Today I got into a very interesting conversation with a coworker, of which one subject got me thinking and googling this evening. Using C++ (as opposed to C) in an embedded environment. Looking around, there seems to be some good trades for and against the features C++ provides, but others Meyers clearly support it. So, I was wondering who would be able to shed some light on this topic and what the general consensus of the community was.
C++ for embedded platforms is perfectly fine - as long as you treat it as a better C. I love the fact that the language is slightly more structured. You can still do all the things that you want to do with C. Just remember to stick to an embedded C library like Newlib or uClibc.
I particularly like the abstraction that we can build using C++, particularly for I/O devices. So, we can have a class for UART and a class for GPIO and what nots. It is cleaner than having a bunch of functions (IMHO).
The fear of C++ among embedded developers is largely a thing of the past, when C++ compilers were not as good as C compilers (optimizations and code quality wise).
This applies especially to modern platforms with 32 bit architectures.
But, C is certainly still the preferred choice for more confined environments (as is assembler for 8 bit or 4 bit targets).
So, it really boils down to the resources your target platform provides, and how much of these resources you are likely to actually require, i.e. if you can afford the 'luxury' of doing embedded development in C++ (or even Java for that matter), because you know that you'll hardly have any issues regarding memory or CPU constraints.
Nowadays, many modern embedded platforms (think gaming consoles, mobile phones, PDAs etc), have really become very capable targets, with RISC architectures, several MB of RAM, and 3D hardware acceleration.
It would be a poor decision, to program such platforms using just C or even assembler out of uninformed performance considerations, on the other hand programming a 16 bit PIC in C++ would probably also be a controversial decision.
So, it's really a matter of asking yourself how much of the power, you'll actually need and how much you can afford to sacrifice, in order to improve the development experience (high level language, faster development, less tedious/redundant tasks).
It sort of depends on the particular nature of your embedded system and which features of C++ you use. The language itself doesn't necessarily generate bulkier code than C.
For example, if memory is your tightest constraint, you can just use C++ like "C with classes" -- that is, only using direct member functions, disabling RTTI, and not having any virtual functions or templates. That will fit in pretty much the same space as the equivalent C code, since you've no type information, vtables, or redundant functions to clutter things up.
I've found that templates are the biggest thing to avoid when memory is really tight, since you get one copy of each template function for each type it's specialized on, and that can rapidly bloat code segment.
In the console video games industry (which is sort of the beefy end of the embedded world) C++ is king. Our constraints are hard limits on memory (512mb on current generation) and realtime performance. Generally virtual functions and templates are used, but not exceptions, since they bloat the stack and are too perf-costly. In fact, one major manufacturer's compiler doesn't even support exceptions at all.
In my previous company all embedded code was written in a small subset of C code due to security (SIL-2) and memory reasons. By introducing a richer language like C++ in that particular scenario would have maybe cause more trouble than benefits.
In all due respect to C++ (which is a language I really love) but I think C - in our particular scenario - was the better choice.
I bet in some cases C++ is just fine to use for embedded applications but it really depends on the application - there is a difference if your program is controlling a nuclear plant or administrating an address book on your cell phone.
I don't know about "general consensus", only the company I work for (which does a lot of development for mobile phones, car navigation systems, DPFs, etc.).
The main drawback I've encountered to using C++ on embedded platforms as opposed to C is that it isn't quite as portable - there are many more cases of compilers that don't adhere to the standard which can cause problems if you need to build your code with more than 1 compiler or outright have bugs in the implementation. Then there are environments where C++ code simply won't run - BREW's issues with relocatable code and its "native OOP" don't play so well with "regular" C++ classes and inheritance.
In the end, though, if you're only targeting 1 platform, I'd say use whatever you think is "better" (faster, less bugs, better design) for your development - in most cases the issues can be worked around quite easily.
Depends what kind of embedded development you are doing. I've done embedded development with both C++, C, and Assembly on various platforms, you can even use Java to write applications on smart phones.
For instance on a smart phone like device that's running Windows CE 5, almost all of the code is C++, including in the operating system. Only small bits are written in C or assembly.
