How can I force the size of an int for debugging purposes?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I have two builds for a piece of software I'm developing, one for an embedded system where the size of an int is 16 bits, and another for testing on the desktop where the size of an int is 32 bits. I am using fixed width integer types from <stdint.h>
, but integer promotion rules still depend on the size of an int.
Ideally I would like something like the following code to print 65281
(integer promotion to 16 bits) instead of 4294967041
(integer promotion to 32 bits) because of integer promotion, so that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system. I want to be sure that code which gives one answer during testing on my desktop gives the exact same answer on the embedded system. A solution for either GCC or Clang would be fine.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
int main(void){
uint8_t a = 0;
uint8_t b = -1;
printf("%un", a - b);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
The example I gave might not have been the best example, but I really do want integer promotion to be to 16 bits instead of 32 bits. Take the following example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
int main(void){
uint16_t a = 0;
uint16_t b = 1;
uint16_t c = a - 2; // "-2": 65534
uint16_t d = (a - b) / (a - c);
printf("%" PRIu16 "n", d);
return 0;
}
The output is 0
on a 32-bit system because of truncation from integer division after promotion to a (signed) int, as opposed to 32767
.
The best answer so far seem to be to use an emulator, which is not what I was hoping for, but I guess does make sense. It does seem like it should be theoretically possible for a compiler to generate code that behaves as if the size of an int were 16 bits, but I guess it maybe shouldn't be too surprising that there's no easy way in practice to do this, and there's probably not much demand for such a mode and any necessary runtime support.
EDIT 2:
This is what I've explored so far: there is in fact a version of GCC which targets the i386 in 16-bit mode at https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16. The output is a DOS COM file, which can be run in DOSBox. For instance, the two files:
test.c
#include <stdint.h>
uint16_t result;
void test16(void){
uint16_t a = 0;
uint16_t b = 1;
uint16_t c = a - 2; // "-2": 65534
result = (a - b) / (a - c);
}
main.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
extern uint16_t result;
void test16(void);
int main(void){
test16();
printf("result: %" PRIu16"n", result);
return 0;
}
can be compiled with
$ ia16-elf-gcc -Wall test16.c main.c -o a.com
to produce a.com
which can be run in DOSBox.
D:>a
result: 32767
Looking into things a little further, ia16-elf-gcc does in fact produce a 32-bit elf as an intermediate, although the final link output by default is a COM file:
$ ia16-elf-gcc -Wall -c test16.c -o test16.o
$ file test16.o
test16.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
I can force it to link with main.c
compiled with regular GCC, but not surprisingly, the resulting executable segfaults.
$ gcc -m32 -c main.c -o main.o
$ gcc -m32 -Wl,-m,elf_i386,-s,-o,outfile test16.o main.o
$ ./outfile
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
From a post here, it seems like it should theoretically be possible to link the 16-bit code output from ia16-elf-gcc to 32-bit code, although I'm not actually sure how. Then there is also the issue of actually running 16-bit code on a 64-bit OS. More ideal would be a compiler that still uses regular 32-bit/64-bit registers and instructions for performing the arithmetic, but emulates the arithmetic through library calls similar to how for instance a uint64_t
is emulated on a (non-64-bit) microcontroller.
The closest I could find for actually running 16-bit code on x86-64 is here, and that seems experimental/completely unmaintained. At this point, just using an emulator is starting to seem like the best solution, but I will wait a little longer and see if anyone else has any ideas.
EDIT 3
I'm going to go ahead and accept antti's answer, although it's not the answer I was hoping to hear. If anyone is interested in what the output of ia16-elf-gcc is (I'd never even heard of ia16-elf-gcc before), here is the disassembly:
$ objdump -M intel -mi386 -Maddr16,data16 -S test16.o > test16.s
Notice that you must specify that it is 16 bit code, otherwise objdump interprets it as 32-bit code, which maps to different instructions (see further down).
test16.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push bp ; save frame pointer
1: 89 e5 mov bp,sp ; copy SP to frame pointer
3: 83 ec 08 sub sp,0x8 ; allocate 4 * 2bytes on stack
6: c7 46 fe 00 00 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x2],0x0 ; uint16_t a = 0
b: c7 46 fc 01 00 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x4],0x1 ; uint16_t b = 1
10: 8b 46 fe mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; ax = a
13: 83 c0 fe add ax,0xfffe ; ax -= 2
16: 89 46 fa mov WORD PTR [bp-0x6],ax ; uint16_t c = ax = a - 2
19: 8b 56 fe mov dx,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; dx = a
1c: 8b 46 fc mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x4] ; ax = b
1f: 29 c2 sub dx,ax ; dx -= b
21: 89 56 f8 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x8],dx ; temp = dx = a - b
24: 8b 56 fe mov dx,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; dx = a
27: 8b 46 fa mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x6] ; ax = c
2a: 29 c2 sub dx,ax ; dx -= c (= a - c)
2c: 89 d1 mov cx,dx ; cx = dx = a - c
2e: 8b 46 f8 mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x8] ; ax = temp = a - b
31: 31 d2 xor dx,dx ; clear dx
33: f7 f1 div cx ; dx:ax /= cx (unsigned divide)
35: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
37: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
39: a3 00 00 mov ds:0x0,ax ; ds[0] = ax
3c: 90 nop
3d: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
3f: 89 ec mov sp,bp ; restore saved SP
41: 5d pop bp ; pop saved frame pointer
42: 16 push ss ; ss
43: 1f pop ds ; ds =
44: c3 ret
Debugging the program in GDB, this instruction causes the segfault
movl $0x46c70000,-0x2(%esi)
