Related
One of the first things I learned as a student was that C++ applications don't run on different operating systems. Recently, I read that Qt based C++ applications run everywhere. So, what is going on? Are C++ applications cross-platform or not?
Source code compatible. If I compile the source code, will it run everywhere?
API/ABI compatibility. Does the OS provide the interface to its components in a way that the code will understand?
Binary compatibility. Is the code capable of running on the target host?
Source code compatible
C++ is a standard which defines how structures, memory, files can be read and written.
#include <iostream>
int main( int argc, char ** argv )
{
std::cout << "Hello World" << std::endl;
}
Code written to process data (e.g. grep, awk, sed) is generally cross-platform.
When you want to interact with the user, modern operating systems have a GUI, these are not cross-platform, and cause code to be written for a specific platform.
Libraries such as qt or wxWidgets have implementations for multiple platforms and allow you to program for qt instead of Windows or iOS, with the result being compatible with both.
The problem with these anonymizing libraries, is they take some of the specific benefits of platform X away in the interest of uniformity across platforms.
Examples of this would be on Windows using the WaitForMultipleObjects function, which allows you to wait for different types of events to occur, or the fork function on UNIX, which allows two copies of your process to be running with significant shared state. In the UI, the forms look and behave slightly different (e.g. color-picker, maximize, minimize, the ability to track mouse outside of your window, the behaviour of gestures).
When the work you need to be done is important to you, then you may end up wanting to write platform specific code to leverage the advantages of the specific application.
The C library sqlite is broadly cross-platform code, but its low-level IO is platform specific, so it can make guarantees for database integrity (that the data is really written to disk).
So libraries such as Qt do work, they may produce results which are unsatisfactory, and you end up having to write native code.
API/ABI compatibility
Different releases of UNIX and Windows have some form of compatibility with each other. These allow a binary built for one version of the OS to run on other versions of the OS.
In UNIX the choice of your build machine defines the compatibility. The lowest OS revision you wish to support should be your build machine, and it will produce binaries compatible with subsequent minor versions until they make a breaking change (deprecate a library).
On Windows and Mac OS X, you choose an SDK which allows you to target a set of OS's with the same issues with breaking changes.
On Linux, each kernel revision is ABI incompatible with any other, and kernel modules need to be re-compiled for each kernel revision.
Binary compatibility
This is the ability of the CPU to understand the code. This is more complex than you might think, as the x64 chips, can be capable (depending on OS support) of running x86 code.
Typically a C++ program is packaged inside a container (PE executable, ELF format) which is used by the operating system to unpack the sections of code and data and to load libraries. This makes the final program have both binary (type of code) and API (format of the container) forms of incompatibilities.
Also today if you compile a x86 Windows Application (targeting Windows 7 on Visual Studio 2015), then the code may fail to execute if the processor does not have SSE2 instructions (about 10 years old CPU).
Finally when Apple changed from PowerPC to x86, they provided an emulation layer which allowed the old PowerPC code to run in an emulator on the x86 platform.
So in general binary incompatibility is a murky area. It would be possible to produce an OS which identified invalid instructions (e.g. SSE2) and in the fault, emulated the behaviour, this could be updated as new features come out, and keeps your code running, even though it is binary incompatible.
Even if your platform is incapable of running a form of instruction set, it could be emulated and behave compatibly.
Standard C++ is cross platform in the "write once, compile anywhere" sense, but not in the "compile once, run anywhere" sense.
That means that if you write a program in standard C++, you can compile and then run it on any target environment that has a standard conforming implementation of C++.
You can however not compile your program on your machine, ship the binary and then expect it to work on other targets. (At least not in general. One can of course distribute binaries from C++ code under certain conditions, but those depend on the actual target. This is a broad field.)
Of course, if you use extra, non-standard features like gcc's variable length arrays or third party libraries, you can only compile on systems that provide those extensions and libraries.
Some libraries like Qt and Boost are available on many systems (those two on Linux, Mac and Windows at least I believe), so your code will stay cross platform if you use those.
You can achieve that your source compiles on various platforms, giving you various binaries from the same source base.
This is not "compile once, run anywhere with an appropriate VM" as Java or C# do it, but "write once, compile anywhere with an appropriate environment" the way C has done it all the time.
Since the standard library does not provide everything you might need, you have to look for third-party libraries to provide that functionality. Certain frameworks -- like Boost, Qt, GTK+, wxWidgets etc. -- can provide that. Since these frameworks are written in a way that they compile on different platforms, you can achieve cross-platform functionality in the aforementioned sense.
There are various things to be aware of if you want your C++ code to be cross-platform.
The obvious thing is source that makes assumption on data types. Your long might be 32bit here and 64bit there. Data type alignment and struct padding might differ. There are ways to "play it safe" here, like size_t / size_type / uint16_t typedefs etc., and ways to get it wrong, like wchar_t and std::wstring. It takes discipline and some experience to "get it right".
Not all compilers are created equal. You cannot use all the latest C++ language features, or use libraries that rely on those features, if you require your source to compile on other C++ compilers. Check the compatibility chart first.
Another thing is endianess. Just one example, when you're writing a stream of integers to file on one platform (say, x86 or x86_64), and then read it back again on a different platform (say, POWER), you can run into problems. Why would you write integers to file? Well, UTF-16 is integers... again, discipline and some experience go a long way toward making this rather painless.
Once you've checked all those boxes, you need to make sure of the availability of the libraries you base your code on. While std:: is safe (but see "not all compilers are created equal" above), something as innocent as boost:: can become a problem if you're looking beyond the mainstream. (I helped the Boost guys to fix one or two showstoppers regarding AIX / Visual Age in past years simply because they didn't have access to that platform for testing new releases...)
