five years) and you have a non-const list the above collapses to
std::reverse(list.begin(), list.end());
But I guess the index fiddling stuff is better for job security :)
Reverse your QList with a single line:
for(int k = 0; k < (list.size()/2); k++) list.swap(k,list.size()-(1+k));
[Rewrite from original]
It's not clear if OP wants to know "How [do I] reverse a QList?" or actually wants a reversed copy. User mmutz gave the correct answer for a reversed copy, but if you just want to reverse the QList in place, there's this:
#include <algorithm>
And then
std::reverse(list.begin(), list.end());
Or in C++11:
std::reverse(std::begin(list), std::end(list));
The beauty of the C++ standard library (and templates in general) is that the algorithms and containers are separate. At first it may seem annoying that the standard containers (and to a lesser extent the Qt containers) don't have convenience functions like list.reverse(), but consider the alternatives: Which is more elegant: Provide reverse() methods for all containers, or define a standard interface for all containers that allow bidirectional iteration and provide one reverse() implementation that works for all containers that support bidirectional iteration?
To illustrate why this is an elegant approach, consider the answers to some similar questions:
"How do you reverse a std::vector<int>?":
std::reverse(std::begin(vec), std::end(vec));
"How do you reverse a std::deque<int>?":
std::reverse(std::begin(deq), std::end(deq));
What about portions of the container?
"How do you reverse the first seven elements of a QList?": Even if the QList authors had given us a convenience .reverse() method, they probably wouldn't have given us this functionality, but here it is:
if (list.size() >= 7) {
std::reverse(std::begin(list), std::next(std::begin(list), 7));
}
But it gets better: Because the iterator interface is the same as C pointer syntax, and because C++11 added the free std::begin() and std::end functions, you can do these:
"How do you reverse an array float x[10]?":
std::reverse(std::begin(x), std::end(x));
or pre C++11:
std::reverse(x, x + sizeof(x) / sizeof(x[0]));
(That is the ugliness that std::end() hides for us.)
Let's go on:
"How do you reverse a buffer float* x of size n?":
std::reverse(x, x + n);
"How do you reverse a null-terminated string char* s?":
std::reverse(s, s + strlen(s));
"How do you reverse a not-necessarily-null-terminated string char* s in a buffer of size n?":
std::reverse(s, std::find(s, s + n, '\0'));
Note that std::reverse uses swap() so even this will perform pretty much as well as it possibly could:
QList<QList<int> > bigListOfBigLists;
....
std::reverse(std::begin(bigListOfBigLists), std::end(bigListOfBigLists));
Also note that these should all perform as well as a hand-written loop since, when possible, the compiler will turn these into pointer arithmetic. Also, you can't cleanly write a reusable, generic, high-performance reverse function like this C.
#Marc Jentsch's answer is good. And if you want to get an additional 30% performance boost you can change his one-liner to:
for(int k=0, s=list.size(), max=(s/2); k<max; k++) list.swap(k,s-(1+k));
One a ThinkPad W520 with a QList of 10 million QTimers I got these numbers:
reversing list stack overflow took 194 ms
reversing list stack overflow with max and size took 136 ms
The boost is a result of
the expression (list.size()/2) being calculated only once when initializing the loop and not after every step
the expression list.size() in swap() is called only once when initializing the loop and not after every step
You can use the Java style iterator. Complete example here (http://doc.qt.digia.com/3.2/collection.html). Look for the word "reverse".
QList<int> list; // initial list
list << 1;
list << 2;
list << 3;
QList<int> rlist; // reverse list+
QListIterator<int> it(list);
while (it.hasPrevious()) {
rlist << it.previous();
}
Reversing a QList is going to be O(n) however you do it, since QList isn't guaranteed to have its data stored contiguously in memory (unlike QVector). You might consider just traversing the list in backwards order where you need to, or use something like a QStack which lets you retrieve the elements in the opposite order they were added.
For standard library lists it would look like this
std::list<X> result;
std::copy(list.rbegin(), list.rend(), std::back_inserter(result));
Unfortunately, Qt doesn't have rbegin and rend functions that return reverse iterators (the ones that go from the end of the container to its begnning). You may write them, or you can just write copying function on your own -- reversing a list is a nice excersize. Or you can note that QList is actually an array, what makes writing such a function trivial. Or you can convert the list to std::list, and use rbegin and rend. Choose whatever you like.
As of Qt 5.14 (circa 2020), QList provides a constructor that takes iterators, so you can just construct a reversed copy of the list with the reverse iterators of the source:
QList<int> backwards(forwards.rbegin(), forwards.rend());
Or if you want to be able to inline it, more generically (replace QList<I> with just I if you want to be super duper generic):
template <typename I> QList<I> reversed (const QList<I> &forwards) {
return QList<I>(forwards.rbegin(), forwards.rend());
}
Which lets you do fun one-liners with temporaries like:
QString badDay = "reporter covers whale exploding";
QString worseDay = reversed(badDay.split(' ')).join(' ');