Which is the first two move instructions for setting the value of a and b interpreted with the instruction decoded in 32-bit mode. The relevant disassembly (not specifying 16-bit mode) is as follows:
$ objdump -M intel -S test16.o > test16.s && cat test16.s
test16.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push ebp
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp
3: 83 ec 08 sub esp,0x8
6: c7 46 fe 00 00 c7 46 mov DWORD PTR [esi-0x2],0x46c70000
d: fc cld
The next step would be trying to figure out a way to put the processor into 16-bit mode. It doesn't even have to be real mode (google searches mostly turn up results for x86 16-bit real mode), it can even be 16-bit protected mode. But at this point, using an emulator definitely seems like the best option, and this is more for my curiosity. This is all also specific to x86. For reference here's the same file compiled in 32-bit mode, which has an implicit promotion to a 32-bit signed int (from running gcc -m32 -c test16.c -o test16_32.o && objdump -M intel -S test16_32.o > test16_32.s
):
test16_32.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push ebp ; save frame pointer
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp ; copy SP to frame pointer
3: 83 ec 10 sub esp,0x10 ; allocate 4 * 4bytes on stack
6: 66 c7 45 fa 00 00 mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x6],0x0 ; uint16_t a = 0
c: 66 c7 45 fc 01 00 mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x4],0x1 ; uint16_t b = 0
12: 0f b7 45 fa movzx eax,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; eax = a
16: 83 e8 02 sub eax,0x2 ; eax -= 2
19: 66 89 45 fe mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x2],ax ; uint16_t c = (uint16_t) (a-2)
1d: 0f b7 55 fa movzx edx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; edx = a
21: 0f b7 45 fc movzx eax,WORD PTR [ebp-0x4] ; eax = b
25: 29 c2 sub edx,eax ; edx -= b
27: 89 d0 mov eax,edx ; eax = edx (= a - b)
29: 0f b7 4d fa movzx ecx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; ecx = a
2d: 0f b7 55 fe movzx edx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x2] ; edx = c
31: 29 d1 sub ecx,edx ; ecx -= edx (= a - c)
33: 99 cdq ; EDX:EAX = EAX sign extended (= a - b)
34: f7 f9 idiv ecx ; EDX:EAX /= ecx
36: 66 a3 00 00 00 00 mov ds:0x0,ax ; ds = (uint16_t) ax
3c: 90 nop
3d: c9 leave ; esp = ebp (restore stack pointer), pop ebp
3e: c3 ret
c gcc clang integer-promotion
|
show 6 more comments
I have two builds for a piece of software I'm developing, one for an embedded system where the size of an int is 16 bits, and another for testing on the desktop where the size of an int is 32 bits. I am using fixed width integer types from <stdint.h>
, but integer promotion rules still depend on the size of an int.
Ideally I would like something like the following code to print 65281
(integer promotion to 16 bits) instead of 4294967041
(integer promotion to 32 bits) because of integer promotion, so that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system. I want to be sure that code which gives one answer during testing on my desktop gives the exact same answer on the embedded system. A solution for either GCC or Clang would be fine.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
int main(void){
uint8_t a = 0;
uint8_t b = -1;
printf("%un", a - b);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
The example I gave might not have been the best example, but I really do want integer promotion to be to 16 bits instead of 32 bits. Take the following example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
int main(void){
uint16_t a = 0;
uint16_t b = 1;
uint16_t c = a - 2; // "-2": 65534
uint16_t d = (a - b) / (a - c);
printf("%" PRIu16 "n", d);
return 0;
}
The output is 0
on a 32-bit system because of truncation from integer division after promotion to a (signed) int, as opposed to 32767
.
The best answer so far seem to be to use an emulator, which is not what I was hoping for, but I guess does make sense. It does seem like it should be theoretically possible for a compiler to generate code that behaves as if the size of an int were 16 bits, but I guess it maybe shouldn't be too surprising that there's no easy way in practice to do this, and there's probably not much demand for such a mode and any necessary runtime support.
EDIT 2:
This is what I've explored so far: there is in fact a version of GCC which targets the i386 in 16-bit mode at https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16. The output is a DOS COM file, which can be run in DOSBox. For instance, the two files:
test.c
#include <stdint.h>
uint16_t result;
void test16(void){
uint16_t a = 0;
uint16_t b = 1;
uint16_t c = a - 2; // "-2": 65534
result = (a - b) / (a - c);
}
main.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
extern uint16_t result;
void test16(void);
int main(void){
test16();
printf("result: %" PRIu16"n", result);
return 0;
}
can be compiled with
$ ia16-elf-gcc -Wall test16.c main.c -o a.com
to produce a.com
which can be run in DOSBox.
D:>a
result: 32767
Looking into things a little further, ia16-elf-gcc does in fact produce a 32-bit elf as an intermediate, although the final link output by default is a COM file:
$ ia16-elf-gcc -Wall -c test16.c -o test16.o
$ file test16.o
test16.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
I can force it to link with main.c
compiled with regular GCC, but not surprisingly, the resulting executable segfaults.
$ gcc -m32 -c main.c -o main.o
$ gcc -m32 -Wl,-m,elf_i386,-s,-o,outfile test16.o main.o
$ ./outfile
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
From a post here, it seems like it should theoretically be possible to link the 16-bit code output from ia16-elf-gcc to 32-bit code, although I'm not actually sure how. Then there is also the issue of actually running 16-bit code on a 64-bit OS. More ideal would be a compiler that still uses regular 32-bit/64-bit registers and instructions for performing the arithmetic, but emulates the arithmetic through library calls similar to how for instance a uint64_t
is emulated on a (non-64-bit) microcontroller.
The closest I could find for actually running 16-bit code on x86-64 is here, and that seems experimental/completely unmaintained. At this point, just using an emulator is starting to seem like the best solution, but I will wait a little longer and see if anyone else has any ideas.
