I'm midway through a VHDL class and have been able to play relatively nice with the ISE and Digilent toolchain in Linux... until trying to reflash a PicoBlaze program. For details, I am currently running and targeting,
Fedora 21 64-bit (3.19.3-200.fc21.x86_64)
Nexys2 development board from Digilent (with a Spartan3)
Xilinx ISE 14.7
Adept 2.16.1 Runtime
Adept 2.2.1 Utilities
I've been able to run ISE and program the Nexys2 bit files with iMPACT just fine so far in Linux, but this current project is to write an assembly program for the PicoBlaze soft core processor, compile and update the memory of the running vector without having to resynthesize any VHDL.
Using the steps from Kris Chaplin's post, I can compile a PSM to HEX and then convert that HEX file to an SVF in dosbox. From here I can use Digilent's Adept tool in Windows to program a top_level.bit file which has the PicoBlaze already synthesized, I could also do this in ISE's iMPACT in Linux. After the design is running, I can use Adept to program the SVF file into the running memory of the design and everything is peachy. However, trying to load the SVF into iMPACT in Linux throws an exception,
EXCEPTION:iMPACT:SVFYacc.c:208:1.10 - Data mismatch.
The only issue I've found online with that error shows that there should be an '#' symbol that needs to be removed, but I haven't seen any '#'s anywhere in the SVF.
I also tried to convert the SVF to XSVF. iMPACT doesn't throw an error loading the XSVF, but programming/executing the XSVF freezes the design instead of running the new program.
Adept doesn't have a comparable GUI in Linux that I've seen, just a cmd line tool 'djtgcfg'. Just like iMPACT, I've been able to program the toplevel.bit file fine with
$ djtgcfg prog -d Nexys2 -i 0 -f ../../toplevel.bit
but attempting to program the svf file with the same call doesn't seem to affect anything. It says it should take a few minutes and immediately reports "Programming succeeded" but I don't see any change on the device.
I'd really like to keep my environment all in Linux if I can, I don't have quite enough room on my laptop to juggle between two VMs.
Is it possible to use use iMPACT to write an SVF file to the Nexus2? Or can/should I be using the Adept utility differently?
Has anyone gotten this to work? Thanks a ton!
There are many better ways to reconfigure the PicoBlaze InstructionROM without resynthesizing:
use Xilinx's data2mem tool
This toll is shipped with ISE and can patch BlockRAM contents in bit-files
=> requires FPGA reprogramming
use PicoBlaze's embedded JTAGLoader6
Enable the embedded JTAGLoader6 design in the template file. Use JTAG_Loader_RH_64 binary or JTAG_Loader_Win7_64.exe to upload a hex-file via JTAG into the PicoBlaze ROM.
=> reconfigure ROM at runtime, no FPGA reprogramming needed
The manual from Ken Chapman offers several pages on how to use JTAG_Loader. Additionally, have a look into the PicoBlaze discussions at forums.xilinx.com. There are some discussions regarding bugs and issues around JTAG_Loader and how to solve them.
Also have a look into opbasm from Kevin Thibedeau as an alternative and improved PicoBlaze assembler. It is also shipped with an ROM patch tool.
I know it's a little bit late for the original poster, but I suspect I am taking the same class and I believe I have found a solution to upload picoblaze code on linux.
Download the KCPSM3 zip file from Xilinx IP Download, extract the contents and move the executables from the JTAG_loader folder to your working directory.
In dosbox run hex2svfsetup.exe for the nexys2 board select menu options 4 - 0 - 1 - 8
Use the assembler to create the .hex file
In dosbox run hex2svf.exe to create the svf file
Then run svf2xsvf.exe -d -i < input.svf > -o < output.xsvf >
The contrary to the JTAG_Loader_quick_guide.pdf in the initial zip file use impact and open the xsvf file and program using the xsvf file.
Related
How I can run x86 binaries (for example .exe file) on arm?As I see on Wikipedia,I need to convert binary data for the emulated platform into binary data suitable for execution on the targeted platform.but question is:How I can do it?I need to open file in hex editor and change?Or something else?
To successfully do this, you'd have to do two things.. one relatively easy, one very hard. Neither of which you want to do by hand in a hex editor.
Convert the machine code from x86 to ARM. This is the easy one, because you should be able to map each x86 opcode to one or more ARM opcodes. There are different ways to do this, some more efficient than others, but it can be done with a pretty straightforward mapping.
Remap function calls (and other jumps). This one is hard, because monkeying with the opcodes is going to change all the offsets for the jump and return points. If you have dynamically linked libraries (.so), and we assume that all the libraries are available at exactly the same version in both places (a sketchy assumption at best), you'd have to remap the loads.