On the other hand I've written code for an MSP430 microcontroller, which was in C, and I probably would have done that in C++ had the compiler been more reliable and standards compliant.
Also I seem to recall a university lecturer of mine talking about writing embedded code in Forth or something. So really any language can do.
Now a days it will all boil down to the C++ runtime support of the platform. You're likely to find a way to compile C++ code down to almost any embedded platform with GCC, but if you can't find a suitable C++ runtime for the platform your efforts will be futile, unless you write your own C++ runtime.
One of the few things I tend to agree with Linus is his opinion about C++ http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918
Besides this, if you really really want to use C++ you might want to have a look at http://www.caravan.net/ec2plus/ which describes Embedded C++, or better to say you should not use in C++ for embedded systems.
The big thing keeping us with using C++ for a long time was the VxWorks support for it, which truly sucked. That supposidly has gotten better on VxWorks 6 (yes, it's been out a while... good 'ole vendor lock-in and lack of company vision has kept us stuck on VxWorks 5.5).
So for us it's mostly a question of the environment. After that, C++ can obviously be just as good as C... it's a matter of people understanding what their tool does and how to use it. C++ may make it easier to write incredibly inefficient code, but that doesn't mean we have to succomb to it.
I am currently fighting a problem with exceptions in an embedded Linux application. We are trying to port software written for a different platform that seemed to support exceptions well, but the new compiler tools (a port of gcc) reports errors when creating the eh_frame. I was against using exceptions for this tool, but the developer reassured me that modern compilers would support it well.
My opinion is that there are some advantages to C++, but I would stay away from exceptions and the standard template library. We haven't had problems using virtual functions.
C++ is suitable for microcontrollers and devices without an OS. You just have to know the architecture of the system and be conscious of time and space constrains, especially when doing mission critical programming.
With C++ you can do abstraction which often leads to an increased footprint in the code. You do not want this when programming for a resource-limited machine such as an 8-bit MCU.
Generally, avoid:
Dynamic memory allocation because it represents uncertainty in timing
Overloading
RTTI because the memory cost is large
Exceptions because of the execution speed lowering
Be cautious with virtual functions as they have a resource cost of a vtable per class and one pointer to the vtable per object. Also, use const in place of #define.
As you move up to 16 and 32-bit MCUs, with 10s or 100s of MB RAM, heavier features like the ones mentioned above may be used.
So to round up, C++ is useful for embedded systems. A main benefit is that OOP can be useful when you want to abstract aspects of the microcontroller, for example UART or state machines. But you may want to avoid certain features all of the time and some of the features some of the time, depending on the target you are programming for.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
From what I know, even though the common OS have parts written in other languages, the kernel is entirely written in C.
I want to know if it's feasible to write a Kernel in C++ and if not, what would be the drawbacks.
There are plenty of examples of well-used operating systems (or parts of them) implemented in C++ - IOKit - the device driver subsystem of MacOSX and IOS is implemented in EC++. Then there's the eCOS RTOS - where the kernel is implemented in C++, even making use of templates.
Operating systems are traditionally awash with examples of OO concepts implemented the hard way in C. In the linux device model kobject is effectively the base-class for driver and device objects, complete with DIY v-tables and some funky arrangements implemented in macros for up and down-casting.
The Windows NT kernel has an even more deeply rooted inheritance hierarchy of kernel objects. And for all of the neigh-sayers complaining about the suitability of exception handling in kernel code, exactly such a mechanism is provided.
Traditionally, the arguments against using C++ in kernel code have been:
Portability: availability of C++ compilers for all intended target platforms. This is not really an issue any more
Cost of C++ language mechanisms such as RTTI and exceptions. Clearly if they were to be used, the standard implementation isn't suitable and a kernel-specific variant needs using. This is generally the driver behind the use of EC++
Robustness of C++ APIs, and particularly the Fragile base-class problem
Undoubtedly, the use of exceptions and RAII paradigm would vastly improve kernel code quality - you only have to look at source code for BSD or linux to see the alternative - enormous amounts of error handling code implemented with gotos.
This is covered explicitly in the OSDev Wiki.