Oh, and watch out for the various licensing schemes out there. Some frameworks that improve your cross-platform capabilities -- like Qt or Cygwin -- have their strings attached. That is not to say they are not a big help in the right circumstances, just that you need to be aware of copyleft / proprietary licensing requirements.
All that being said, there is Wine ("Wine is not emulation"), which makes executables compiled for Windows run on a variety of Unix-alike systems (Linux, OS X, *BSD, Solaris). There are certain limits to its capabilities, but it's getting better all the time.
Yes. No. Maybe. What is cross-platform C++ code? Cross-platform C++ code is such a code that can be compiled under different operation systems without the need to be modified.
That means, if you explicitly use any platform-dependant headers, your code is no longer cross-platform. Qt solves this problem in the following way: they provide wrappers for everything that is platform-specific. For example, imagine that you are using QFile to open/read/write a file. Your code looks like
QFile file(filename);
file.open(QFile::ReadOnly);
//other stuff
You can compile this code under any OS as long as you have a suitable compiler and Qt libraries for that OS. The code hidden under QFile will use the OS-appropriate file-handling functions, but that shouldn't concern you.
Also, if you only use the standard library, your code can be compiled anywhere where a C++ compiler is present.
The already-compiled applications, however, are not cross-platform in a way that, say, Java applications are - for instance, you can't compile an app for Windows and then run in in Linux, you will have to recompile your code under Linux instead.
C++ is cross-platform. You can use it to build applications that will run on many different operating systems.
What is not cross-platform is the compilers that translate C++ into object code. No single compiler, to my knowledge, has all the necessary features so that when you use it to compile a C++ program, it will automatically run on Windows, Linux and Mac OS.
Qt Creator is integrated with multiple compilers and has build automation. It makes it easy to switch between different setups and target platforms. It provides support for building, running and deploying C++ applications not only for desktop environments but also for mobile devices.
C++ is a programming language. Text. As such, it doesn't run anywhere.
Conforming Standard C++ code is expected to behave equally on any platform; "cross-platform" if you want. Writing (strictly) conforming C++ code requires pedantry because some assumptions often made have dependencies on details that are final to the actual implementation and this is inherited from the targets C++ itself aims to.
Notice we're still talking about C++ code, not C++ programs. Indeed, when we pass to term "program", we've no more guarantees because we aren't talking about C++ anymore; rather, the output of the compiler. This is where portability begins to fade away: executable format, ISA, ABI, low-level routines and so on.
Can you rely on that? If you can't, then you need to integrate your C++ program in the environment it will run on, by recompiling it or using platform-specific elements.
I'm currently getting familiar with PLC's, the WAGO 750-8206 PLC in particular. It offers a linux OS and can run CoDeSys programs. There are some I/O modules attached to the controller: 750-530, 750-430 and 750-600. What I would like to know is this:
Is it possible to write a C++ linux application that runs on the PLC and gets/sets the digital inputs and outputs?
Even better: can I write a CoDeSys program that "talks to the I/O's" and handles all the logic and at the same time can be accessed by a C++ linux program? THe idea is this: I would like the CoDeSys program to check for let's say two digital inputs. If both are high, a variable should be set to a defined value. The linux application should be able to read that variable and conduct further processing (such as sending JSon data to a server or similar).
Also, I would need to be able to send commands from the linux application to the CoDeSys program in order to switch digital outputs (or set values on analog outputs etc) when the linux application receives a message that triggers the command.
Any thoughts and comments on this topic are greatly appreciated as I am completely new to this topic. Thanks in advance!
The answer you might want
The actual situation has changed into the opposite of the previous answer.
WAGO's recent Board Support Packages and Documentation actively support you in making changes and extensions to the PLC200 line. Specifically the WAGO 750-8206 and 17 (as of March 2016) other PLCs :
wago.us -> Products -> Components for Automation -> Modular WAGO-I/O-SYSTEM, IP 20 (750/753 Series)
What you have to do is get in touch with them and ask for their latest Board Support Package (BSP) for the PLC200 line.
I quote from the previous answer and mark the changes, my additions are in bold.
Synopsis
Could you hack a PFC200 and get custom binaries executed? Probably Absolutely yes. As long as the program is content to run on the Linux-3.6.11 kernel and glibc-2.16 and is compiled for the "armhf" API, any existing ARM application, provided you also copy the libraries it uses as well, will just run without even compiling it specifically for the PFC200.
Would it be easy or quick? No. Yes, if you have no fear of the Linux Command line. It is as easy as using the Cross Compiler provided by the Board Support Package (BSP) with the provided C-libraries and then run this to transfer your program to the PFC's flash and run it: scp your-program root#PFC200:/usr/bin
ssh root#FC200 /usr/bin/your-programOf course, you can use Eclipse CDT with the Cross Toolchain for the PFC200 and configure Eclipse to do do remote run and debug.
Will this change in the future? Maybe. Remember that PFC200 is fairly new in North America.It has, PFC200 has appeared in September 2014
The public HOWTO Building FORTE for Wago describes how to use the initial BSP to run FORTE, which is the IEC 61499 run-time environment of 4DIAC (link: sf.net/projects/fordiac ), an open source PLC environment allowing to implement industrial control solutions in a vendor neutral way. 4DIAC implements IEC 61499 extending IEC 61131-3 with better support for controller to controller communication and dynamic reconfiguration.
In case you want to access the KBUS (which talks to the I/Os) directly, you have to know that currently only one application can be in charge of KBUS.
So either CODESYS, or FORTE, or your own KBUS application can be in charge of the KBUS.