EDIT 3
I'm going to go ahead and accept antti's answer, although it's not the answer I was hoping to hear. If anyone is interested in what the output of ia16-elf-gcc is (I'd never even heard of ia16-elf-gcc before), here is the disassembly:
$ objdump -M intel -mi386 -Maddr16,data16 -S test16.o > test16.s
Notice that you must specify that it is 16 bit code, otherwise objdump interprets it as 32-bit code, which maps to different instructions (see further down).
test16.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push bp ; save frame pointer
1: 89 e5 mov bp,sp ; copy SP to frame pointer
3: 83 ec 08 sub sp,0x8 ; allocate 4 * 2bytes on stack
6: c7 46 fe 00 00 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x2],0x0 ; uint16_t a = 0
b: c7 46 fc 01 00 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x4],0x1 ; uint16_t b = 1
10: 8b 46 fe mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; ax = a
13: 83 c0 fe add ax,0xfffe ; ax -= 2
16: 89 46 fa mov WORD PTR [bp-0x6],ax ; uint16_t c = ax = a - 2
19: 8b 56 fe mov dx,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; dx = a
1c: 8b 46 fc mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x4] ; ax = b
1f: 29 c2 sub dx,ax ; dx -= b
21: 89 56 f8 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x8],dx ; temp = dx = a - b
24: 8b 56 fe mov dx,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; dx = a
27: 8b 46 fa mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x6] ; ax = c
2a: 29 c2 sub dx,ax ; dx -= c (= a - c)
2c: 89 d1 mov cx,dx ; cx = dx = a - c
2e: 8b 46 f8 mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x8] ; ax = temp = a - b
31: 31 d2 xor dx,dx ; clear dx
33: f7 f1 div cx ; dx:ax /= cx (unsigned divide)
35: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
37: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
39: a3 00 00 mov ds:0x0,ax ; ds[0] = ax
3c: 90 nop
3d: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
3f: 89 ec mov sp,bp ; restore saved SP
41: 5d pop bp ; pop saved frame pointer
42: 16 push ss ; ss
43: 1f pop ds ; ds =
44: c3 ret
Debugging the program in GDB, this instruction causes the segfault
movl $0x46c70000,-0x2(%esi)
Which is the first two move instructions for setting the value of a and b interpreted with the instruction decoded in 32-bit mode. The relevant disassembly (not specifying 16-bit mode) is as follows:
$ objdump -M intel -S test16.o > test16.s && cat test16.s
test16.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push ebp
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp
3: 83 ec 08 sub esp,0x8
6: c7 46 fe 00 00 c7 46 mov DWORD PTR [esi-0x2],0x46c70000
d: fc cld
The next step would be trying to figure out a way to put the processor into 16-bit mode. It doesn't even have to be real mode (google searches mostly turn up results for x86 16-bit real mode), it can even be 16-bit protected mode. But at this point, using an emulator definitely seems like the best option, and this is more for my curiosity. This is all also specific to x86. For reference here's the same file compiled in 32-bit mode, which has an implicit promotion to a 32-bit signed int (from running gcc -m32 -c test16.c -o test16_32.o && objdump -M intel -S test16_32.o > test16_32.s
):
test16_32.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push ebp ; save frame pointer
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp ; copy SP to frame pointer
3: 83 ec 10 sub esp,0x10 ; allocate 4 * 4bytes on stack
6: 66 c7 45 fa 00 00 mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x6],0x0 ; uint16_t a = 0
c: 66 c7 45 fc 01 00 mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x4],0x1 ; uint16_t b = 0
12: 0f b7 45 fa movzx eax,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; eax = a
16: 83 e8 02 sub eax,0x2 ; eax -= 2
19: 66 89 45 fe mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x2],ax ; uint16_t c = (uint16_t) (a-2)
1d: 0f b7 55 fa movzx edx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; edx = a
21: 0f b7 45 fc movzx eax,WORD PTR [ebp-0x4] ; eax = b
25: 29 c2 sub edx,eax ; edx -= b
27: 89 d0 mov eax,edx ; eax = edx (= a - b)
29: 0f b7 4d fa movzx ecx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; ecx = a
2d: 0f b7 55 fe movzx edx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x2] ; edx = c
31: 29 d1 sub ecx,edx ; ecx -= edx (= a - c)
33: 99 cdq ; EDX:EAX = EAX sign extended (= a - b)
34: f7 f9 idiv ecx ; EDX:EAX /= ecx
36: 66 a3 00 00 00 00 mov ds:0x0,ax ; ds = (uint16_t) ax
3c: 90 nop
3d: c9 leave ; esp = ebp (restore stack pointer), pop ebp
3e: c3 ret
c gcc clang integer-promotion
1
You can't, because the underlying ABI expects from your program a specified alignment. To do that, you would have to recompile your whole system.that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system
so don't useint
if you want to be portable. The type ofa-b
expression isint
- cast it touint8_t
and usePRNu8
to print it. If you are usinglong
andint
types, your program will never be portable. The line should have beenprintf("% "PRNu8 "n", (uint8_t)(a - b));
- that way it will print1
on any architecture any system.
– Kamil Cuk
Apr 1 at 9:29
2
why you don`t use cast to uint16? printf("%un", (uint16_t)(a - b));
– Paweł Dymowski
Apr 1 at 9:43
you might try c++ version on the desktop. With a class Int16 you could overload the arithmetic operators.
– Thomas G.
Apr 1 at 12:08
2
A cast touint16_t
is only good for only so much...
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 13:35
1
@PawełDymowski no, it's still UB to print signed int with%u
. Because there were platforms where unsigned values may have trap bits. Which integral promotions do take place when printing a char?, What happens when I use the wrong format specifier?
– phuclv
Apr 2 at 7:07
|
show 6 more comments
I have two builds for a piece of software I'm developing, one for an embedded system where the size of an int is 16 bits, and another for testing on the desktop where the size of an int is 32 bits. I am using fixed width integer types from <stdint.h>
, but integer promotion rules still depend on the size of an int.
Ideally I would like something like the following code to print 65281
(integer promotion to 16 bits) instead of 4294967041
(integer promotion to 32 bits) because of integer promotion, so that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system. I want to be sure that code which gives one answer during testing on my desktop gives the exact same answer on the embedded system. A solution for either GCC or Clang would be fine.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
int main(void){
uint8_t a = 0;
uint8_t b = -1;
printf("%un", a - b);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
The example I gave might not have been the best example, but I really do want integer promotion to be to 16 bits instead of 32 bits. Take the following example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
int main(void){
uint16_t a = 0;
uint16_t b = 1;
uint16_t c = a - 2; // "-2": 65534
uint16_t d = (a - b) / (a - c);
printf("%" PRIu16 "n", d);
return 0;
}
The output is 0
on a 32-bit system because of truncation from integer division after promotion to a (signed) int, as opposed to 32767
.
