apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (08/18/87)
This is in response to a request from Christian Kaernbach which I got
from BITNET: I can't reply directly to BITNET, but I'm sure other people
will find this interesting, too: it's a preliminary version of the
long-awaited Pexec cookbook!
In broad terms, the things you have to know about Pexec are that it
starts up a process, lets it execute, then returns to the caller
when that process terminates. The "caller" -- the process which used Pexec
in the first place -- has some responsibilities: it has to make memory
available to the OS for allocation to the child, and it has to build
up the argument string for the child.
All GEMDOS programs are started with the largest block of OS memory
allocated to them. Except in very rare circumstances, this block
is the one stretching from the end of the accessories and resident
utilities to the beginning of screen memory. The point is that your
program has probably been allocated ALL of free memory. In order to
make memory available for a child process, you have to SHRINK the
block you own, returning the top part of it to GEMDOS. The time to
do this is when you start up.
If you use Alcyon C (from the developer's kit), you know that you
always link with a file called GEMSTART. If you've been paying
attention, you should have gotten the *new* GEMSTART from Compuserve
(or from somebody else who got it): I wrote that GEMSTART. In
GEMSTART.S, there is a lot of discussion about memory models, and then
a variable you set telling how much memory you want to keep or give back
to the OS. Make your choice (when in doubt, use STACK=1), assemble
GEMSTART.S, call the result GEMSEXEC.O (or something), and link the
programs which Pexec with that file rather than the normal GEMSTART.
Now here's a discussion of what GEMSTART has to do with respect to
keeping or returning memory:
Your program is invoked with the address of its own basepage as
the argument to a function (that is, at 4(sp).l). In this basepage
is the structure you can find in your documentation. The interesting
fields are HITPA (the address of first byte NOT in your TPA),
BSSBASE (the first address of your bss) and BSSLEN (the length of
your BSS).
Your stack pointer starts at HITPA-8 (because 8 is the length of the
basepage argument and the dummy return PC on the stack). The space from
BSSBASE+BSSLEN to your SP is the "stack+heap" space. Library malloc()
calls use this space, moving a pointer called the "break" (in the
variable __break, or the C variable _break if you use Alcyon C) up as it
uses memory. Your stack pointer moves down from the top as it uses
memory, and if the sp and _break ever meet, you're out of memory. In
fact, if they ever come close (within a "chicken factor" of about 512
bytes or 1K), malloc() will fail because it doesn't want your stack to
overwrite good data.
When a process starts, it gets *all* of memory allocated to it: from the
end of any accessories or resident utilities up to the default screen
memory. If you want to use Pexec, you have to give some memory back to
the OS. You do this with the Mshrink call. Its arguments are the
address of the memory block to shrink (your basepage address) and the
new size to shrink it to. You should be sure to leave enough room above
your BSS for a reasonable stack (at least 2K) plus any malloc() calls
you expect to make. Let's say you're writing "make" and you want to
leave about 32K for malloc() (for your dependency structures). Also,
since make is recursive, you should leave lots of space for the stack -
maybe another 16K. The new top of memory that your program needs is:
newtop = your bss base address + your bss size + 16K stack + 32K heap
Since your stack pointer is at the top of your CURRENT TPA, and you're about
to shrink that, you'd better move your stack:
move.l newtop,sp
Now you want to compute your new TPA size and call Mshrink:
move.l newtop,d0
sub.l basepage,d0 ; newtop-basepage is desired TPA size
move.l d0,-(sp) ; set up Mshrink(basepage,d0)
move.l basepage,-(sp)
move.w #$4a ; fn code for Mshrink
trap #1
add.l #10,sp ; clean up args
Now that you've shrunk your TPA, the OS can allocate this new memory to
your child. It can also use this memory for Malloc(), which is used
occasionally by GEM VDI for blt buffers, etc. Note that you only
have to do this once, when you start up: after that, you can do as much
Pexec'ing as you want.
When you want to exec a child, you build its complete filespec into one
string, and its arguments into another. The argument string is a little
strange: the first character of the argument string is the length of the
rest of the string!
Here is a simple system call: pass it the name of the file to execute
and the argument string to use.
long system(cmd,args)
char *cmd, *args;
{
char buf[128];
if (strlen(args) > 126) {
printf("argument string too long\n");
return -1;
}
strcpy(buf+1,args); /* copy args to buffer+1 */
buf[0] = strlen(args); /* set buffer[0] to len */
return Pexec(0,cmd,buf,0L);
}
The first zero in the Pexec call is the Pexec function code: load and
go. The cmd argument is the full filespec, with the path, file name,
and file type. The third argument is the command-line argument string,
and the fourth argument is the environment pointer. A null environment
pointer means "let the child inherit A COPY OF my environment."
