I have an application using ThreadX 5.1 as the kernel.
The Image is flashed on to a hardware running an ARM 9 processor.
I'm trying to build a Simulator for the application that can be run on Windows (say XP, 32-bit).
Is there any way I can make it run on Windows, without modifying the entire source code to start calling win32 system calls?
You can build a Simulator for the application that can be run on Windows with "ThreadX for Win32".
"ThreadX for Win32"'s specification is hear.
http://rtos.com/products/threadx/Win32
Yes you can if you are willing to put in the work.
First observe that each threadx system call has an equivalent posix call except for events.
So your threadx program can run as a single process using posix threads, mutexes, etc.
Events can be handled by an external library (there are a few out there).
If you find this difficult in windows then the simplest thing to do is set up a linux vm. I use an ubuntu vm running on Virtual Box. It is very easy to set up. All you will need is the cdt version of eclipse.
Next you need to stub out all of your low level system calls.
This is also easier than you might think. For example, if you have a SPI driver to read and write to flash, you can replace your flash with a big array which is quite easy to work with at this level.
Having said all this, you may get more mileage if your threadx application is modular. Then you can test each module on it's own and you don't need to mess with threads, etc.
As a first approximation this may give you what you need without going the distance to port the whole thing to run under posix.
I have done this successfully in the past and developed a full set of unit tests for a module that allowed me to develop and test it (on my mac) before going to the target. Development is much faster and reliable this way.
Another option you may want to consider is to find a qemu project that supports your microprocessor. With some work you can develop a complete simulator for your platform and then run the real firmware under the emulator.
Good luck.
Related
NW.js has this feature it calls "Protect JavaScript Source Code": https://nwjs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/For%20Users/Advanced/Protect%20JavaScript%20Source%20Code/
The JavaScript source code of your application can be protected by compiling to native code and loaded by NW.js. You only have to distribute the compiled code with your app for production.
JS source code is compiled to native code with the tool nwjc , which is provided in the SDK build.
The compiled code is not cross-platform nor compatible between versions of NW.js. So you’ll need to run nwjc for each of the platforms when you package your application.
I downloaded the SDK distributions for Windows, Mac and Linux, and looked into the files inside them.
The Windows one has a "nwjc.exe" file, ready to be used and works. Good.
But the Mac and Linux ones have no .exe, but instead just a "nwjc" executable. This is obviously for running on macOS and Linux, respectively. Huh?
My used OS is Windows. I am developing my NW.js application on Windows, to be distributed on Windows, Mac and Linux. And I cannot run those Linux/macOS executables on a Windows system. But I have to do so, since they are for some reason not cross-platform.
This seems like a dead end to me. I either have to not "protect" my application (and thus have it stolen/copied/broken/hacked), or buy two separate computers (one expensive Mac and one PC for Linux) and do this step on those. Which of course defeats the whole point of "simple" cross-platform development.
Before you say so, I have tried running Linux in a VM and it's terrible. And Macs cannot even be legally emulated AFAIK.
Most likely, this is going to cause my application to be Windows-only, which is really sad since a major reason for going this route was to have "simple" cross-platformness which "just works".
Is there something I'm missing about this?
PS: I already do "crush" my code with Uglify-JS, before the "protection" stage.
The source protection works by saving a copy of the application as it is currently running in the OS's memory. This means you must run the command on the actual operating system, so it can load the app into memory and then save it as a V8 snapshot (V8 is the JS engine used by Chromium/Node/NW.js).
You can use tools like VirtualBox or VMWare to emulate other OS's on Windows. Getting OSX to run in an emulator is a pain, but there are youtube tutorials to explain how. Linux is very easy though, I'd start there if you are unfamiliar. Though running your application on actual hardware and manually testing in each OS is always best.
If this is too cumbersome, then you may consider not worrying about source protection until later. You can still set up your app for distribution on the other OS's without needing to emulate them if you don't use this feature. Though again, always best to manually test on each OS.
I am in a strange scenario, where I must use a work windows 8 desktop how ever I am writing code to be run on a real time Linux machine. I am writing code for a Real-time system, so will need to implement many non-windows headers like RTAI and such. Obviously I can not run these on windows 8, so was curious if anyone had any suggestions for compiling and testing without having to upload code to the RTOS based computer I am programming for each time I want to run a program. I unfortunately can't use a virtual machine and would like to avoid coding in the terminal in order to remotely code on the linux machine.
Any suggestions?
You can code in Windows or whatever OS you like, what system your programming computer uses has absolutely nothing to do with the target system.
The cross compiler you are using must obviously be for the intended target system. Same goes for debugger & program download tools. Your program must either run in a simulator or it must run on the real target. The latter is strongly recommended.