Basically, you either have to implement runtime support for certain things (like RTTI, exceptions), or refrain from using them (leaving only a subset of C++ to be used).
Other than that, C++ is the more complex language, so you need to have a bit more competent developers that won't screw it up. Linus Torvalds hating C++ being purely coincidental, of course.
To address Torvalds' concerns and others mentioned elsewhere here:
In hard-RT systems written in C++, STL/RTTI/exceptions are not used and that same principal can be applied to the much more lenient Linux kernel. Other concerns about "OOP memory model" or "polymorphism overhead" basically show programmers that never really checked what happens at the assembly level or the memory structure. C++ is as efficient, and due to optimized compilers many times more efficient than a C programmer writing lookup tables badly since he doesn't have virtual functions at hand.
In the hands of an average programmer C++ doesn't add any additional assembly code vs a C written piece of code. Having read the asm translation of most C++ constructs and mechanisms, I'd say that the compiler even has more room to optimize vs C and can create even leaner code at times. So as far as performance it's pretty easy to use C++ as efficiently as C, while still utilizing the power of OOP in C++.
So the answer is that it's not related to facts, and basically revolves around prejudice and not really knowing what code CPP creates. I personally enjoy C almost as much as C++ and I don't mind it, but there is no rational against layering an object oriented design above Linux, or in the Kernel itself, it would've done Linux a lot of good.
You can write an OS kernel in more or less any language you like.
There are a few reasons to prefer C, however.
It is a simple language! There's very little magic. You can reason about the machinecode the compiler will generate from your source code without too much difficulty.
It tends to be quite fast.
There's not much of a required runtime; there's minimal effort needed to port that to a new system.
There are lots of decent compilers available that target many many different CPU and system architectures.
By contrast, C++ is potentially a very complex language which involves an awful lot of magic being done to translate your increasingly high-level OOP code into machine code. It is harder to reason about the generated machine code, and when you need to start debugging your panicky kernel or flaky device driver the complexities of your OOP abstractions will start becoming extremely irritating... especially if you have to do it via user-unfriendly debug ports into the target system.
Incidentally, Linus is not the only OS developer to have strong opinions on systems programming languages; Theo de Raadt of OpenBSD has made a few choice quotes on the matter too.
The feasibility of writing a kernel in C++ can be easily established: it has already been done. EKA2 is the kernel of Symbian OS, which has been written in C++.
However, some restrictions to the usage of certain C++ features apply in the Symbian environment.
While there is something "honest" about (ANSI) C, there is also something "honest", in a different way, about C++.
C++'s syntactic support for abstracting objects is very worthwhile, no matter what the application space. The more tools available for misnomer mitigation, the better ... and classes are such a tool.
If some part of an existing C++ compiler does not play well with kernel-level realities, then whittle up a modified version of the compiler that does it the "right" way, and use that.
As far as programmer caliber and code quality, one can write either hideous or sublime code in either C or C++. I don't think it is right to discriminate against people who can actually code OOP well by disallowing it at the kernel level.
That said, and even as a seasoned programmer, I miss the old days of writing in assembler. I like 'em both ... C++ and ASM ... as long as I can use Emacs and source level debuggers (:-).
Revision after many years:
Looking back, I'd say the biggest problem is actually with the tons of high level features in C++, that are either hidden or outside the control of the programmer. The standard doesn't enforce any particular way of implementing things, even if most implementations follow common sanity, there are many good reasons to be 100% explicit and have full control over how things are implemented in a OS kernel.
This allows (as long as you know what you are doing) to reduce memory footprint, optimize data layout based on access patterns rather than OOP paradigms, thus improve cache-friendliness and performance, and avoid potential bugs that might come hidden in the tons of high level features of C++.
Note that even tho far more simple, even C is too unpredictable in some cases, which is one of the reasons there is also a lot of platform specific assembly in the kernel code.
Google's new-coming operating system Fuchsia is based on the kernel called Zircon, which is written mostly in C++, with some parts in assembly language[1] [2]. Plus, the rest of the OS is also written mostly in C++[3]. I think modern C++ gives programmers many reasons to use it as a general programming environment for huge codebases. It has lots of great features, and new features are added regularly. I think this is the main motive behind Google's decision. I think C++ could easily be the future of system programming.