It's essentially a machine->machine compiler and linker.
So, can you do it? Sure.
Is it easy? No.
There may be a commercial tool out there, but I'm not aware of it.
You can not do this with a binary;note1 here binary means an object with no symbol information like an elf file. Even with an elf file, this is difficult to impossible. The issue is determining code from data. If you resolve this issue, then you can make de-compilers and other tools.
Even if you haven an elf file, a compiler will insert constants used in the code in the text segment. You have to look at many op-codes and do a reverse basic block to figure out where a function starts and ends.
A better mechanism is to emulate the x86 on the ARM. Here, you can use JIT technology to do the translation as encountered, but you approximately double code space. Also, the code will execute horribly. The ARM has 16 registers and the x86 is register starved (usually it has hidden registers). A compilers big job is to allocate these registers. QEMU is one technology that does this. I am unsure if it goes in the x86 to ARM direction; and it will have a tough job as noted.
Note1: The x86 has an asymmetric op-code sizing. In order to recognize a function prologue and epilogue, you would have to scan an image multiple times. To do this, I think the problem would be something like O(n!) where n is the bytes of the image, and then you might have trouble with in-line assembler and library routines coded in assembler. It maybe possible, but it is extremely hard.
To run an ARM executable on an X86 machine all you need is qemu-user.
Example:
you have busybox compiled for AARCH64 architecture (ARM64) and you want to run it on an X86_64 linux system:
Assuming a static compile, this runs arm64 code on x86 system:
$ qemu-aarch64-static ./busybox
And this runs X86 code on ARM system:
$ qemu-x86_64-static ./busybox
What I am curioous is if there is a way to embed both in a single program.
read x86 binary file as utf-8,then copy from ELF to last character�.Then go to arm binary and delete as you copy with x86.Then copy x86 in clip-board to the head.i tried and it's working.
Is it possible to write a program (make executable) that runs on windows and linux without any interpreters?
Will it be able to take input and print output to console?
A program that runs directly on hardware, pure machine code as this should be possible in theory
edit:
Ok, file formats are different, system calls are different
But how hard or is it possible for kernel developers to introduce another executable format called raw for fun and science? Maybe raw program wont be able to report back but it should be able to inflict heavy load on cpu and raise its temperature as evidence of running for example
Is it possible to write a program (make executable) that runs on windows and linux without any interpreters?
in practice, no !
Levine's book Linkers and loaders explain why it is not possible in practice.
On recent Linux, an executable has the elf(5) format.
On Windows, it has some PE format.
The very first bytes of executables are different. And these two OSes have different system calls. The Linux ones are listed in syscalls(2).
And even on Linux, in practice, an executable is usually dynamically linked and depends on shared objects (and they are different from one distribution to the next one, so it is likely that an executable built for Debian/Testing won't run on Redhat). You could use the objdump(1), readelf(1), ldd(1) commands to inspect it, and strace(1) with gdb(1) to observe its runtime behavior.
Portability of software is often achieved by publishing it (in source form) with some open source license. The burden of recompilation is then on the shoulders of users.
In practice, real software (in particular those with a graphical user interface) depends on lots of OS specific and computer specific resources (e.g. fonts, screen size, colors) and user preferences.
A possible approach could be to have a small OS specific software base which generate machine code at runtime, like e.g. SBCL or LuaJit does. You could also consider using asmjit. Another approach is to generate opaque or obfuscated C or C++ code at runtime, compile it (with the system compiler), and load it -at runtime- as a plugin. On Linux, use dlopen(3) with dlsym(3).
Pitrat's book: Artificial Beings, the conscience of a conscious machine describes a software system (some artificial mathematician) which generates all of its C source code (half a million lines). Contact me by email to basile#starynkevitch.net for more.
The Wine emulator allows you to run some (but not all) simple Windows executables on Linux. The WSL layer is rumored to enable you to run some Linux executable on Windows.
PS. Even open source projects like RefPerSys or GCC or Qt may be (and often are) difficult to build.
No, mainly because executable formats are different, but...
With some care, you can use mostly the same code to create different executables, one for Linux and another one for windows. Depending on what you consider an interpreter Java also runs on both Windows and Linux (in a Java Virtual Machine though).
Also, it is possible to create scripts that can be interpreted both by PowerShell and by the Bash shell, such that running one of these scripts could launch a proper application compiled for the OS of the user.
You might require the windows user to run on WSL, which is maybe an ugly workaround but allows you to have the same executable for both Windows and Linux users.
The Wikipedia page on Core dump says
In Unix-like systems, core dumps generally use the standard executable
image-format:
a.out in older versions of Unix,
ELF in modern Linux, System V, Solaris, and BSD systems,
Mach-O in OS X, etc.