The best answer so far seem to be to use an emulator, which is not what I was hoping for, but I guess does make sense. It does seem like it should be theoretically possible for a compiler to generate code that behaves as if the size of an int were 16 bits, but I guess it maybe shouldn't be too surprising that there's no easy way in practice to do this, and there's probably not much demand for such a mode and any necessary runtime support.
EDIT 2:
This is what I've explored so far: there is in fact a version of GCC which targets the i386 in 16-bit mode at https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16. The output is a DOS COM file, which can be run in DOSBox. For instance, the two files:
test.c
#include <stdint.h>
uint16_t result;
void test16(void){
uint16_t a = 0;
uint16_t b = 1;
uint16_t c = a - 2; // "-2": 65534
result = (a - b) / (a - c);
}
main.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
extern uint16_t result;
void test16(void);
int main(void){
test16();
printf("result: %" PRIu16"n", result);
return 0;
}
can be compiled with
$ ia16-elf-gcc -Wall test16.c main.c -o a.com
to produce a.com
which can be run in DOSBox.
D:>a
result: 32767
Looking into things a little further, ia16-elf-gcc does in fact produce a 32-bit elf as an intermediate, although the final link output by default is a COM file:
$ ia16-elf-gcc -Wall -c test16.c -o test16.o
$ file test16.o
test16.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
I can force it to link with main.c
compiled with regular GCC, but not surprisingly, the resulting executable segfaults.
$ gcc -m32 -c main.c -o main.o
$ gcc -m32 -Wl,-m,elf_i386,-s,-o,outfile test16.o main.o
$ ./outfile
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
From a post here, it seems like it should theoretically be possible to link the 16-bit code output from ia16-elf-gcc to 32-bit code, although I'm not actually sure how. Then there is also the issue of actually running 16-bit code on a 64-bit OS. More ideal would be a compiler that still uses regular 32-bit/64-bit registers and instructions for performing the arithmetic, but emulates the arithmetic through library calls similar to how for instance a uint64_t
is emulated on a (non-64-bit) microcontroller.
The closest I could find for actually running 16-bit code on x86-64 is here, and that seems experimental/completely unmaintained. At this point, just using an emulator is starting to seem like the best solution, but I will wait a little longer and see if anyone else has any ideas.
EDIT 3
I'm going to go ahead and accept antti's answer, although it's not the answer I was hoping to hear. If anyone is interested in what the output of ia16-elf-gcc is (I'd never even heard of ia16-elf-gcc before), here is the disassembly:
$ objdump -M intel -mi386 -Maddr16,data16 -S test16.o > test16.s
Notice that you must specify that it is 16 bit code, otherwise objdump interprets it as 32-bit code, which maps to different instructions (see further down).
test16.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push bp ; save frame pointer
1: 89 e5 mov bp,sp ; copy SP to frame pointer
3: 83 ec 08 sub sp,0x8 ; allocate 4 * 2bytes on stack
6: c7 46 fe 00 00 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x2],0x0 ; uint16_t a = 0
b: c7 46 fc 01 00 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x4],0x1 ; uint16_t b = 1
10: 8b 46 fe mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; ax = a
13: 83 c0 fe add ax,0xfffe ; ax -= 2
16: 89 46 fa mov WORD PTR [bp-0x6],ax ; uint16_t c = ax = a - 2
19: 8b 56 fe mov dx,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; dx = a
1c: 8b 46 fc mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x4] ; ax = b
1f: 29 c2 sub dx,ax ; dx -= b
21: 89 56 f8 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x8],dx ; temp = dx = a - b
24: 8b 56 fe mov dx,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; dx = a
27: 8b 46 fa mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x6] ; ax = c
2a: 29 c2 sub dx,ax ; dx -= c (= a - c)
2c: 89 d1 mov cx,dx ; cx = dx = a - c
2e: 8b 46 f8 mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x8] ; ax = temp = a - b
31: 31 d2 xor dx,dx ; clear dx
33: f7 f1 div cx ; dx:ax /= cx (unsigned divide)
35: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
37: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
39: a3 00 00 mov ds:0x0,ax ; ds[0] = ax
3c: 90 nop
3d: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
3f: 89 ec mov sp,bp ; restore saved SP
41: 5d pop bp ; pop saved frame pointer
42: 16 push ss ; ss
43: 1f pop ds ; ds =
44: c3 ret
Debugging the program in GDB, this instruction causes the segfault
movl $0x46c70000,-0x2(%esi)
Which is the first two move instructions for setting the value of a and b interpreted with the instruction decoded in 32-bit mode. The relevant disassembly (not specifying 16-bit mode) is as follows:
$ objdump -M intel -S test16.o > test16.s && cat test16.s
test16.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push ebp
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp
3: 83 ec 08 sub esp,0x8
6: c7 46 fe 00 00 c7 46 mov DWORD PTR [esi-0x2],0x46c70000
d: fc cld
The next step would be trying to figure out a way to put the processor into 16-bit mode. It doesn't even have to be real mode (google searches mostly turn up results for x86 16-bit real mode), it can even be 16-bit protected mode. But at this point, using an emulator definitely seems like the best option, and this is more for my curiosity. This is all also specific to x86. For reference here's the same file compiled in 32-bit mode, which has an implicit promotion to a 32-bit signed int (from running gcc -m32 -c test16.c -o test16_32.o && objdump -M intel -S test16_32.o > test16_32.s
):
test16_32.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push ebp ; save frame pointer
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp ; copy SP to frame pointer
3: 83 ec 10 sub esp,0x10 ; allocate 4 * 4bytes on stack
6: 66 c7 45 fa 00 00 mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x6],0x0 ; uint16_t a = 0
c: 66 c7 45 fc 01 00 mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x4],0x1 ; uint16_t b = 0
12: 0f b7 45 fa movzx eax,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; eax = a
16: 83 e8 02 sub eax,0x2 ; eax -= 2
19: 66 89 45 fe mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x2],ax ; uint16_t c = (uint16_t) (a-2)
1d: 0f b7 55 fa movzx edx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; edx = a
21: 0f b7 45 fc movzx eax,WORD PTR [ebp-0x4] ; eax = b
25: 29 c2 sub edx,eax ; edx -= b
27: 89 d0 mov eax,edx ; eax = edx (= a - b)
29: 0f b7 4d fa movzx ecx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; ecx = a
2d: 0f b7 55 fe movzx edx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x2] ; edx = c
31: 29 d1 sub ecx,edx ; ecx -= edx (= a - c)
33: 99 cdq ; EDX:EAX = EAX sign extended (= a - b)
34: f7 f9 idiv ecx ; EDX:EAX /= ecx
36: 66 a3 00 00 00 00 mov ds:0x0,ax ; ds = (uint16_t) ax
3c: 90 nop
3d: c9 leave ; esp = ebp (restore stack pointer), pop ebp
3e: c3 ret
c gcc clang integer-promotion
I have two builds for a piece of software I'm developing, one for an embedded system where the size of an int is 16 bits, and another for testing on the desktop where the size of an int is 32 bits. I am using fixed width integer types from <stdint.h>
, but integer promotion rules still depend on the size of an int.
