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;
}







21















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









share|improve this question




















  • 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








  • 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


















21















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









share|improve this question




















  • 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








  • 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














21












21








21


1






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









share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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 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





    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














  • 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








  • 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








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












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















18














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?






share|improve this answer

































    6














    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).






    share|improve this answer































      2














      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);







      share|improve this answer





















      • 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








      • 1





        @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












      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      18














      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?






      share|improve this answer






























        18














        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?






        share|improve this answer




























          18












          18








          18







          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?






          share|improve this answer















          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?







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 1 at 11:35

























          answered Apr 1 at 8:41









          Antti HaapalaAntti Haapala

          86.1k16163205




          86.1k16163205

























              6














              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).






              share|improve this answer




























                6














                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).






                share|improve this answer


























                  6












                  6








                  6







                  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).






                  share|improve this answer













                  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).







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 1 at 11:02









                  Toby SpeightToby Speight

                  17.4k134469




                  17.4k134469























                      2














                      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);







                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 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








                      • 1





                        @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
















                      2














                      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);







                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 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








                      • 1





                        @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














                      2












                      2








                      2







                      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);







                      share|improve this answer















                      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);








                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      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 the uint16_t on the target is typedef'd to int.

                        – Antti Haapala
                        Apr 1 at 9:22








                      • 1





                        @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














                      • 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








                      • 1





                        @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








                      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


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Bunad