Re: Stack analysis tool that really work?

From	Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: Stack analysis tool that really work?
Date	2021-08-05 13:18 +0300
Organization	Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID	<in1s7sFbkaoU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<sdukj9$8tu$1@dont-email.me> <sea47k$j3s$1@dont-email.me> <seb3fa$82q$1@dont-email.me> <imvvdmFu7i4U1@mid.individual.net> <seek0l$e3r$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2021-08-04 20:50, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/4/2021 10:00 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> On 2021-08-03 12:49, pozz wrote:
>>> Il 03/08/2021 02:56, Don Y ha scritto:
>>>> On 7/29/2021 9:22 AM, pozz wrote:
>>>>> arm gcc and Cortex-Mx MCUs embedded systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a compilation-time (static) tool for stack analysis that
>>>>>  really works?
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "really works"?  It's a (potentially) unbounded
>>>> problem as the compiler can't know what the inputs will drive the
>>>> code to do, in practice.
>>>
>>> I mean a simple tool that can be instructed, even manually, to
>>> produce a good result.
>>>
>>> -fstack-usage is not usable "by hands".
>>>
>>> You need at least a call-graph (generated by a tool), fill each
>>> branch (function) with a stack usage (generated by the compiler),
>>> fill every branch that is not known at compilation time by the tools
>>> (call functions by pointers, recursive, and so on).
>>>
>>> It's surprisingly to me there isn't a single non-expensive tool that
>>> helps in this, considering there are a multitude of good free tools
>>> for developers.
>>
>>
>> One reason is that for good results, such a tool has to analyze the 
>> executable code, and therefore must be target-specific, or at least 
>> have ports to the various targets, increasing the effort to implement 
>> and maintain the tool. The gnatstack tool gets around that, to some 
>> extent, by relying on stack-usage and call information from the 
>> compiler (gcc).
> 
> I am seeing an increasing number of tools relying on intermediate
> encodings (e.g., via LLVM) to give more portability to their
> application.


LLVM IR and other similar program representations are a good "level" for 
some semantic analyses, such as value analysis (finding possible ranges 
of variable values) and control-flow analysis. But it is typically too 
high a level for analysing machine resources such as stack usage and WCET.

If one can set up a reliable mapping between the IR entities (variables 
and control flow) and the machine-level entities (registers, memory 
locations, branch instructions) the two levels of analysis can support 
each other. Unfortunately that mapping is defined by the compiler and 
linker and is usually described only incompletely in the debugging 
information emitted from the compiler and linker.

Thread

Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 18:22 +0200
  Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-07-29 19:36 +0300
  Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-02 17:56 -0700
    Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-03 11:43 +0300
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-03 02:28 -0700
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 22:14 +0300
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 15:43 -0700
    Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 11:49 +0200
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-03 20:17 -0700
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 16:43 +0200
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 11:06 -0700
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 12:00 +0300
              Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 04:54 -0700
      Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 20:00 +0300
        Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 10:50 -0700
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-04 21:50 +0300
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-04 15:46 -0700
              Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 13:43 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 06:16 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 18:39 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 01:09 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-06 22:58 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 16:04 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-06 16:06 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 14:20 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 10:26 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 20:46 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 15:14 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 14:09 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 08:09 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 19:50 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 20:02 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 21:10 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2021-08-06 22:55 -0400
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-07 13:40 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2021-08-08 18:34 -0400
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-09 10:50 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2021-08-09 11:26 -0700
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-09 22:59 +0300
                Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-09 12:04 -0700
          Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2021-08-05 13:18 +0300
            Re: Stack analysis tool that really work? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2021-08-05 04:59 -0700

csiph-web