Ideally I would like something like the following code to print 65281
(integer promotion to 16 bits) instead of 4294967041
(integer promotion to 32 bits) because of integer promotion, so that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system. I want to be sure that code which gives one answer during testing on my desktop gives the exact same answer on the embedded system. A solution for either GCC or Clang would be fine.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
int main(void){
uint8_t a = 0;
uint8_t b = -1;
printf("%un", a - b);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
The example I gave might not have been the best example, but I really do want integer promotion to be to 16 bits instead of 32 bits. Take the following example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
int main(void){
uint16_t a = 0;
uint16_t b = 1;
uint16_t c = a - 2; // "-2": 65534
uint16_t d = (a - b) / (a - c);
printf("%" PRIu16 "n", d);
return 0;
}
The output is 0
on a 32-bit system because of truncation from integer division after promotion to a (signed) int, as opposed to 32767
.
The best answer so far seem to be to use an emulator, which is not what I was hoping for, but I guess does make sense. It does seem like it should be theoretically possible for a compiler to generate code that behaves as if the size of an int were 16 bits, but I guess it maybe shouldn't be too surprising that there's no easy way in practice to do this, and there's probably not much demand for such a mode and any necessary runtime support.
EDIT 2:
This is what I've explored so far: there is in fact a version of GCC which targets the i386 in 16-bit mode at https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16. The output is a DOS COM file, which can be run in DOSBox. For instance, the two files:
test.c
#include <stdint.h>
uint16_t result;
void test16(void){
uint16_t a = 0;
uint16_t b = 1;
uint16_t c = a - 2; // "-2": 65534
result = (a - b) / (a - c);
}
main.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
extern uint16_t result;
void test16(void);
int main(void){
test16();
printf("result: %" PRIu16"n", result);
return 0;
}
can be compiled with
$ ia16-elf-gcc -Wall test16.c main.c -o a.com
to produce a.com
which can be run in DOSBox.
D:>a
result: 32767
Looking into things a little further, ia16-elf-gcc does in fact produce a 32-bit elf as an intermediate, although the final link output by default is a COM file:
$ ia16-elf-gcc -Wall -c test16.c -o test16.o
$ file test16.o
test16.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
I can force it to link with main.c
compiled with regular GCC, but not surprisingly, the resulting executable segfaults.
$ gcc -m32 -c main.c -o main.o
$ gcc -m32 -Wl,-m,elf_i386,-s,-o,outfile test16.o main.o
$ ./outfile
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
From a post here, it seems like it should theoretically be possible to link the 16-bit code output from ia16-elf-gcc to 32-bit code, although I'm not actually sure how. Then there is also the issue of actually running 16-bit code on a 64-bit OS. More ideal would be a compiler that still uses regular 32-bit/64-bit registers and instructions for performing the arithmetic, but emulates the arithmetic through library calls similar to how for instance a uint64_t
is emulated on a (non-64-bit) microcontroller.
The closest I could find for actually running 16-bit code on x86-64 is here, and that seems experimental/completely unmaintained. At this point, just using an emulator is starting to seem like the best solution, but I will wait a little longer and see if anyone else has any ideas.
EDIT 3
I'm going to go ahead and accept antti's answer, although it's not the answer I was hoping to hear. If anyone is interested in what the output of ia16-elf-gcc is (I'd never even heard of ia16-elf-gcc before), here is the disassembly:
$ objdump -M intel -mi386 -Maddr16,data16 -S test16.o > test16.s
Notice that you must specify that it is 16 bit code, otherwise objdump interprets it as 32-bit code, which maps to different instructions (see further down).