This call will load the program, pass the arguments and environment to
it, and execute it. When the program terminates, the call returns the
exit code from the program. If the Pexec fails (not enough memory, file
not found, etc.) a negative code is returned, and you should deal with
it accordingly. Note that error returns from Pexec are always negative
LONGS, while return codes from the child will have zeros in the upper 16 bits.
EXIT CODES:
GEMDOS, like MS-DOS before it, allows programs to return a 16-bit exit
code to their parents when they terminate. This is done with the
Pterm(errcode) call. The value in errcode is passed to the parent
as the return value of the Pexec system call. The C library function
exit(errcode) usually uses this call.
Unfortunately, the people who wrote the startup file for the Alcyon C
compiler didn't use this. The compiler calls exit() with an error code,
and exit() calls _exit(), but _exit always uses Pterm0(), which returns
zero as the exit code. I fixed this by rewriting GEMSTART.S, the file
you link with first when using Alcyon.
Even though new programs return the right exit code, the compiler
itself still doesn't. Well, I have patched the binaries of all the
passes of the compiler so they DO. It isn't hard, and I will post
instructions at a later date for doing it. IF YOU DO THIS, PLEASE
DON'T BOTHER OUR CUSTOMER SUPPORT PEOPLE IF IT DOESN'T WORK. THEY
DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
I hope that this little cookbook makes Pexec less mysterious. I haven't
covered such topics as the critical-error and terminate vectors, even though
they are intimately connected with the idea of exec'ing children. A more
complete cookbook should be forthcoming.
If there are any errors or gross omissions in the above text, please
let me know BY MAIL so I can correct them coherently. Landon isn't
here to check my semantics, so I may have missed something. [Landon
is on vacation in France until early September.]
********************************************************************
C. Kaernbach's question was why his accessory, which basically did
a Pexec from a file selector, didn't always work. The answer is that
it works when used within a program which has returned enough memory to
the OS for the child. Why might it bomb? Because if a program has
returned a *little* memory to the OS (only about 2K), a bug in Pexec
shows up that breaks the memory manager. Accessories are strange beasts
anyway, so for the most part combining two strange beasts (Accessories
and Pexec) is bad news.
/----------------------------------------------\
| Opinions expressed above do not necessarily | -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp.
| reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. | ...lll-lcc!atari!apratt
\----------------------------------------------/ (APRATT on GEnie)plutchak@vms.macc.wisc.edu (08/19/87)
In article <816@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: >All GEMDOS programs are started with the largest block of OS memory >allocated to them... The point is that your >program has probably been allocated ALL of free memory. In order to >make memory available for a child process, you have to SHRINK the >block you own, returning the top part of it to GEMDOS. The time to >do this is when you start up. Does anybody know exactly how I do this using Lattice C? The documentation (for version 3.04) is less than clear on this point, and everything I've tried hasn't worked. I have never really *needed* to give the extra 700K or so of memory back, but the sheer wastefulness of it annoys me (:-), and someday I may want to use that memory. I'd appreciate any pointers on the subject. And while I'm asking advice on Lattice C, is there any special startup module needed to link a program used as a desk accessory, as there (apparently) is with other C's? -- Joel Plutchak Arpanet: plutchak@vms.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: plutchak@WISCMACC uucp: Who knows-- it's Eunice; try ...ihnp4!uwvax!uwwircs!plutchak
gert@nikhefh.UUCP (Gert Poletiek) (08/20/87)
In article <1792@uwmacc.UUCP> plutchak@vms.macc.wisc.edu writes: >In article <816@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: >>All GEMDOS programs are started with the largest block of OS memory >>allocated to them... The point is that your >>program has probably been allocated ALL of free memory. In order to >>make memory available for a child process, you have to SHRINK the >>block you own, returning the top part of it to GEMDOS. The time to >>do this is when you start up. > > Does anybody know exactly how I do this using Lattice C? The documentation >(for version 3.04) is less than clear on this point, and everything I've >tried hasn't worked. I have never really *needed* to give the extra 700K >or so of memory back, but the sheer wastefulness of it annoys me (:-), and >someday I may want to use that memory. I'd appreciate any pointers on the >subject. > And while I'm asking advice on Lattice C, is there any special startup >module needed to link a program used as a desk accessory, as there >(apparently) is with other C's? >-- > Joel Plutchak The Lattice C compiler is a different story. When the Metacomco guys wrote their memory management on top of the *not perfect* memory allocation mechanism that GemDos offers they made it static. I.e., When a Lattice program starts it does a shrink only for the amount: available - ( (_memneed)L + (_stksiz)L ) When you write a program that needs to execute the Pexec GemDos call you have to find out how much memory your program requires during its run. Watch out: The memory allocation mechanism from the Lattice C library (malloc and the like) all work in the heap that is _memneed bytes large. As soon as your program requests more than _memneed it will break. Hence you must know how much heap space your program will need. You will need a malloc that allows you to request memory from the system, not a malloc that gives yu a chuck from a pool that was requested from the system during program startup. Such a malloc would request blocks from GemDos using trap#1 call Malloc of about 16 kbytes. (If you request 10 bytes a time using Malloc from GemDos the 40 folder bug will turn out to be a 2 folder bug). If you want I could post a primitive set of memory allocation routines that work on 520's 1040' and Mega4's
whk@ausmelb.oz.au (Jim Kaubisch) (08/21/87)
[ discussion about memory allocation ] > > Does anybody know exactly how I do this using Lattice C? The documentation > (for version 3.04) is less than clear on this point, and everything I've > tried hasn't worked. I have never really *needed* to give the extra 700K > or so of memory back, but the sheer wastefulness of it annoys me (:-), and > someday I may want to use that memory. I'd appreciate any pointers on the > subject. I've been trying to figure this out for some time. I'm trying to get the Lattice compiler and programs it generates to run under the Beckemeyer MT-C shell. Because of Lattice's "taking all memory" approach, all Lattice progs crash the shell. I haven't been able to get around it. My current efforts are in the area of trying to build an alternate STARTUP.BIN. My fall-back position is to throw away Lattice C. > And while I'm asking advice on Lattice C, is there any special startup > module needed to link a program used as a desk accessory, as there > (apparently) is with other C's? You do need a special startup module. The latest version of Lattice supposedly includes one. ---------------- Jim Kaubisch, ----=---- ACSnet: whk@ausmelb.oz Austec International Ltd, ---===--- UUCP: ...!munnari!ausmelb.oz!whk 344 St Kilda Rd, --== ==-- ARPA: whk%ausmelb.oz.au Melbourne 3004 AUSTRALIA -=== ===- Phone: +61 3 699 4511 -- Jim Kaubisch, ----=---- ACSnet: whk@ausmelb.oz Austec International Ltd, ---===--- UUCP: ...!munnari!ausmelb.oz!whk 344 St Kilda Rd, --== ==-- ARPA: whk%ausmelb.oz.au Melbourne 3004 AUSTRALIA -=== ===- Phone: +61 3 699 4511 D
rh@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Robert Hamilton) (08/24/87)
In article <404@ausmelb.oz.au> whk@ausmelb.oz.au (Jim Kaubisch) writes: > > [ discussion about memory allocation ] >> >> Does anybody know exactly how I do this using Lattice C? The documentation >> (for version 3.04) is less than clear on this point, and everything I've >> tried hasn't worked. I have never really *needed* to give the extra 700K >> or so of memory back, but the sheer wastefulness of it annoys me (:-), and >> someday I may want to use that memory. I'd appreciate any pointers on the >> subject. I don't see the problem here... Cant you just set _mneed as described in the manual??? In fact I'm writing after trying out the latest version of lattice 3.04 Its very strange indeed. Most of the old lattice bugs have been fixed (20 file bug, redirection problem, malloc etc) and the debugger is very usable (macros already!) But I find that very often the linker crashes out !! Its not consistent either sometimes a bus, sometimes an address error. But the resultant prog is invariably ok! Trying a link with the old linker reports an "internal phase error" Very puzzling. Anybody come across this? -- JANET: rh@uk.ac.paisley.cs | Computing Science EMAIL: rh@cs.paisley.ac.uk | Paisley College UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!paisley!rh | High St., Paisley Phone: +44 41 887 1241 Ext. 219 | Scotland , PA12BE
bane@parcvax.Xerox.COM (John R. Bane) (08/25/87)
In article <369@paisley.ac.uk>, rh@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Robert Hamilton) writes: > But I find that very often the linker crashes out !! > Its not consistent either sometimes a bus, sometimes an address error. > But the resultant prog is invariably ok! The Lattice linker always crashes on me when I link more than one .BIN file (i.e., whenever I link any significant system). Programs with only one object module link OK, and even if the linker crashes, the link succeeds; it produces a .PRG file that runs fine. -- Rene P.S. Bane bane.pa@xerox.ARPA ...!parcvax!bane.UUCP