One of the big benefits of C is it's readability. If you have a lot of code, which is more readable:
foo.do_something();
or:
my_class_do_something(&foo);
The C version is explicit about which type foo is every time foo is used. In C++ you have lots and lots of ambiguous "magic" going on behind the scenes. So readability is much worse if you are just looking at some small piece of code.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is there any reason to use C instead of C++ for embedded development?
I'm very curious about this: Why is it that when we deal with microcontrollers, they prefer C instead of C++? Based on my researches, C and Assembly language is the usual programming language for these devices. I only know C++ and Assembly Language. So in this case, should I start learning C or stick with Assembly language and if so, what compiler should I use because I only know the Turbo Assembler.
Thanks and more power! :)
Some C++ features like exceptions and virtual functions can add overhead to your program which is undesirable in highly resource constrained environments. This reduces the demand for C++ compilers on such platforms. It is also much more difficult to implement a C++ compiler than a C compiler. This difficulty plus lack of demand makes it so many micro-controllers only have C compilers available for them.
I would learn C for your micro-controller programming. It is not difficult to learn C after learning C++ and will be much easier to code in than assembly.
It is merely historical accident and practice (by old-time Luddites like me) that ucontrollers "prefer" ASM and C. If your compiler can compile C++ into ucontroller code, there's no theoretical reason that I know of why you should not use C++.
To me, it's much easier and more natural to use ASM and C but you can use whichever you prefer so long as your compiler (and linker, if you use it) can do the right thing; and your ucontroller has enough memory to accomodate the (perhaps bigger) compiled C++ code.
It's just the availability of resources, really, as explained by the other posters. By the time you've compiled in a couple virtual method tables and a couple dozen object pointers, that's all the RAM gone from a simple uC!
That said, I prefer C++ on today's 32-bit controllers with 8K upwards of RAM, plenty of flash, complex embedded peripherals and multitasking libs. After decades of OO, using plain C is nightmarish for anything non-trivial.
I currently use NXP ARM chips & Rowley Crossworks, (IDE, uses gcc). I only use C for lib interfaces and assembler for some drivers, all the rest is C++.
C is more low-level and does just exactly what you say. It is more adapted to low-resources environments such as micro-controllers.
C++ has some features which requires additional resources (such as OOP, exception, and so on).
Moreover the micro-controller does not have the same features as your computer's CPU. It could for example not support dynamic library loading and even for static libraries you're limited in size as your chip doesn't have many memory.
Usually, micro-controllers expose special input/output library, and the stdlib is not always available.
What you need is a cross-compiler for your micro-controller specifically.
Then you can write your program in C and ASM.
If the chip supports it, you can re-compile the stdlib to use the standard C features, and then you can eventually (once again if the chip has enough resources) build a C++ cross-compiler and then the STL. Then you will be able to build C++ program on your chip, but the program will weight much more than the original C program.
Microcontrollers are memory and bandwidth constrained processing units. C programming language generates tight code that is close to assembly language in terms of size and speed. C++ usually carries an overhead in memory and speed.
Another issue is dynamic memory allocation. Using object oriented design with C++ usually implies dynamically creating and destroying objects. Embedded applications using microcontrollers, typically allocate all the required memory statically and is not freed up for the life time of the application.
That being said, if you are using a 32 bit microcontroller and your application is complex enough that it handles either lot of data traffic or has significant user interface via touch screen / LCD etc., C++ (& sometimes even C# ) is the language of choice.
The compiler that you choose would depend on the microcontroller, check the microcontroller vendor website for the appropriate development tool suite to use.
Assembly language is used only for the lowest layers if it cannot be done in C. It is harder to maintain and port assembly language code, hence it is best to minimize its use in your application.
Microcontrollers are small devices which are not very powerfull compared to computers. They have limited resources. Firstly, the size of the stack is very limited, thus it is not recommanded to have many nested function calls (on some devices, the stack is limited to a few bytes). Secondly, it is often not possible to dynamically allocate memory (alloc, free...), and most of the program data must be global static variables or stored in the stack, so usefull classes such as std::vector would not be available.