test16.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push bp ; save frame pointer
1: 89 e5 mov bp,sp ; copy SP to frame pointer
3: 83 ec 08 sub sp,0x8 ; allocate 4 * 2bytes on stack
6: c7 46 fe 00 00 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x2],0x0 ; uint16_t a = 0
b: c7 46 fc 01 00 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x4],0x1 ; uint16_t b = 1
10: 8b 46 fe mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; ax = a
13: 83 c0 fe add ax,0xfffe ; ax -= 2
16: 89 46 fa mov WORD PTR [bp-0x6],ax ; uint16_t c = ax = a - 2
19: 8b 56 fe mov dx,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; dx = a
1c: 8b 46 fc mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x4] ; ax = b
1f: 29 c2 sub dx,ax ; dx -= b
21: 89 56 f8 mov WORD PTR [bp-0x8],dx ; temp = dx = a - b
24: 8b 56 fe mov dx,WORD PTR [bp-0x2] ; dx = a
27: 8b 46 fa mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x6] ; ax = c
2a: 29 c2 sub dx,ax ; dx -= c (= a - c)
2c: 89 d1 mov cx,dx ; cx = dx = a - c
2e: 8b 46 f8 mov ax,WORD PTR [bp-0x8] ; ax = temp = a - b
31: 31 d2 xor dx,dx ; clear dx
33: f7 f1 div cx ; dx:ax /= cx (unsigned divide)
35: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
37: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
39: a3 00 00 mov ds:0x0,ax ; ds[0] = ax
3c: 90 nop
3d: 89 c0 mov ax,ax ; (?) ax = ax
3f: 89 ec mov sp,bp ; restore saved SP
41: 5d pop bp ; pop saved frame pointer
42: 16 push ss ; ss
43: 1f pop ds ; ds =
44: c3 ret
Debugging the program in GDB, this instruction causes the segfault
movl $0x46c70000,-0x2(%esi)
Which is the first two move instructions for setting the value of a and b interpreted with the instruction decoded in 32-bit mode. The relevant disassembly (not specifying 16-bit mode) is as follows:
$ objdump -M intel -S test16.o > test16.s && cat test16.s
test16.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push ebp
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp
3: 83 ec 08 sub esp,0x8
6: c7 46 fe 00 00 c7 46 mov DWORD PTR [esi-0x2],0x46c70000
d: fc cld
The next step would be trying to figure out a way to put the processor into 16-bit mode. It doesn't even have to be real mode (google searches mostly turn up results for x86 16-bit real mode), it can even be 16-bit protected mode. But at this point, using an emulator definitely seems like the best option, and this is more for my curiosity. This is all also specific to x86. For reference here's the same file compiled in 32-bit mode, which has an implicit promotion to a 32-bit signed int (from running gcc -m32 -c test16.c -o test16_32.o && objdump -M intel -S test16_32.o > test16_32.s
):
test16_32.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <test16>:
0: 55 push ebp ; save frame pointer
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp ; copy SP to frame pointer
3: 83 ec 10 sub esp,0x10 ; allocate 4 * 4bytes on stack
6: 66 c7 45 fa 00 00 mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x6],0x0 ; uint16_t a = 0
c: 66 c7 45 fc 01 00 mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x4],0x1 ; uint16_t b = 0
12: 0f b7 45 fa movzx eax,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; eax = a
16: 83 e8 02 sub eax,0x2 ; eax -= 2
19: 66 89 45 fe mov WORD PTR [ebp-0x2],ax ; uint16_t c = (uint16_t) (a-2)
1d: 0f b7 55 fa movzx edx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; edx = a
21: 0f b7 45 fc movzx eax,WORD PTR [ebp-0x4] ; eax = b
25: 29 c2 sub edx,eax ; edx -= b
27: 89 d0 mov eax,edx ; eax = edx (= a - b)
29: 0f b7 4d fa movzx ecx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x6] ; ecx = a
2d: 0f b7 55 fe movzx edx,WORD PTR [ebp-0x2] ; edx = c
31: 29 d1 sub ecx,edx ; ecx -= edx (= a - c)
33: 99 cdq ; EDX:EAX = EAX sign extended (= a - b)
34: f7 f9 idiv ecx ; EDX:EAX /= ecx
36: 66 a3 00 00 00 00 mov ds:0x0,ax ; ds = (uint16_t) ax
3c: 90 nop
3d: c9 leave ; esp = ebp (restore stack pointer), pop ebp
3e: c3 ret
c gcc clang integer-promotion
c gcc clang integer-promotion
edited Apr 3 at 2:20
JDW
asked Apr 1 at 8:28
JDWJDW
1959
1959
1
You can't, because the underlying ABI expects from your program a specified alignment. To do that, you would have to recompile your whole system.that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system
so don't useint
if you want to be portable. The type ofa-b
expression isint
- cast it touint8_t
and usePRNu8
to print it. If you are usinglong
andint
types, your program will never be portable. The line should have beenprintf("% "PRNu8 "n", (uint8_t)(a - b));
- that way it will print1
on any architecture any system.
– Kamil Cuk
Apr 1 at 9:29
2
why you don`t use cast to uint16? printf("%un", (uint16_t)(a - b));
– Paweł Dymowski
Apr 1 at 9:43
you might try c++ version on the desktop. With a class Int16 you could overload the arithmetic operators.
– Thomas G.
Apr 1 at 12:08
2
A cast touint16_t
is only good for only so much...
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 13:35
1
@PawełDymowski no, it's still UB to print signed int with%u
. Because there were platforms where unsigned values may have trap bits. Which integral promotions do take place when printing a char?, What happens when I use the wrong format specifier?
– phuclv
Apr 2 at 7:07
|
show 6 more comments
1
You can't, because the underlying ABI expects from your program a specified alignment. To do that, you would have to recompile your whole system.that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system
so don't useint
if you want to be portable. The type ofa-b
expression isint
- cast it touint8_t
and usePRNu8
to print it. If you are usinglong
andint
types, your program will never be portable. The line should have beenprintf("% "PRNu8 "n", (uint8_t)(a - b));
- that way it will print1
on any architecture any system.
– Kamil Cuk
Apr 1 at 9:29
2
why you don`t use cast to uint16? printf("%un", (uint16_t)(a - b));
– Paweł Dymowski
Apr 1 at 9:43
you might try c++ version on the desktop. With a class Int16 you could overload the arithmetic operators.
– Thomas G.
Apr 1 at 12:08
2
A cast touint16_t
is only good for only so much...
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 13:35
1
@PawełDymowski no, it's still UB to print signed int with%u
. Because there were platforms where unsigned values may have trap bits. Which integral promotions do take place when printing a char?, What happens when I use the wrong format specifier?