So all you have to do is to acquire the right software tools. Since these are almost always written for Windows, that should be easy.
I have an application which I need to port on Linux. I was thinking to use Free Pascal the problem is the application uses Windows API's to perform tasks such as serial port communication etc... Is there a msdn for linux users or a book covering how linux works internaly if there are apis.
I am very confused.
Well, it's sad to say but if your code in very Windows-dependend (not VCL depended!) then probably it'll be faster to write the application from the begining rather then porting it.
But if it's only serial port matter then give a try to multiplatform SynaSer library, find it here: http://synapse.ararat.cz.
hope this help :)
Robert Love has a book on Linux Systems Programming - that will cover this area and Love's books are generally good, so it is worth looking at.
It's not entirely clear from your question, but if your concern is that there are specific calls to hardware controlling functions in your Windows application that make it difficult to port I would suggest that is a misplaced fear. Both Windows and Linux operate on the principle that the application level programmer should be kept away from the hardware and that all that should be handled by the operating system kernel and only be accessible to applications via system calls. As the kernels of different operating systems face similar demands from users/applications, they tend to have system calls that do the same sorts of things. It is necessary to match the system calls to one another but I can see no reason why that should be impossible.
What may be more troublesome is that your Windows application may rely heavily on the Windows executive's windowing code/API. Again finding analogues for your code is not impossible but is likely to be a bit more complex e.g. in Linux this stuff is generally not handled in the kernel at all (unlike Windows).
But then again, your code may be written against a portable toolkit/library like Qt which would make things a lot easier.
Good luck in any case.
If the program contains GUI code you must use linux libraries like GTK/XLIB in order to create windows, forms, buttons, etc...
Windows specific functions (like EnterCriticalSection, WaitForSingleObject or _beginthreadex) must be replaced with equivalent linux api functions (a nice tutorial can be found here:
"www.ibm.com/developerworks/systems/library/es-MigratingWin32toLinux.html") or you can use libraries such as w2lpl or wine
A useful library for this kind of problems i've found at http://www.adontec.com/windows-to-linux-port-library.htm
I've had great experiences just using WINE. (https://www.winehq.org/)
You don't really port your app at all. You just make sure it doesnt violate some of the basc constraints of WINE and just run it as is. WINE (though is says it is not) is an emulator of the windows API's and will just do the translation for you. It's pretty complete in its coverage of the API's.
I'm looking for a really really small linux distribution or process of making my own that's sole purpose is to get an air application to launch full screen and stay there; Essentially I'm building a home kitchen computer that runs entirely as an AIR app.
I have looked into using windows xp; and windows xp embedded but they pose so many issues I figured I'd try modern linux.
I have also seen TinyCore Linux which looks interestingly small but not sure what issues that poses in regards to running AIR and "hardware" accelerated display. I've also thought about stripping down an Ubuntu installation but I'm sure somebody must have done this already; google is just failing me right now...
I'm also interested in running an "embedded" version of say android and running the air app on some arm-based hardware again; with just the AIR runtimes only - although this is less preferred as it's more complex.
I'm also hooking this up to a touch screen monitor (not yet arrived) so I'll need to hunt down or write some drivers for translating the touch events into something AIR can understand... (this was my main intention for using windows in that all the drivers will just work).
What I'm after
Minified Linux kernel with JUST the drivers for the box I need
X Display with accelerated graphics support (Doesn't have to be X if AIR can run on a frame buffer?)
Running a Full screen AIR application (simple enough)
Ability to write back to the filesystem (enough support for AIR)
SSH Access for remote control
Samba for updating the filesystem (easier to maintain the system)
Touch screen support (3M Ex III I think...)
Audio support
Don't need
Don't need any window manager or any other GUI tools unless required by AIR
Don't need any toolbars or file managers or anything; The AIR app is the "OS"
Don't need any package managers or repos
Don't need multi user or logging in; everything can just run as an unprivileged account
Don't need to
I don't mind hand crafting the filesystem and configs if that makes it easier; I'm mainly looking for a "filesystem" that is as tiny as possible that I can just plop my AIR app into and write some scripts to get it to start when the X server starts
Thanks,
Chris
Try an embedded Linux build system such as Buildroot. It can build an entire system from source, and be very lightweight. The basic system is less than 1 MB in size.
Ended up going with Tiny Core. Very tiny and quick to boot up. You can also write extensions for it and you don't have a persistent drive which allows you to just switch the thing off without worry that it's going to break something -- exactly what you need in a kitchen :-D.