Even if C++ compilers could be used for microcontrollers, it would not be very useful since the low capabilities of these devices would forbid plain usage of this powerful language. Using C is often easier for simple tasks, and microcontrollers are sized for simple tasks.
I've been writing a number of network daemons in different languages over the past years, and now I'm about to start a new project which requires a new custom implementation of a properitary network protocol.
The said protocol is pretty simple - some basic JSON formatted messages which are transmitted in some basic frame wrapping to have clients know that a message arrived completely and is ready to be parsed.
The daemon will need to handle a number of connections (about 200 at the same time) and do some management of them and pass messages along, like in a chat room.
In the past I've been using mostly C++ to write my daemons. Often with the Qt4 framework (the network parts, not the GUI parts!), because that's what I also used for the rest of the projects and it was simple to do and very portable. This usually worked just fine, and I didn't have much trouble.
Being a Linux administrator for a good while now, I noticed that most of the network daemons in the wild are written in plain C (of course some are written in other languages, too, but I get the feeling that > 80% of the daemons are written in plain C).
Now I wonder why that is.
Is this due to a pure historic UNIX background (like KISS) or for plain portability or reduction of bloat? What are the reasons to not use C++ or any "higher level" languages for things like daemons?
Thanks in advance!
Update 1:
For me using C++ usually is more convenient because of the fact that I have objects which have getter and setter methods and such. Plain C's "context" objects can be a real pain at some point - especially when you are used to object oriented programming.
Yes, I'm aware that C++ is a superset of C, and that C code is basically C++ you can compile any C code with a C++ compiler. But that's not the point. ;)
Update 2:
I'm aware that nowadays it might make more sense to use a high level (scripting) language like Python, node.js or similar. I did that in the past, and I know of the benefits of doing that (at least I hope I do ;) - but this question is just about C and C++.
I for one can't think of any technical reason to chose C over C++. Not one that I can't instantly think of a counterpoint for anyway.
Edit in reply to edit: I would seriously discourage you from considering, "...C code is basically C++." Although you can technically compile any C program with a C++ compiler (in as far as you don't use any feature in C that's newer than what C++ has adopted) I really try to discourage anyone from writing C like code in C++ or considering C++ as "C with objects."
In response to C being standard in Linux, only in as far as C developers keep saying it :p C++ is as much part of any standard in Linux as C is and there's a huge variety of C++ programs made on Linux. If you're writing a Linux driver, you need to be doing it in C. Beyond that...I know RMS likes to say you're more likely to find a C compiler than a C++ one but that hasn't actually been true for quite a long time now. You'll find both or neither on almost all installations.
In response to maintainability - I of course disagree.
Like I said, I can't think of one that can't instantly be refuted. Visa-versa too really.
The resistance to C++ for the development for daemon code stem from a few sources:
C++ has a reputation for being hard to avoid memory leaks. And memory leaks are a no no in any long running software. This is to a degree untrue - the problem is developers with a C background tend to use C idioms in C++, and that is very leaky. Using the available C++ features like vectors and smart pointers can produce leak free code.
As a converse, the smart pointer template classes, while they hide resource allocation and deallocation from the programmer, do a lot of it under the covers. In fact C++ generally has a lot of implicit allocation as a result of copy constructors and so on. As a result the C++ heap can become fragmented over time and daemon processes will eventually fail with an out of memory error even though there is sufficient RAM. This can be ameliorated by the use of modern heap managers that are more fragmenttation resistant, but they do this by consuming more resource up front.
while this doesn't apply to usermode daemon code, kernel mode developers avoid C++, again because of the implicit code C++ generates, and the exceptions C++ libraries use to handle errors. Most c++ compilers implement c++ exceptions in terms of hardware exceptions, and lots of kernel mode code is executed in environments where exceptions are not allowed to be thrown. Also, all the implicit code generated by c++, being implicit, cannot be wrapped in #pragma directives to guarantee its placement in pageable, or non pageable memory.