The BSP from 2015 has many examples and demos how to use all the I/O of the PLC200 (KBUS, CAN, MODBUS, PROFIBUS as well as the Switches and LEDs on the PFC200 directly). Sources for the kernel and with all kernel drivers and the other Open Source components is provided and compiled in the Board Support Package (BSP).
But, the sources for the libraries and tools developed from scratch by WAGO and are not based on GPL/Open Source code are not provided: These include the Application Device Interface(ADI)/Device Abstraction Layer(DAL) libraries which do CANopen, PROFIBUS-Slave and KBus (which is used all PLC I/O modules connected to the main PLC unit)
While CANopen is using the standard Linux Socketcan API to talk to the kernel and you could just write a normal socketcan program using the provided libsocketcan, the KBus API is an WAGO-specific invention and there, you'd have to do some reverse-engineering if you'd not want to use WAGO's DAL for accessing all the electrical I/O of the PLC, but the DAL is documented and examples how to use it are provided in the BSP.
If you use CODESYS however, there is an "codesys_lib_demo-0.1" example library which shows how to provide a library for CODESYS to use.
Outdated Answer
This answer was very specific to circumstances in 2014 and 2015. As of 2016, it contains incorrect information. Still going to leave as-is for now to provide background.
The quick answer you probably don't want
You could very reasonably write code using Codesys that put together a JSON packet and sent it off to a server elsewhere. JSON is just text, and Codesys can manipulate text in a fashion very similar to C. And there are many ethernet protocols available from within Codesys using addon libraries provided by Wago.
Now the long Answers
First some background
Since you seem to be new to Wago and the philosophy of Codesys in general... a short history.
Codesys is used to build and deploy Hard Realtime execution environments, and it is important to understand that utilizing libraries without fully understanding the consequences can destabilize performance of the entire system (bringing Codesys to its knees and throwing watchdog errors in the program). Remember, many PLC's are controlling equipment that could kill someone if it ever crashed.
Wago is fond of using Linux to provide the preemptive RT kernel for the low level task scheduling and then configuring Codesys to utilize much of the standard C-libraries that often accompany linux. Wago has been doing this for quite some time, but they would never allow you to peel back the covers without going through Codesys (which means using IEC 61131 languages, of which C++ is not included), and this was for your own safety (and their product image). If you wanted the power of linux on a Wago, you had to get a special PLC with a completely naked OS, practically no manual or support, and forfeit the entire Codesys runtime.
The new PFC200's have much more RAM and memory available than recent models, allowing for more of the standard linux userland stack (ssh, ftp, http,...) to be included without compromising the Codesys runtime, and they advertise this. BUT... they are still keeping a lid on compilation tools and required header files needed to compile and link to Codesys libraries or access specialized hardware (the Wago KBUS, which interfaces your I/O modules).
The Synapsis
Could you hack a PFC200 and get custom binaries executed? Probably yes.
Would it be easy or quick? No.
Will this change in the future? Maybe. Remember that PFC200 is fairly new in North America.
Things you may not know
Codesys does not necessarily know or care about Wago. You can get Target Platforms for Codesys that do target Intel processors running a linux os. Codesys DOES SUPPORT accessing external libraries (communication in the reverse direction is dangerous), but they often expect a C style interface, and you can only access those libraries by defining C-headers that Codesys will analyze, so you may need to do some magic to get C++ working seemlessly. What you can do is create a segment of shared memory that both C++ and Codesys access, and that is how they pass information (synchronization is another problem).
You can get an Open Wago PLC, running Codesys on Linux. Wago's IPC are made specifically for this purpose. They have more power, memory, and communication capabilities in general; but they do cost more than double your typical Wago PLC.
If you feel like toying with the idea of hacking a Wago, you will need to tear apart the manuals for Codesys (it has its own), the manuals for the Wago IPC's, and already be familiar with linux style inter-process-communication and/or dynamic libraries.
Also, there is an older Wago PLC that had the naked Linux on it 750-8??. It also has a very good manual on how to access the Wago hardware using supplied headers.
You must first understand how Codesys expects to talk to its target operating system. Then you work backwards to make it talk to Wago specific libraries living on that operating system. You must be careful not to hijack Codesys.
Your extra C++ libs should assist Codesys, not take it over. For instance, host a sqlite database on the same device, and use C++ to manage the database and provide a very simple interface that Codesys can utilize. All Codesys would do is call a function and pass some values, but your C++ would actually build an SQL query and issue it to the database (Codesys doesn't need to know why or how this is happening).
I hope at least one paragraph is helpful in some way.
I am learning C++ and I've just started learning about some of Qt's capabilities to code GUI programs. I asked myself the following question:
How does C++, which previously had no syntax capable of asking the OS for a window or a way to communicate through networks (with APIs which I don't completely understand either, I admit) suddenly get such capabilities through libraries written in C++ themselves? It all seems terribly circular to me. What C++ instructions could you possibly come up with in those libraries?
I realize this question might seem trivial to an experienced software developer but I've been researching for hours without finding any direct response. It's gotten to the point where I can't follow the tutorial about Qt because the existence of libraries is incomprehensible to me.
A computer is like an onion, it has many many layers, from the inner core of pure hardware to the outermost application layer. Each layer exposes parts of itself to the next outer layer, so that the outer layer may use some of the inner layers functionality.
In the case of e.g. Windows the operating system exposes the so-called WIN32 API for applications running on Windows. The Qt library uses that API to provide applications using Qt to its own API. You use Qt, Qt uses WIN32, WIN32 uses lower levels of the Windows operating system, and so on until it's electrical signals in the hardware.
You're right that in general, libraries cannot make anything possible that isn't already possible.
But the libraries don't have to be written in C++ in order to be usable by a C++ program. Even if they are written in C++, they may internally use other libraries not written in C++. So the fact that C++ didn't provide any way to do it doesn't prevent it from being added, so long as there is some way to do it outside of C++.