Does this mean a core dump is executable by itself? If not, why not?
Edit: Since #WumpusQ.Wumbley mentions a coredump_filter in a comment, perhaps the above question should be: can a core dump be produced such that it is executable by itself?
In older unix variants it was the default to include the text as well as data in the core dump but it was also given in the a.out format and not ELF. Today's default behavior (in Linux for sure, not 100% sure about BSD variants, Solaris etc.) is to have the core dump in ELF format without the text sections but that behavior can be changed.
However, a core dump cannot be executed directly in any case without some help. The reason for that is that there are two things missing from a simple core file. One is the entry point, the other is code to restore the CPU state to the state at or just before the dump occurred (by default also the text sections are missing).
In AIX there used to be a utility called undump but I have no idea what happened to it. It doesn't exist in any standard Linux distribution I know of. As mentioned above (#WumpusQ) there's also an attempt at a similar project for Linux mentioned in above comments, however this project is not complete and doesn't restore the CPU state to the original state. It is, however, still good enough in some specific debugging cases.
It is also worth mentioning that there exist other ELF formatted files that cannot be executes as well which are not core files. Such as object files (compiler output) and .so (shared object) files. Those require a linking stage before being run to resolve external addresses.
I emailed this question the creator of the undump utility for his expertise, and got the following reply:
As mentioned in some of the answers there, it is possible to include
the code sections by setting the coredump_filter, but it's not the
default for Linux (and I'm not entirely sure about BSD variants and
Solaris). If the various code sections are saved in the original
core-dump, there is really nothing missing in order to create the new
executable. It does, however, require some changes in the original
core file (such as including an entry point and pointing that entry
point to code that will restore CPU registers). If the core file is
modified in this way it will become an executable and you'll be able
to run it. Unfortunately, though, some of the states are not going to
be saved so the new executable will not be able to run directly. Open
files, sockets, pips, etc are not going to be open and may even point
to other FDs (which could cause all sorts of weird things). However,
it will most probably be enough for most debugging tasks such running
small functions from gdb (so that you don't get a "not running an
executable" stuff).
As other guys said, I don't think you can execute a core dump file without the original binary.
In case you're interested to debug the binary (and it has debugging symbols included, in other words it is not stripped) then you can run gdb binary core.
Inside gdb you can use bt command (backtrace) to get the stack trace when the application crashed.
I recently read a post (admittedly its a few years old) and it was advice for fast number-crunching program:
"Use something like Gentoo Linux with 64 bit processors as you can compile it natively as you install. This will allow you to get the maximum punch out of the machine as you can strip the kernel right down to only what you need."
can anyone elaborate on what they mean by stripping down the kernel? Also, as this post was about 6 years old, which current version of Linux would be best for this (to aid my google searches)?
There is some truth in the statement, as well as something somewhat nonsensical.
You do not spend resources on processes you are not running. So as a first instance I would try minimise the number of processes running. For that we quite enjoy Ubuntu server iso images at work -- if you install from those, log in and run ps or pstree you see a thing of beauty: six or seven processes. Nothing more. That is good.
That the kernel is big (in terms of source size or installation) does not matter per se. Many of this size stems from drivers you may not be using anyway. And the same rule applies again: what you do not run does not compete for resources.
So think about a headless server, stripped down -- rather than your average desktop installation with more than a screenful of processes trying to make the life of a desktop user easier.
You can create a custom linux kernel for any distribution.
Start by going to kernel.org and downloading the latest source. Then choose your configuration interface (you have the choice of console text, 'config', ncurses style 'menuconfig', KDE style 'xconfig' and GNOME style 'gconfig' these days) and execute ./make whateverconfig. After choosing all the options, type make to create your kernel. Then make modules to compile all the selected modules for this kernel. Then, make install will copy the files to your /boot directory, and make modules_install, copies the modules. Next, go to /boot and use mkinitrd to create the ram disk needed to boot properly, if needed. Then you'll add the kernel to your GRUB menu.lst, by editing menu.lst and copying the latest entry and adding a similar one pointing to the new kernel version.
Of course, that's a basic overview and you should probably search for 'linux kernel compile' to find more detailed info. Selecting the necessary kernel modules and options takes a bit of experience - if you choose the wrong options, the kernel might not be bootable and you'll have to start over, which is a pain because selecting the options and compiling the kernel can take 15-30 minutes.
Ultimately, it isn't going to make a large difference to compile a stripped-down custom kernel unless your given task is very, very performance sensitive. It makes sense to remove things you're never going to use from the kernel, though, like say ISDN support.
I'd have to say this question is more suited to SuperUser.com, by the way, as it's not quite about programming.