As a result, C++ is not possible for kernel development on any platform at all, and generally shunned by daemon developers too. Even if one's code is written using the proper smart memory management classes and does not leak - keeping on top of potential memory fragmentation issues makes languages where memory allocation is explicit a preferred choice.
I would recommend whichever you feel more comfortable with. If you are more comfortable with C++, your code is going to be cleaner, and run more efficiently, as you'll be more used to it, if you know what I mean.
The same applies on a larger scale to something like a Python vs Perl discussion. Whichever you are more comfortable with will probably produce better code, because you'll have experience.
I think the reason is that ANSI C is the standard programming language in Linux. It is important to follow this standard whenever people want to share their code with others etc. But it is not a requirement if you just want to write something for yourself.
You personally can use C or C++ and the result will be identical. I think you should choose C++ if you know it well and can exploit some special object oriented features of it in your code. Don't look too much to other people here, if you are good in C++ just go and write your daemon in C++. I would personally write it in C++ as well.
You're right. The reason for not using C++ is KISS, particularly if you ever intend for someone else to maintain your code down the road. Most folks that I know of learned to write daemons from existing source or reading books by Stevens. Pretty much that means your examples will be in C. C++ is just fine, I've written daemons in it myself, but I think if you expect it to be maintained and you don't know who the maintainer might be down the road it shows better foresight to write in C.
Boost makes it incredibly easy to write single threaded, or multi-threaded and highly scalable, networking daemons with the asio library.
I would recommend using C++, with a reservation on using exception handling and dynamic RTTI. These features may have run time performance cost implications and may not be supported well across platforms.
C++ is more modular and maintainable so if you can avoid these features go ahead and use it for your project.
Both C and C++ are perfectly suited for the task of writing daemons.
Besides that, nowadays, you should consider also scripting languages as Perl or Python. Performance is usually just good enough and you will be able to write applications more robust and in less time.
BTW, take a look at ACE, a framework for writting portable network applications in C++.
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 in the process of developing a software library to be used for embedded systems like an ARM chip or a TI DSP (for mostly embedded systems, but it would also be nice if it could also be used in a PC environment). Obviously this is a pretty broad range of target systems, so being able to easily port to different systems is a priority.The library will be used for interfacing with a specific hardware and running some algorithms.
I am thinking C++ is the best option, over C, because it is much easier to maintain and read. I think the additional overhead is worth it for being able to work in the object oriented paradigm. If I was writing for a very specific system, I would work in C but this is not the case.
I'm assuming that these days most compilers for popular embedded systems can handle C++. Is this correct?
Is there any other factors I should consider? Is my line of thinking correct?
If portability is very important for you, especially on an embedded system, then C is certainly a better option than C++. While C++ compilers on embedded platforms are catching up, there's simply no match for the widespread use of C, for which any self-respecting platform has a compliant compiler.
Moreover, I don't think C is inferior to C++ where it comes to interfacing hardware. The amount of abstraction is sufficiently low (i.e. no deep class hierarchies) to make C just as good an option.
There is certainly good support of C++ for ARM. ARM have their own compiler and g++ can also generate EABI compliant ARM code. When it comes to the DSPs, you will have to look at their toolchain to decide what you are going to do. Be aware that the library that comes with a DSP may well not implement the full C or C++ standard library.
C++ is suitable for low-level embedded development and is used in the SymbianOS Kernel. Having said that, you should keep things as simple as possible.
Avoid exceptions which may demand more library support than what is present (therefore use new (std::nothrow) Foo instead of new Foo).
Avoid memory allocations as much as possible and do them as early as possible.
Avoid complex patterns.
Be aware that templates can bloat your code.
I have seen many complaints that C++ is "bloated" and inappropriate for embedded systems.
However, in an interview with Stroustrup and Sutter, Bjarne Stroustrup mentioned that he'd seen heavily templated C++ code going into (IIRC) the braking systems of BMWs, as well as in missile guidance systems for fighter aircraft.
What I take away from this is that experts of the language can generate sophisticated, efficient code in C++ that is most certainly suitable for embedded systems. However, a "C With Classes"[1] programmer that does not know the language inside out will generate bloated code that is inappropriate.