At a quite low level, some functions called by C++ (or by C) will be written in assembly, and the assembly contains the required instructions to do whatever isn't possible (or isn't easy) in C++, for example to call a system function. At that point, that system call can do anything your computer is capable of, simply because there's nothing stopping it.
C and C++ have 2 properties that allow all this extensibility that the OP is talking about.
C and C++ can access memory
C and C++ can call assembly code for instructions not in the C or C++ language.
In the kernel or in a basic non-protected mode platform, peripherals like the serial port or disk drive are mapped into the memory map in the same way as RAM is. Memory is a series of switches and flipping the switches of the peripheral (like a serial port or disk driver) gets your peripheral to do useful things.
In a protected mode operating system, when one wants to access the kernel from userspace (say when writing to the file system or to draw a pixel on the screen) one needs to make a system call. C does not have an instruction to make a system calls but C can call assembler code which can trigger the correct system call, This is what allows one's C code to talk to the kernel.
In order to make programming a particular platform easier, system calls are wrapped in more complex functions which may perform some useful function within one's own program. One is free to call the system calls directly (using assembler) but it is probably easier to just make use of one of the wrapper functions that the platform supplies.
There is another level of API that are a lot more useful than a system call. Take for example malloc. Not only will this call the system to obtain large blocks of memory but will manage this memory by doing all the book keeping on what is take place.
Win32 APIs wrap some graphic functionality with a common platform widget set. Qt takes this a bit further by wrapping the Win32 (or X Windows) API in a cross platform way.
Fundamentally though a C compiler turns C code into machine code and since the computer is designed to use machine code, you should expect C to be able to accomplish the lions share or what a computer can do. All that the wrapper libraries do is do the heavy lifting for you so that you don't have to.
Languages (like C++11) are specifications, on paper, usually written in English. Look inside the latest C++11 draft (or buy the costly final spec from your ISO vendor).
You generally use a computer with some language implementation (You could in principle run a C++ program without any computer, e.g. using a bunch of human slaves interpreting it; that would be unethical and inefficient)
Your C++ implementation general works above some operating system and communicate with it (using some implementation specific code, often in some system library). Generally that communication is done thru system calls. Look for instance into syscalls(2) for a list of system calls available on the Linux kernel.
From the application point of view, a syscall is an elementary machine instruction like SYSENTER on x86-64 with some conventions (ABI)
On my Linux desktop, the Qt libraries are above X11 client libraries communicating with the X11 server Xorg thru X Windows protocols.
On Linux, use ldd on your executable to see the (long) list of dependencies on libraries. Use pmap on your running process to see which ones are "loaded" at runtime. BTW, on Linux, your application is probably using only free software, you could study its source code (from Qt, to Xlib, libc, ... the kernel) to understand more what is happening
I think the concept you are missing is system calls. Each operating system provides an enormous amount of resources and functionality that you can tap into to do low-level operating system related things. Even when you call a regular library function, it is probably making a system call behind the scenes.
System calls are a low-level way of making use of the power of the operating system, but can be complex and cumbersome to use, so are often "wrapped" in APIs so that you don't have to deal with them directly. But underneath, just about anything you do that involves O/S related resources will use system calls, including printing, networking and sockets, etc.
In the case of windows, Microsoft Windows has its GUI actually written into the kernel, so there are system calls for making windows, painting graphics, etc. In other operating systems, the GUI may not be a part of the kernel, in which case as far as I know there wouldn't be any system calls for GUI related things, and you could only work at an even lower level with whatever low-level graphics and input related calls are available.
Good question. Every new C or C++ developer has this in mind. I am assuming a standard x86 machine for the rest of this post. If you are using Microsoft C++ compiler, open your notepad and type this (name the file Test.c)
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
return 0
}
And now compile this file (using developer command prompt) cl Test.c /FaTest.asm
Now open Test.asm in your notepad. What you see is the translated code - C/C++ is translated to assembler. Do you get the hint ?
_main PROC
push ebp
mov ebp, esp
xor eax, eax
pop ebp
ret 0
_main ENDP
C/C++ programs are designed to run on the metal. Which means they have access to lower level hardware which makes it easier to exploit the capabilities of the hardware. Say, I am going to write a C library getch() on a x86 machine.
Depending on the assembler I would type something this way :
_getch proc
xor AH, AH
int 16h
;AL contains the keycode (AX is already there - so just return)
ret
I run it over with an assembler and generate a .OBJ - Name it getch.obj.
I then write a C program (I dont #include anything)
extern char getch();
void main(int, char **)
{
getch();
}
Now name this file - GetChTest.c. Compile this file by passing getch.obj along. (Or compile individually to .obj and LINK GetChTest.Obj and getch.Obj together to produce GetChTest.exe).
Run GetChTest.exe and you would find that it waits for the keyboard input.
C/C++ programming is not just about language. To be a good C/C++ programmer you need to have a good understanding on the type of machine that it runs. You will need to know how the memory management is handled, how the registers are structured, etc., You may not need all these information for regular programming - but they would help you immensely. Apart from the basic hardware knowledge, it certainly helps if you understand how the compiler works (ie., how it translates) - which could enable you to tweak your code as necessary. It is an interesting package!
Both languages support __asm keyword which means you could mix your assembly language code too. Learning C and C++ will make you a better rounded programmer overall.
It is not necessary to always link with Assembler. I had mentioned it because I thought that would help you understand better. Mostly, most such library calls make use of system calls / APIs provided by the Operating System (the OS in turn does the hardware interaction stuff).
How does C++ ... suddenly get such capabilities through libraries
written in C++ themselves ?
There's nothing magical about using other libraries. Libraries are simple big bags of functions that you can call.