– phuclv
Apr 2 at 7:07
1
1
You can't, because the underlying ABI expects from your program a specified alignment. To do that, you would have to recompile your whole system.
that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system
so don't use int
if you want to be portable. The type of a-b
expression is int
- cast it to uint8_t
and use PRNu8
to print it. If you are using long
and int
types, your program will never be portable. The line should have been printf("% "PRNu8 "n", (uint8_t)(a - b));
- that way it will print 1
on any architecture any system.– Kamil Cuk
Apr 1 at 9:29
You can't, because the underlying ABI expects from your program a specified alignment. To do that, you would have to recompile your whole system.
that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system
so don't use int
if you want to be portable. The type of a-b
expression is int
- cast it to uint8_t
and use PRNu8
to print it. If you are using long
and int
types, your program will never be portable. The line should have been printf("% "PRNu8 "n", (uint8_t)(a - b));
- that way it will print 1
on any architecture any system.– Kamil Cuk
Apr 1 at 9:29
2
2
why you don`t use cast to uint16? printf("%un", (uint16_t)(a - b));
– Paweł Dymowski
Apr 1 at 9:43
why you don`t use cast to uint16? printf("%un", (uint16_t)(a - b));
– Paweł Dymowski
Apr 1 at 9:43
you might try c++ version on the desktop. With a class Int16 you could overload the arithmetic operators.
– Thomas G.
Apr 1 at 12:08
you might try c++ version on the desktop. With a class Int16 you could overload the arithmetic operators.
– Thomas G.
Apr 1 at 12:08
2
2
A cast to
uint16_t
is only good for only so much...– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 13:35
A cast to
uint16_t
is only good for only so much...– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 13:35
1
1
@PawełDymowski no, it's still UB to print signed int with
%u
. Because there were platforms where unsigned values may have trap bits. Which integral promotions do take place when printing a char?, What happens when I use the wrong format specifier?– phuclv
Apr 2 at 7:07
@PawełDymowski no, it's still UB to print signed int with
%u
. Because there were platforms where unsigned values may have trap bits. Which integral promotions do take place when printing a char?, What happens when I use the wrong format specifier?– phuclv
Apr 2 at 7:07
|
show 6 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You can't, unless you find some very special compiler. It would break absolutely everything, including your printf
call. The code generation in the 32-bit compiler might not even be able to produce the 16-bit arithmetic code as it is not commonly needed.
Have you considered using an emulator instead?
add a comment |
You need an entire runtime environment including all the necessary libraries to share the ABI you're implementing.
If you want to run your 16-bit code on a 32-bit system, your most likely chance of success is to run it in a chroot that has a comparable runtime environment, possibly using qemu-user-static
if you need ISA translation too. That said, I'm not sure that any of the platforms supported by QEMU has a 16-bit ABI.
It might be possible to write yourself a set of 16-bit shim libraries, backed by your platform's native libraries - but I suspect the effort would outweigh the benefit to you.
Note that for the specific case of running 32-bit x86 binaries on a 64-bit amd64 host, Linux kernels are often configured with dual-ABI support (you still need the appropriate 32-bit libraries, of course).
add a comment |
You could make the code itself be more aware about the data sizes it is handling, by for example doing:
printf("%hun", a - b);
From fprintf
's docs:
h
Specifies that a following d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion specifier applies to a short int or unsigned short int argument (the argument will have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value shall be converted to short int or unsigned short int before printing);
1
but that's besides the problem actually, and%hu
wouldn't be correct (though essentially the same representation) if theuint16_t
on the target is typedef'd toint
.
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 9:22
1
@AnttiHaapala: Why exactly wouldn't it be correct for anint
?
– alk
Apr 1 at 9:26
hmm... how about just usingPRI16u
:D
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 11:35
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55450866%2fhow-can-i-force-the-size-of-an-int-for-debugging-purposes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can't, unless you find some very special compiler. It would break absolutely everything, including your printf
call. The code generation in the 32-bit compiler might not even be able to produce the 16-bit arithmetic code as it is not commonly needed.
Have you considered using an emulator instead?
add a comment |
You can't, unless you find some very special compiler. It would break absolutely everything, including your printf
call. The code generation in the 32-bit compiler might not even be able to produce the 16-bit arithmetic code as it is not commonly needed.
Have you considered using an emulator instead?
add a comment |
You can't, unless you find some very special compiler. It would break absolutely everything, including your printf
call. The code generation in the 32-bit compiler might not even be able to produce the 16-bit arithmetic code as it is not commonly needed.
Have you considered using an emulator instead?
You can't, unless you find some very special compiler. It would break absolutely everything, including your printf
call. The code generation in the 32-bit compiler might not even be able to produce the 16-bit arithmetic code as it is not commonly needed.
Have you considered using an emulator instead?
edited Apr 1 at 11:35
answered Apr 1 at 8:41
Antti HaapalaAntti Haapala
86.1k16163205
86.1k16163205
add a comment |
add a comment |
You need an entire runtime environment including all the necessary libraries to share the ABI you're implementing.
If you want to run your 16-bit code on a 32-bit system, your most likely chance of success is to run it in a chroot that has a comparable runtime environment, possibly using qemu-user-static
if you need ISA translation too. That said, I'm not sure that any of the platforms supported by QEMU has a 16-bit ABI.
It might be possible to write yourself a set of 16-bit shim libraries, backed by your platform's native libraries - but I suspect the effort would outweigh the benefit to you.
Note that for the specific case of running 32-bit x86 binaries on a 64-bit amd64 host, Linux kernels are often configured with dual-ABI support (you still need the appropriate 32-bit libraries, of course).
add a comment |
You need an entire runtime environment including all the necessary libraries to share the ABI you're implementing.
If you want to run your 16-bit code on a 32-bit system, your most likely chance of success is to run it in a chroot that has a comparable runtime environment, possibly using qemu-user-static
if you need ISA translation too. That said, I'm not sure that any of the platforms supported by QEMU has a 16-bit ABI.
It might be possible to write yourself a set of 16-bit shim libraries, backed by your platform's native libraries - but I suspect the effort would outweigh the benefit to you.
Note that for the specific case of running 32-bit x86 binaries on a 64-bit amd64 host, Linux kernels are often configured with dual-ABI support (you still need the appropriate 32-bit libraries, of course).
add a comment |
You need an entire runtime environment including all the necessary libraries to share the ABI you're implementing.