The question boils down to, as always: in which language can your team deliver the best product?
[1] I know that sounds somewhat derogatory, but let me say that I know an awful lot of these guys, and they churn out an awful lot of relatively simple code that gets the job done.
C++ compilers for embedded platforms are much closer to 83's C with classes than 98's C++ standard, let alone C++0x. For instance, some platform we use still compile with a special version of gcc made from gcc-2.95!
This means that your library interface will not be able to provide interfaces with containers/iterators, streams, or such advanced C++ features. You'll have to stick with simple C++ classes, that can very easily be expressed as a C interface with a pointer to a structure as first parameter.
This also means that within your library, you won't be able to use templates to their full power. If you want portability, you will still be restricted to generic containers use of templates, which is, I'm sure you'll admit, only a very tiny part of C++ templates power.
C++ has little or no overhead compared to C if used properly in an embedded environment. C++ has many advantages for information hiding, OO, etc. If your embedded processor is supported by gcc in C then chances are it will also be supported with C++.
On the PC, C++ isn't a problem at all -- high quality compilers are extremely widespread and almost every C compiler is directly associated with a C++ compiler that's quite good, though there are a few exceptions such as lcc and the newly revived pcc.
Larger embedded systems like those based on the ARM are generally quite similar to desktop systems in terms of tool chain availability. In fact, many of the same tools available for desktop machines can also generate code to run on ARM-based machines (e.g., lots of them use ports of gcc/g++). There's less variety for TI DSPs (and a greater emphasis on quality of generated code than source code features), but there are still at least a couple of respectable C++ compilers available.
If you want to work with smaller embedded systems, the situation changes in a hurry. If you want to be able to target something like a PIC or an AVR, C++ isn't really much of an option. In theory, you could get (for example) Comeau to produce a custom port that generated code you could compile on that target's C compiler -- but chances are pretty good that even if you did, it wouldn't work out very well. These systems are really just too limitated (especially on memory size) for C++ to fit them well.
Depending on what your intended use is for the library, I think I'd suggest implementing it first as C - but the design should keep in mind how it would be incorporated into a C++ design. Then implement C++ classes on top of and/or along side of the C implementation (there's no reason this step cannot be done concurrently with the first). If your C design is done with a C++ design in mind, it's likely to be as clean, readable and maintainable as the C++ design would be. This is somewhat more work, but I think you'll end up with a library that's useful in more situations.
While you'll find C++ used more and more on various embedded projects, there are still many that restrict themselves to C (and I'd guess this is more often the case than not) - regardless of whether or not the tools support C++. It would be a shame to have a nice library of routines that you could bring to a new project you're working on, but be unable to use them because C++ isn't being used on that particular project.
In general, it's much easier to use a well-designed C library from C++ than the other way around. I've taken this approach with several sets of code including parsing Intel Hex files, a simple command parser, manipulating synchronization objects, FSM frameworks, etc. I'm planning on doing a simple XML parser at some point.
Here's an entirely different C++-vs-C argument: stable ABIs. If your library exports a C ABI, it can be compiled with any compiler that works on the system, because C ABIs are generally platform standards. If your library exports a C++ ABI, it can only be compiled with a matching compiler -- because C++ ABIs are usually not platform standards, and often differ from compiler to compiler and even version to version.
Interestingly, one of the rare exceptions to this is ARM; there's an ARM C++ ABI specification, and all compliant ARM compilers follow it. This is not true on x86; on x86, you're lucky if a C++ library compiled with a 4.1 version of GCC will link correctly with an application compiled with GCC 4.4, and don't even ask about 3.4.6.
Even if you export a C ABI, you can have problems. If your library uses C++ internally, it will then link to libstdc++ for things in the C++ std:: namespace. If your user compiles a C++ application that uses your library, they'll also link to libstdc++ -- and so the overall application gets linked to libstdc++ twice, and their libstdc++ may not be compatible with your libstdc++, which can (or so I understand) lead to odd errors from the intersection of the two. Considerably less likely, but still possible.
All of these arguments only apply because you're writing a library, and they're not showstoppers. But they are things to be aware of.