Consider yourself writing a function like this
void addExclamation(std::string &str)
{
str.push_back('!');
}
Now if you include that file you can write addExclamation(myVeryOwnString);. Now you might ask, "how did C++ suddenly get the capability to add exclamation points to a string?" The answer is easy: you wrote a function to do that then you called it.
So to answer your question about how C++ can get capabilities to draw windows through libraries written in C++, the answer is the same. Someone else wrote function(s) to do that, and then compiled them and gave them to you in the form of a library.
The other questions answer how the window drawing actually works, but you sounded confused about how libraries work so I wanted to address the most fundamental part of your question.
The key is the possibility of the operating system to expose an API and a detailed description on how this API is to be used.
The operating system offers a set of APIs with calling conventions.
The calling convention is defining the way a parameter is given into the API and how results are returned and how to execute the actual call.
Operating systems and the compilers creating code for them play nicely together, so you usually have not to think about it, just use it.
There is no need for a special syntax for creating windows. All that is required is that the OS provides an API to create windows. Such an API consists of simple function calls for which C++ does provide syntax.
Furthermore C and C++ are so called systems programming languages and are able to access arbitrary pointers (which might be mapped to some device by the hardware). Additionally, it is also fairly simple to call functions defined in assembly, which allows the full range of operations the processor provides. Therefore it is possible to write an OS itself using C or C++ and a small amount of assembly.
It should also be mentioned that Qt is a bad example, as it uses a so-called meta compiler to extend C++' syntax. This is however not related to it's ability to call into the APIs provided by the OS to actually draw or create windows.
First, there's a little misunderstading, I think
How does C++, which previously had no syntax capable of asking the OS for a window or a way to communicate through networks
There is no syntax for doing OS operations. It's the question of semantics.
suddenly get such capabilities through libraries written in C++ themselves
Well, the operating system is writen mostly in C. You can use shared libraries (so, dll) to call the external code. Additionally, the operating system code can register system routines on syscalls* or interrupts which you can call using assembly. That shared libraries often just make that system calls for you, so you are spared using inline assembly.
Here's the nice tutorial on that: http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/lk-4.html
It's for Linux, but the principles are the same.
How the operating system is doing operations on graphic cards, network cards etc? It's a very broad thema, but mostly you need to access interrupts, ports or write some data to special memory region. Since that operations are protected, you need to call them through the operating system anyway.
In an attempt to provide a slightly different view to other answers, I shall answer like this.
(Disclaimer: I am simplifying things slightly, the situation I give is purely hypothetical and is written as a means of demonstrating concepts rather than being 100% true to life).
Think of things from the other perspective, imagine you've just written a simple operating system with basic threading, windowing and memory management capabilities. You want to implement a C++ library to let users program in C++ and do things like make windows, draw onto windows etc. The question is, how to do this.
Firstly, since C++ compiles to machine code, you need to define a way to use machine code to interface with C++. This is where functions come in, functions accept arguments and give return values, thus they provide a standard way of transferring data between different sections of code. They do this by establishing something known as a calling convention.
A calling convention states where and how arguments should be placed in memory so that a function can find them when it gets executed. When a function gets called, the calling function places the arguments in memory and then asks the CPU to jump over to the other function, where it does what it does before jumping back to where it was called from. This means that the code being called can be absolutely anything and it will not change how the function is called. In this case however, the code behind the function would be relevant to the operating system and would operate on the operating system's internal state.
So, many months later and you've got all your OS functions sorted out. Your user can call functions to create windows and draw onto them, they can make threads and all sorts of wonderful things. Here's the problem though, your OS's functions are going to be different to Linux's functions or Windows' functions. So you decide you need to give the user a standard interface so they can write portable code. Here is where QT comes in.
As you almost certainly know, QT has loads of useful classes and functions for doing the sorts of things that operating systems do, but in a way that appears independent of the underlying operating system. The way this works is that QT provides classes and functions that are uniform in the way they appear to the user, but the code behind the functions is different for each operating system. For example QT's QApplication::closeAllWindows() would actually be calling each operating system's specialised window closing function depending on the version used. In Windows it would most likely call CloseWindow(hwnd) whereas on an os using the X Window System, it would potentially call XDestroyWindow(display,window).
As is evident, an operating system has many layers, all of which have to interact through interfaces of many varieties. There are many aspects I haven't even touched on, but to explain them all would take a very long time. If you are further interested in the inner workings of operating systems, I recommend checking out the OS dev wiki.
Bear in mind though that the reason many operating systems choose to expose interfaces to C/C++ is that they compile to machine code, they allow assembly instructions to be mixed in with their own code and they provide a great degree of freedom to the programmer.
Again, there is a lot going on here. I would like to go on to explain how libraries like .so and .dll files do not have to be written in C/C++ and can be written in assembly or other languages, but I feel that if I add any more I might as well write an entire article, and as much as I'd love to do that I don't have a site to host it on.
When you try to draw something on the screen, your code calls some other piece of code which calls some other code (etc.) until finally there is a "system call", which is a special instruction that the CPU can execute. These instructions can be either written in assembly or can be written in C++ if the compiler supports their "intrinsics" (which are functions that the compiler handles "specially" by converting them into special code that the CPU can understand). Their job is to tell the operating system to do something.
When a system call happens, a function gets called that calls another function (etc.) until finally the display driver is told to draw something on the screen. At that point, the display driver looks at a particular region in physical memory which is actually not memory, but rather an address range that can be written to as if it were memory. Instead, however, writing to that address range causes the graphics hardware to intercept the memory write, and draw something on the screen.
Writing to this region of memory is something that could be coded in C++, since on the software side it's just a regular memory access. It's just that the hardware handles it differently.