Can anyone point me to a good tutorial on creating a bootable Linux CD from scratch?
I need help with a fairly specialized problem: my firm sells an expansion card that requires custom firmware. Currently we use an extremely old live CD image of RH7.2 that we update with current firmware. Manufacturing puts the cards in a machine, boots off the CD, the CD writes the firmware, they power off and pull the cards. Because of this cycle, it's essential that the CD boot and shut down as quickly as possible.
The problem is that with the next generation of cards, I have to update the CD to a 2.6 kernel. It's easy enough to acquire a pre-existing live CD - but those all are designed for showing off Linux on the desktop - which means they take forever to boot.
Can anyone fix me up with a current How-To?
Update:
So, just as a final update for anyone reading this later - the tool I ended up using was "livecd-creator".
My reason for choosing this tool was that it is available for RedHat-based distributions like CentOs, Fedora and RHEL - which are all distributions that my company supports already. In addition, while the project is very poorly documented it is extremely customizable. I was able to create a minimal LiveCD and edit the boot sequence so that it booted directly into the firmware updater instead of a bash shell.
The whole job would have only taken an hour or two if there had been a README explaining the configuration file!
There are a couple of interesting projects you could look into.
But first: does it have to be a CD-ROM? That's probably the slowest possible storage (well, apart from tape, maybe) you could use. What about a fast USB stick or a an IEE1394 hard-disk or maybe even an eSATA hard-disk?
Okay, there are several Live-CDs that are designed to be very small, in order to e.g. fit on a business card sized CD. Some were also designed to be booted from a USB stick, back when that meant 64-128 MiByte: Damn Small Linux is one of the best known ones, however it uses a 2.4 kernel. There is a sister project called Damn Small Linux - Not, which has a 2.6 kernel (although it seems it hasn't been updated in years).
Another project worth noting is grml, a Live-CD for system administration tasks. It does not boot into a graphic environment, and is therefore quite fast; however, it still contains about 2 GiByte of software compressed onto a CD-ROM. But it also has a smaller flavor, aptly named grml-small, which only contains about 200 MiByte of software compressed into 60 MiByte.
Then there is Morphix, which is a Live-CD builder toolkit based on Knoppix. ("Morphable Knoppix"!) Morphix is basically a tool to build your own special purpose Live-CD.
The last thing I want to mention is MachBoot. MachBoot is a super-fast Live-CD. It uses various techniques to massively speed up the boot process. I believe they even trace the order in which blocks are accessed during booting and then remaster the ISO so that those blocks are laid out contiguously on the medium. Their current record is less than 6 seconds to boot into a full graphical desktop environment. However, this also seems to be stale.
One key piece of advice I can give is that most LiveCDs use a compressed filesystem called squashfs to cram as much data on the CD as possible. Since you don't need compression, you could run the mksquashfs step (present in most tutorials) with -noDataCompression and -noFragmentCompression to save on decompression time. You may even be able to drop the squashfs approach entirely, but this would require some restructuring. This may actually be slower depending on your CD-ROM read speed vs. CPU speed, but it's worth looking into.
This Ubuntu tutorial was effective enough for me to build a LiveCD based on 8.04. It may be useful for getting the feel of how a LiveCD is composed, but I would probably not recommend using an Ubuntu LiveCD.
If at all possible, find a minimal LiveCD and build up with only minimal stripping out, rather than stripping down a huge LiveCD like Ubuntu. There are some situations in which the smaller distros are using smaller/faster alternatives rather than just leaving something out. If you want to get seriously hardcore, you could look at Linux From Scratch, and include only what you want, but that's probably more time than you want to spend.
Creating Your Own Custom Ubuntu 7.10 Or Linux Mint 4.0 Live-CD With Remastersys
Depends on your distro. Here's a good article you can check out from LWN.net
There is a book I used which covers a lot of distros, though it does not cover creating a flash-bootable image. The book is Live Linux(R) CDs: Building and Customizing Bootables. You can use it with supplemental information from your distro of choice.
So, just as a final update for anyone reading this later - the tool I ended up using was "livecd-creator".
My reason for choosing this tool was that it is available for RedHat-based distributions like CentOs, Fedora and RHEL - which are all distributions that my company supports already. In addition, while the project is very poorly documented it is extremely customizable. I was able to create a minimal LiveCD and edit the boot sequence so that it booted directly into the firmware updater instead of a bash shell.
The whole job would have only taken an hour or two if there had been a README explaining the configuration file!
Debian Live provides the best tools for building a Linux Live CD. Webconverger uses Debian Live for example.
It's very easy to use.
sudo apt-get install live-helper # from Debian unstable, which should work fine from Ubuntu
lh_config # edit config/* to your liking
sudo lh_build