If you want to run your 16-bit code on a 32-bit system, your most likely chance of success is to run it in a chroot that has a comparable runtime environment, possibly using qemu-user-static
if you need ISA translation too. That said, I'm not sure that any of the platforms supported by QEMU has a 16-bit ABI.
It might be possible to write yourself a set of 16-bit shim libraries, backed by your platform's native libraries - but I suspect the effort would outweigh the benefit to you.
Note that for the specific case of running 32-bit x86 binaries on a 64-bit amd64 host, Linux kernels are often configured with dual-ABI support (you still need the appropriate 32-bit libraries, of course).
You need an entire runtime environment including all the necessary libraries to share the ABI you're implementing.
If you want to run your 16-bit code on a 32-bit system, your most likely chance of success is to run it in a chroot that has a comparable runtime environment, possibly using qemu-user-static
if you need ISA translation too. That said, I'm not sure that any of the platforms supported by QEMU has a 16-bit ABI.
It might be possible to write yourself a set of 16-bit shim libraries, backed by your platform's native libraries - but I suspect the effort would outweigh the benefit to you.
Note that for the specific case of running 32-bit x86 binaries on a 64-bit amd64 host, Linux kernels are often configured with dual-ABI support (you still need the appropriate 32-bit libraries, of course).
answered Apr 1 at 11:02
Toby SpeightToby Speight
17.4k134469
17.4k134469
add a comment |
add a comment |
You could make the code itself be more aware about the data sizes it is handling, by for example doing:
printf("%hun", a - b);
From fprintf
's docs:
h
Specifies that a following d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion specifier applies to a short int or unsigned short int argument (the argument will have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value shall be converted to short int or unsigned short int before printing);
1
but that's besides the problem actually, and%hu
wouldn't be correct (though essentially the same representation) if theuint16_t
on the target is typedef'd toint
.
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 9:22
1
@AnttiHaapala: Why exactly wouldn't it be correct for anint
?
– alk
Apr 1 at 9:26
hmm... how about just usingPRI16u
:D
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 11:35
add a comment |
You could make the code itself be more aware about the data sizes it is handling, by for example doing:
printf("%hun", a - b);
From fprintf
's docs:
h
Specifies that a following d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion specifier applies to a short int or unsigned short int argument (the argument will have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value shall be converted to short int or unsigned short int before printing);
1
but that's besides the problem actually, and%hu
wouldn't be correct (though essentially the same representation) if theuint16_t
on the target is typedef'd toint
.
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 9:22
1
@AnttiHaapala: Why exactly wouldn't it be correct for anint
?
– alk
Apr 1 at 9:26
hmm... how about just usingPRI16u
:D
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 11:35
add a comment |
You could make the code itself be more aware about the data sizes it is handling, by for example doing:
printf("%hun", a - b);
From fprintf
's docs:
h
Specifies that a following d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion specifier applies to a short int or unsigned short int argument (the argument will have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value shall be converted to short int or unsigned short int before printing);
You could make the code itself be more aware about the data sizes it is handling, by for example doing:
printf("%hun", a - b);
From fprintf
's docs:
h
Specifies that a following d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion specifier applies to a short int or unsigned short int argument (the argument will have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value shall be converted to short int or unsigned short int before printing);
edited Apr 1 at 9:26
answered Apr 1 at 9:21
alkalk
59.3k766179
59.3k766179
1
but that's besides the problem actually, and%hu
wouldn't be correct (though essentially the same representation) if theuint16_t
on the target is typedef'd toint
.
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 9:22
1
@AnttiHaapala: Why exactly wouldn't it be correct for anint
?
– alk
Apr 1 at 9:26
hmm... how about just usingPRI16u
:D
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 11:35
add a comment |
1
but that's besides the problem actually, and%hu
wouldn't be correct (though essentially the same representation) if theuint16_t
on the target is typedef'd toint
.
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 9:22
1
@AnttiHaapala: Why exactly wouldn't it be correct for anint
?
– alk
Apr 1 at 9:26
hmm... how about just usingPRI16u
:D
– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 11:35
1
1
but that's besides the problem actually, and
%hu
wouldn't be correct (though essentially the same representation) if the uint16_t
on the target is typedef'd to int
.– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 9:22
but that's besides the problem actually, and
%hu
wouldn't be correct (though essentially the same representation) if the uint16_t
on the target is typedef'd to int
.– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 9:22
1
1
@AnttiHaapala: Why exactly wouldn't it be correct for an
int
?– alk
Apr 1 at 9:26
@AnttiHaapala: Why exactly wouldn't it be correct for an
int
?– alk
Apr 1 at 9:26
hmm... how about just using
PRI16u
:D– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 11:35
hmm... how about just using
PRI16u
:D– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 11:35
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55450866%2fhow-can-i-force-the-size-of-an-int-for-debugging-purposes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
You can't, because the underlying ABI expects from your program a specified alignment. To do that, you would have to recompile your whole system.
that it exactly matches the behavior on the embedded system
so don't useint
if you want to be portable. The type ofa-b
expression isint
- cast it touint8_t
and usePRNu8
to print it. If you are usinglong
andint
types, your program will never be portable. The line should have beenprintf("% "PRNu8 "n", (uint8_t)(a - b));
- that way it will print1
on any architecture any system.– Kamil Cuk
Apr 1 at 9:29
2
why you don`t use cast to uint16? printf("%un", (uint16_t)(a - b));
– Paweł Dymowski
Apr 1 at 9:43
you might try c++ version on the desktop. With a class Int16 you could overload the arithmetic operators.
– Thomas G.
Apr 1 at 12:08
2
A cast to
uint16_t
is only good for only so much...– Antti Haapala
Apr 1 at 13:35
1
@PawełDymowski no, it's still UB to print signed int with
%u
. Because there were platforms where unsigned values may have trap bits. Which integral promotions do take place when printing a char?, What happens when I use the wrong format specifier?– phuclv
Apr 2 at 7:07