So that's a really basic explanation of how it can work.
Your C++ program is using Qt library (also coded in C++). The Qt library will be using Windows CreateWindowEx function (which was coded in C inside kernel32.dll). Or under Linux it may be using Xlib (also coded in C), but it could as well be sending the raw bytes that in X protocol mean "Please create a window for me".
Related to your catch-22 question is the historical note that “the first C++ compiler was written in C++”, although actually it was a C compiler with a few C++ notions, enough so it could compile the first version, which could then compile itself.
Similarly, the GCC compiler uses GCC extensions: it is first compiled to a version then used to recompile itself. (GCC build instructions)
How i see the question this is actually a compiler question.
Look at it this way, you write a piece of code in Assembly(you can do it in any language) which translates your newly written language you want to call Z++ into Assembly, for simplicity lets call it a compiler (it is a compiler).
Now you give this compiler some basic functions, so that you can write int, string, arrays etc. actually you give it enough abilities so that you can write the compiler itself in Z++. and now you have a compiler for Z++ written in Z++, pretty neat right.
Whats even cooler is that now you can add abilities to that compiler using the abilities it already has, thus expanding the Z++ language with new features by using the previous features
An example, if you write enough code to draw a pixel in any color, then you can expand it using the Z++ to draw anything you want.
The hardware is what allows this to happen. You can think of the graphics memory as a large array (consisting of every pixel on the screen). To draw to the screen you can write to this memory using C++ or any language that allows direct access to that memory. That memory just happens to be accessible by or located on the graphics card.
On modern systems accessing the graphics memory directly would require writing a driver because of various restrictions so you use indirect means. Libraries that create a window (really just an image like any other image) and then write that image to the graphics memory which the GPU then displays on screen. Nothing has to be added to the language except the ability to write to specific memory locations, which is what pointers are for.
I've asked the question before what language should I learn for embedded development. Most embedded engineers said c and c++ are a must, but also pointed out that it depends on the chip.
Can someone clarify? Is it a compiler issue or what? Do chips come with their own specific compilers (like a c compiler or c++ compiler) and that's why you have to use the language the compiler knows? Is it not possible to code and compile it elsewhere, then burn it to the chip directly in its compiled state? (I think I heard an acquaintance say something to this effect)
I'm not sure how this works, as clearly I don't know much embedded systems or how they work. It's probably an easy answer for those of you who know.
Probably, they meant some toolchains do not support C++. Yes, many chips and boards do come with their own toolchains. Different processors have different instruction sets, which means a different compiler (or more specifically a different backend). That doesn't mean you always have to relearn everything. Many of these are based on GCC (often considered the most ported compiler). The final executable/image formats also vary, so you need a specific linker. Most likely, you will be (cross-)compiling the chip on a "regular" computer, then burning it to the chip. However, that doesn't mean you can use a typical compiler and linker targeted towards a desktop operating system.
It "depends on the chip" in three possible ways:
Some very constrained architectures are not suited to C++, or at least C++ provides constructs not suited to such architectures so offers no benefit over C. Most 8 bit devices fall into this category, but by no means all; I have seen useful C++ code implemented on MegaAVR for example.
Some devices are not supported by a C++ compiler. For example Microchip's dsPIC/PIC24 compiler is C only (third-party tools may have C++ support).
The chip architecture is designed specifically for a particular language; for example INMOS Transputers invariably ran OCCAM.
As well as C, C++, other possibilities are assembler, Forth, Ada, Pascal and many others, but C is almost ubiquitous; few chip vendors will release a new architecture or device without a C compiler being available from day-one. For other languages you will generally have to wait until a third-part decides to develop one, and that wait may be forever for a niche architecture.
Is it not possible to code and compile it elsewhere, then burn it to the chip directly in its compiled state?
That is called cross-compilation or cross-development, and is the usual development method for embedded systems. Most embedded systems lack the OS, file, performance and memory resources to self-host a compiler, and most developers want the comfort of a sophisticated development environment with IDEs, debuggers etc. in a familiar user-oriented desktop OS.
I'm not sure how this works, as
clearly I don't know much embedded
systems or how they work.
Get up-to-speed with some of these:
http://www.state-machine.com/arm/Building_bare-metal_ARM_with_GNU.pdf
http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/020179523X
http://www.amazon.com/Embedded-Systems-Firmware-Demystified-CD-ROM/dp/1578200997
Yes, there are many architectures for which a C compiler exists but a C++ compiler does not. The smaller and less fully-featured a processor you choose, the more likely this situation is to occur.
For embedded development, you almost always compile the code 'elsewhere', as you say, and then send it to the chip for execution/debugging. The process of compiling code for a different architecture than the compiler itself is built for is called 'cross-compiling'.
You are correct: chips have variations on compilers. Most/many modern chips have a gcc port; but not all.
The term 'embedded' is used to describe a vast range of hardware. Most embedded software engineering will consist of writing C/C++ code to produce a binary for a target microprocessor, but there are devices that you may work with that are not coded with compiled binary.
One example is a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). These devices use a language called "Ladder Logic". It's a wonderful language. I have enjoyed working with it in the past.
Another thing you may encounter, as I have in the past, is devices that have interpreted BASIC emulators. Hopefully that is rare today.
C/C++ are a very good choice for firmware development. So the software you make will run on a embedded CPU/Microcontroller. In order to proper programmer the device, you will need to know the language and the device architecture.
The same code probably will not work in different devices. So, you have to learn the language, and the device architecture.
Another options are FPGAs, which are not microcontroller. FPGA are devices with specialized cell capable to transform itself in any type of synchronous circuit, including microcontroller. FPGAs are programed with Hardware Description languages, like verilog and VHDL. The "compiled" (synthesized) version of the software are called gateware.