My current plan is to:
Just set up a working version using Ubuntu as this is mostly supported by Adobe
Slowly strip it back and try and get as little things to start as possible on boot
Try building my own distro/package from source and selecting only the packages I need
Compile my own kernel with nearly everything turned off and just leave on the things I need
I need to produce an embedded ARM design that has requirements to do many things that embedded Linux would do. However the design is cost sensitive and does not need huge amounts of horse power. Mostly will be talking to serial interfaces. Ideally I would like to use one of the low end ARMs. What is the lowest configuration of an ARM that you have successfully used embedded Linux on.
Edit:
The application needs a file system on some kind of flash device and the ability to run applications for processing the data. Some of the applications might be written by others than myself. I also need to ability to load new applications or update old apps using the serial ports to accept the apps.
When I have looked at other embedded OSes they seem to be more of a real time threading solution than having the ability to run applications. I am open to what ever will get the job done.
I think you need to weigh your cost options here.
ARM + linux is an option but you will be paying a very high operating overhead for such a simple (from your description) set of features. You can't just look at the cost of the ARM chip but must also consider external RAM which will very likely be required as well as flash to get enough space available to run the kernel + apps.
NOTE: you may be able to avoid the external requirements with a very minimal kernel and simple apps combined with a uC with large internal resources.
A second option is a much simpler microcontroller with a light weight OS. This will cut your hardware costs on the CPU and you can likely run something like this without external RAM or flash (dependent on application RAM and program space requirement)
third option: I don't actually see anything in your requirements that demands any OS at all be used. Basic file systems are very simple, for instance there are even FAT drivers out there for 8 bit PIC's. Interfacing to an SD card only requires a SPI port and minimal external circuitry.
The application bit could be simple or complex. I've built systems around PIC18 microcontollers that run a web server and allow program updates via a simple upload screen, it just stores the new program into an EEPROM or flash, reboots into a bootloader and copies the new program into internal program memory. You could likely design a way to do this without the reboot via a cooperative multitasking type of architecture. Any way you go the programmers writing the apps are going to need to have knowledge of the architecture and access to libraries / driver you write. Your best bet to simplify this is to provide as simple an API as possible and to try to automate the build process for them.
The third option will be the "cheapest" in terms of hardware as there will be very little overhead in the processing of your applications allowing you to get away with minimal processing power and memory. It likely will require some more programming/software architecting on your part but won't require nearly the research you will need to undertake to get linux up and running in addition to learning to write the needed device drivers under a linux paradigm.
As always you have to include the software development costs in the build cost of the device. If you plan to build 10,000+ of these your likely better off keeping hardware costs down and putting more man power into designing a software solution that allows that hardware to meet the design goals. If your building 10 of them, your better off spending an extra $15-20 on hardware if it can cut down on your software development costs. For example an ARM with MMU with full linux kernel support and available device drivers.
I kind of feel that your selecting the worst of both worlds at the moment, your paying extra to get a uC you can run linux on but by doing so your also selecting a part that will likely be the most complex to get linux up and running on, especially having not worked with linux on embedded platforms before.
I've had success even on ARM7TDMI, so I don't think you're going to have any trouble. If you have a low-requirements system, you could use any kind of lightweight real-time executive and have a lot better experience than you would getting Linux to work.
I've used a TS-7200 for about five years to run a web server and mail server, using Debian GNU Linux. It is 200 MHz and has 32 MB of RAM, and is quite adequate for these tasks. It has serial port built in. It's based on a ARM920T.
This would be overkill for your job; I mention it so you have another data point.
For several years I've been using a gumstix to do prototyping and testing and I've had good results with it. I don't know if the processor they are using (Intel PXA255 on my board) is considered low-cost, but the entire Verdex line seems pretty cheap to me for an adaptable device.
ucLinux is designed specifically for resource constrained targets, but perhaps more importantly for targets without an MMU.
However you have to have a good reason to use Linux on such a system rather than a small real-time executive. Out-of-the-box networking, readily available drivers and protocol stacks for complex hardware and support for existing POSIX legacy or open source code are a few perhaps. However if you don't need that, Linux is still large, and you may be squandering resources for no real benefit. In most cases you will still need off-chip SDRAM and Flash if you choose Linux of any flavour.
I would not regard serial I/O as 'complex hardware', so unless you are running a complex, but standard protocol, your brief description does not appear to warrant the use of Linux IMO
My DLINK DIR-320 router runs Linux inside.
And I know some handymen, flashing it with Optware and connecting USB-hub, HDDs, USB-flash, and much more.
It's low-cost ready for use "platform". (If you don't need mass production). But maybe more powerful than you need.
Additionally, it can be configured wirelessly via web-interface even through your pda :)