[llvm-dev] LLVM on bare-metal
Peter Smith via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jun 27 03:28:58 PDT 2019
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 11:16, Brian Clarkson
<clarkson at orthogonaldevices.com> wrote:
> Would you say that embedding the LLVM linker is a practical way to get
> the required dynamic linking capabilities on the bare-metal side?
If I've understood you correctly; probably not. The LLVM linker (LLD)
is a static linker, it doesn't have any image loading functionality.
It also isn't really suited for running on top of an RTOS in the same
way that Clang isn't. There is something called llvm-link but that is
a linker for multiple bitcode files to produce a single bitcode file
which I'm guessing isn't what you want either.
I think there is a dynamic linker in one of the JITs, but I can't
remember where it is off the top of my head.
If I get some time this afternoon I'll try and find some links on
either how to write a simple dynamic loader or some examples.
> Orthogonal Devices
> Tokyo, Japan
> On 27/06/2019 19:06, Peter Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 10:36, Brian Clarkson via llvm-dev
> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> Hi Tim.
> >> Thank you for taking to time to comment on the background!
> >> I will definitely study lldb and remote JIT for ideas. I worry that I
> >> will not be able to pre-link on the host side because the host cannot(?)
> >> know the final memory layout of code on the client side, especially when
> >> there are multiple plugins being loaded in different combinations on the
> >> host and client. Is that an unfounded worry?
> >> I suppose it is also possible to share re-locatable machine code (ELF?)
> >> and only use client-side embedded LLVM for linking duties? Does that
> >> simplify things appreciably? I was under the impression that if I can
> >> compile and embed the LLVM linker then embedding LLVM's codegen
> >> libraries would not be much extra work. Then I can allow users to use
> >> Faust (or any other frontend) to generate bytecode in addition to my
> >> "live coding" desktop application. So many variables to consider... :-)
> > It is possible to build a position independent code on the host and
> > run it on the device without needing the full complexity of a SysV
> > dynamic linker. As you say there are many different options depending
> > on how much your plugins need to communicate with the main program, or
> > each other, and how sophisticated a plugin loader you are comfortable
> > writing. There is probably much more information available online
> > about how to do that than embedding LLVM.
> > One possible approach is build your plugins on the host as some kind
> > of position independent ELF executable. Your program on the device
> > could extract the loadable parts of the ELF, copy them to memory,
> > resolve potential fixups (relocations in ELF) and and branch to the
> > entry point. In general ELF isn't compact enough for embedded systems
> > and it is common to post-process it into some more easily processed
> > form first.
> >> Kind regards
> >> Brian Clarkson
> >> Orthogonal Devices
> >> Tokyo, Japan
> >> www.orthogonaldevices.com
> >> On 27/06/2019 18:17, Tim Northover wrote:
> >>> Hi Brian,
> >>> I'm afraid I can't answer your actual questions, but do have a couple
> >>> of comments on the background...
> >>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 09:50, Brian Clarkson via llvm-dev
> >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>> LLVM would be responsible for generating
> >>>> (optimized, and especially vectorized for NEON) machine code directly on
> >>>> the embedded device and it would take care of the relocation and
> >>>> run-time linking duties.
> >>> That's a much smaller task than what you'd get from embedding all of
> >>> LLVM. lldb is probably an example of a program with a similar problem
> >>> to you, and it gets by with just a pretty small stub of a
> >>> "debugserver" on a device. It does all CodeGen and even prelinking on
> >>> the host side, and then transfers binary data across.
> >>> The concept is called "remote JIT" in the LLVM codebase if you want to
> >>> research it more.
> >>> I think the main advantage you'd get from embedding LLVM itself over a
> >>> scheme like that would be a certain resilience to updating the RTOS on
> >>> the device (it would cope with a function sliding around in memory
> >>> even if the host is no longer available to recompile), but I bet there
> >>> are simpler ways to do that. The API surface you need to control is
> >>> probably pretty small.
> >>>> Sharing code in the form of LLVM bytecode
> >>>> also seems to sidestep the complex task of setting up a cross-compiling
> >>>> toolchain which is something that I would prefer not to have to force my
> >>>> users to do.
> >>> If you can produce bitcode on the host, you can produce an ARM binary
> >>> without forcing the users to install extra stuff. The work involved
> >>> would be pretty comparable to what you'd have to do on the RTOS side
> >>> anyway (you're unlikely to be running GNU ld against system libraries
> >>> on the RTOS), and made slightly easier by the host being more of a
> >>> "normal" LLVM environment.
> >>> Cheers.
> >>> Tim.
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
More information about the llvm-dev