The HDLs are the same languages used for ASICs designe also. The path to properly learn
the language are long. So I recommend start with C/C++ with pic form Microchip, which is a
low cost and highly accepted microcontroller.
If you intend to do FPGA development, the knowledge gained with C/C++/pic will be helpfull and important, because must FPGAs have embedded CPU/Microcontroller inside.
There is no direct scientific reason for it. In a lot of cases it has to do with the management and politics of the specific company.
Some companies are driven to create a turn key system and force you to buy that system and pay for maintenance. It locks out the individual developers, but there are many companies and esp government agencies that prefer this model because the support is often much better and you can often drive the direction of their products to suit your needs.
Other companies do not have the staff or the talent and outsource the solution and sometimes take whatever they can get. And you might end up with a one time developed tool that after the contractor leaves is never updated or fixed again, or if it is fixed it is a patch job by someone else. It takes money to make money, but if you run out of money before you can sell your product you still fail.
Sometimes you have companies that both have a staff that maintains their in-house must buy from them tool AND has individuals that also contribute to open tools like gcc.
Sometimes the politics or management in the company have individuals that have a strong opinion of how the world must be and only allow tools to be developed for a specific language. Or perhaps they are owned by or partner with or just like a company that has a specific language and this chip product came to be simply to support that language.
On top of all of this you have the very real technical problems of memory space, the quality and efficiency of the instruction set and how compiler friendly it is. Some architectures may be fine for assembler, but higher level compiled code chews up the limited memory resources too quickly.
Gcc in particular has a lot of problems internally (not as a people but the software/source code itself). I challenge you to write a back end, even with the tutorials that are out there. A company requires specialised talent in order to create and then maintain a gcc backend year after year, otherwise you get dumped. if your chip architecture is not 32 bit or bigger you are already fighting a losing battle with gcc, your chip architecture might be compiler friendly but just not friendly with the popular compilers design.
In the near future llvm is going to shine as a cross compiler relative to gcc because it has not yet built this internal bulk, and perhaps because the internal guts are themselves a defined language/system it may never suffer what has happened to gcc. As more folks get comfortable with llvm we will see a number of architectures ported to it. The msp430 backend was done specifically to demonstrate that you can add a target literally in an afternoon. By the end of next month, some motivated individual could have all of the targets most of us have ever heard of ported to llvm. And you dont have to build a cross compiler it is always a cross compiler. I only mention llvm because the door is now open for targets that have suffered from bad tools to recover.
Some companies, microcontrollers in particular, can and will make the programming interface proprietary so that you must use their programming tool (and or hack it and take your chances with publishing those results and or a cat and mouse of them changing it to defeat you). And they may have only made tools for Windows leaving the linux and apple folks hanging in the wind. Or they make it so that the only binaries it will load are the ones generated by their tools, here again you may hack through the binary format allowing an alternate compiler, and they may or may not work to defeat you.
Despite the technical problems the biggest is the companies politics, management, marketing teams, and supply of or lack of talent in the engineering staff. The bottom line, follow the dollars not the technology or science to understand why this language is supported and not that, or the support for this language is good, bad, or marginal.
What language to learn as a result of all of this? Start with assembler on at least three different architectures. Then C and then C++ if you feel you really need it. C and assembler are your primary languages for embedded (depending on your definition of embedded). No, we write assembler mostly for initial boot code and to support C, interrupt stuff or special instructions that are needed that the compiler cannot create. There are places like microcontrollers where it may very well make sense to use assembler for various reasons like tools, limited chip resources, etc. Even if you dont use assembler knowing it makes you a much better high level programmer.
You do need to decide what your definition of embedded is. Is it api and library calls for an application on a(n embedded) linux system (indistinguishable from the same program/calls on a desktop system). Or at the other end of the spectrum are you talking a microcontroller with maybe 256 or 1024 bytes (not mega or giga, but bytes) of program space? Or something in the middle? The majority of the "embedded" folks out there are closer to the api calls for applications on an operating system (rtos, linux, wince, etc), than the deeply embedded, so that means C, maybe C++ (always be able to fall back on C), trying to avoid python and other scripty languages that are resource hogs.
Some 8-bit parts cannot efficiently access data from a stack. Instead of using a stack to pass parameters, auto-variables and parameters are statically allocated; typically, a linker allocates the automatic variables for main() at one end of memory, and then allocate the variables for functions that are called by main and nothing else, then allocate the variables for functions that are called by those functions and nothing else, etc. This will yield an optimal allocation fairly easily, subject to some caveats:
Recursion can only be supported by adding code to explicitly copy variables onto some sort of stack arrangement; in many compilers, it's simply not supported at all.
If a function looks like it "might" call another function, the linker will assume it can do so in all cases (e.g. it may be that when 'foo' calls 'bar', one of its parameters might always have a value such that 'bar' won't call 'boz', but the linker won't know that).
Any call to a function pointer with a certain signature will be regarded as a call to all functions with the same signature whose address is taken.
If the evaluation of more than one parameter to a function requires making additional function calls, additional temporary storage must generally be pessimistically allocated even if optimal placement of the parameter storage could have avoided that.
There are many types of C programs for which the above restrictions pose no problem at all, and many more for which they pose a nuisance but not a huge one (e.g. by adding dummy parameters or return values to ensure different classes of indirectly-called functions have different signatures). Unfortunately, the code generated by an C++ to C pre-compiler will almost always involve function pointers whose call graph cannot be reasonably divined, so using C++ on such a platform is apt to be difficult if not impossible.
I'm just wondering how you create a freestanding program in C++?
Edit: By freestanding I mean a program that doesn't run in a hosted envrioment (eg. OS). I want my program to be the first program the computer loads, instead of the OS.
Have a look at this article:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/tips/boot-loader.aspx
You would need a little assembly start-up code to get you as far as main() but then you could write the rest in C++. You'd have to write your own heap manager (new/delete) if you wanted to create objects at runtime and your own scheduler if you wanted more than one thread.
See this page: http://wiki.osdev.org/C++
It has everything necessary to start writing an OS using c++ as the core language using the more popular toolchains.
In addition this page should prove to be very helpful: http://wiki.osdev.org/C++_Bare_Bones. It pretty much walks you through getting to the c++ entry point of an OS.
Legacy Systems
Even with your clarification, the answer is that it depends -- the exact boot sequence depends on the hardware -- though there's quite a bit of commonality. The boot loader is typically loaded at an absolute address, and the file it's contained in is frequently read into memory exactly as-is. This means instead of a normal linker, you typically use a "linking locator". Where a typical linker produces an executable file ready for relocation and loading, a locator produces an executable that's already set up to run at one exact address, with all relocations already applied. For those old enough to remember them, it's typically pretty much like an MS-DOS .COM file.
Along with that, it has to (of course) statically link the whole run-time that the program depends upon -- it can't depend on something like a DLL or shared object library, because the code to load either of those hasn't itself been loaded yet.
EFI/UEFI
Current PCs (and Macs) use EFI/UEFI. I'm going to just refer to UEFI throughout the remainder of this article, but most of it applies about equally to EFI as well (but UEFI is much more common).
These provide quite a bit more support for boot code. This includes drivers for most devices (it supports installing device drivers), so your boot code can use networking and such, which is much more difficult to support in legacy mode.
Bootable code under EFI uses the same PE format as Windows executables. Libraries are also available so quite a bit of boot code can be written much more like normal code that runs inside an OS. I won't try to get into a lot of detail, but here are links to some information.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/tool/unified-extensible-firmware-interface.html
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/guide/uefi-driver-network-boot-devices-guide.pdf
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/guides/bldk-v2-uefi-standard-based-guide.pdf
And perhaps the most important one--the development kit:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2
google 'embedded c++' for a start
Another idea is to start with the embedded systems emulators, for example the atmel AVR site has a nice IDE the emulates atmel AVR systems, and allows you to build raw code in C and load it into an emulated CPU, they use gcc as toolchain (I think)
C++ is used in embedded systems programming, even to write OS kernels.
Usually you have at least a few assembler instructions early in the boot sequence. A few things are just easier to express that way, or there may be reference code from the CPU vendor you need to use.
For the initial boot process, you won't be able to use the standard library. No exceptions, RTII, new/delete. It's back to "C with classes". Most people just use C here.
Once you have enough supporting infrastructure loaded though, you can use whatever parts of the standard library you can port.
You will need an environment that provides:
A working C library, or enough of it to do what you want
The parts of the C++ runtime that you intend to use. This is compiler-specific
In addition to any other libraries. If you have no dynamic linker on your platform (if you have no OS, you probably have no linker) then you will have to static-link it all.
In practice this means linking some small C++ runtime, and a C library appropriate for your platform. Then you can simply write a standalone C++ program.
If you were using BSD Unix, you would link with the standalone library. That included a basic IO system for disk and tty. Your source code looked the same as if it were to be run under Unix, but the binary could be loaded into a naked machine.
Yes, of course. The ISO Standard for C and C++ support both hosted and free-standing environments, and the macro STDC_HOSTED is used to distinguish between the two. This has been the case since 2011.
Since most of the replies I see here are in the dark on the fact that this is all standard terminology (and is supposed to be common knowledge for C and C++ users), I'll recap, here, the distinction between the two, laid out by the ISO, and refer you to the following link for more details:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/freestanding
Hosted:
"main" is defined, and is started up in the main thread. The static objects may be constructed and destructed at the stand and end of the thread. Normally that means there is a host operating system (OS) that provides all the infrastructure required for an environment to run the program in. The POSIX standard, in particular, spells out a set of conditions expected for utilities that are called on a host system from the command-line; and the ISO C/C++ standards dovetail into each other and into the POSIX standard. (POSIX's support for C is at C99 at minimum.)
Free-Standing:
"main" may, but need not, be defined. Whether/how constructors are applied at start-up to static objects, and destructors to static objects on termination, depends on the implementation.
It's any environment where the routine made by the C or C++ program is not being called by some OS, but runs on its own. That's the typical case for embedded systems.
"Free-standing", of course, also includes OS's themselves, as a special case. An OS kernel is the epitome of a free-standing program. One of the respondents here actually went as far as to provide a link to a roll-your-own-OS kit for C++. In that vein, it would be an interesting exercise for you to test out the concept by rewriting the old 0.96 version of Linus' OS (which you can find in UNIX Archive) as a free-standing C++ program. His source code is actually filled with C++'isms (especially in the "fs" directory) that practically scream out "I'm a virtual function", "I'm a base class", "I'm a derived class" or "This is class inheritance"!
Libraries Required For Free-Standing Programs:
There are also minimum requirements on which of the standard libraries must be supported - and how much. Worthy of note: <new>, <exception> are mandatory, only partial support is required for <cstdlib> for start-up and termination, <atomic> (since 2011), <bit> and <coroutine> (both since 2020) are mandatory, as they had better be, if you're doing anything with embedded systems! <thread> is not mandatory.
A roll-your-own-OS kit would then provide templates for the mandatory libraries, and the required parts of the other semi-mandatory libraries. Any responsible embedded systems developer will be laying out their run-time system and environment, and compilers geared toward such users will be providing the under-the-box transparency needed to allow this to be done and to allow user-defined run-time systems to interface cleanly with the compiler.