Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang
Date	2017-07-14 17:38 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<okaoae$vmb$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <ok37se$9qg$1@dont-email.me> <ok3m7t$fbg$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ok5qfc$m1u$1@dont-email.me> <ok8oke$6ib$1@dont-email.me> <okantn$3oa$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 14/07/17 17:27, Chris wrote:
> On 07/13/17 21:31, David Brown wrote:
>> On 12/07/17 20:44, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 7/11/2017 4:16 PM, Chris wrote:
>>
>> I've snipped most of this post - these posts are ridiculously long, and
>> I expect few people will bother reading them any more.
> 
> Must have too much time on my hands, but yes, far too long.
> 
> 
>>
>> On ARM Cortex M, gcc does not "know" about interrupts in this sense -
>> simply because the interrupt hardware in the cpu means that there is no
>> special effort needed. Interrupt functions are normal C functions.
> 
> I write all interrupt handlers in C, but still need to know what
> registers are used inside the handler, to avoid saving everything.

No, you don't - at least, not for the normal registers (the FPU 
registers are more complex, as has already been covered).  That is the 
whole point of the way interrupts are handled on the Cortex M devices. 
The ABI for the device is fixed clearly - ARM has said exactly which 
registers are "volatile" and which are "non-volatile".  And the 
interrupt hardware preserves all the volatile registers before the 
interrupt function is started.  This means that as long as the C 
compiler generates code that is compatible with the ABI, it will already 
save exactly the registers it needs to save - no more (assuming an 
efficient compiler!) and no less.  You need to know about register usage 
for writing an RTOS with pre-emptive multitasking, and that sort of 
thing - you don't need to know at all for normal C code called from an 
interrupt.

I don't know of any other processors that handle this as smoothly as the 
Cortex M cpus - usually the compiler has to do /something/ special for 
interrupt functions, preserving some registers and exiting with a 
"return from interrupt" instruction.  But not on the Cortex M.

> 
> Since there is a disconnect between the mainline code and an interrupt
> handler, how does gcc know which registers to save and restore ? Fine
> if the toolchain vendor has provided something like #interrupt pragma,
> but otherwise, you need asm macros at entry and exit for the register
> saves. Or am I missing something ?...
>

Yes, you are missing something (not surprising, as the Cortex M is 
different from other processors in this regard).

It is normal practice to divide the register set into "volatile" or 
"caller-preserved" registers and "non-volatile" or "callee-preserved" 
registers.  When generating the code for a function, the compiler can 
use the "volatile" registers as it wants without saving and restoring 
their values.  But if it wants to use the "non-volatile" registers, it 
must preserve their values so that they are returned unchanged when the 
function exits.  The compiler will not generate code to save and restore 
these unless it actually /uses/ these registers.  And the same goes for 
any functions it calls further down the line.

So when an interrupt has triggered, the Cortex M preserves all the 
"volatile" registers and then calls the interrupt function, which is a 
perfectly normal function.

> Chris
>

Thread

ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-30 05:11 -0700
  ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang klaus.kragelund@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 05:48 -0700
    Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.tu-darmstadt.de> - 2017-05-30 14:32 +0000
      Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-30 22:07 -0500
        Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 23:57 -0400
          Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-31 12:08 +0200
            Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:11 -0400
              Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-06-01 15:17 -0500
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 16:27 -0400
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-01 16:30 -0400
            Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-06-01 15:17 -0500
  Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-30 07:31 -0700
    Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-30 08:07 -0700
      Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-05-31 00:38 -0400
      Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-30 22:14 -0700
  Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 10:53 -0400
  Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang StateMachineCOM <statemachineguru@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:58 -0700
    Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Klaus Kragelund <klauskvik@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-07 13:27 -0700
    Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 23:24 -0700
      Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang StateMachineCOM <statemachineguru@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 07:21 -0700
        Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-06-12 17:57 +0300
          Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-12 10:10 -0700
            Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-06-12 22:06 +0300
              Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-12 12:19 -0700
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-06-12 23:04 +0300
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-12 14:34 -0700
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-06-13 02:44 +0300
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-12 17:31 -0700
        Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 08:04 -0700
        Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-12 09:54 -0700
          Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-10 13:30 +0000
            Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-10 16:03 -0700
              Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-11 16:24 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-11 12:15 -0700
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-11 23:16 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-12 11:44 -0700
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-07-12 17:46 -0400
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-12 18:12 -0700
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2017-07-13 11:42 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-07-13 21:38 -0700
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-07-13 23:31 +0200
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 15:27 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-07-14 17:38 +0200
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 16:03 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-07-14 20:20 +0200
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 18:59 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 17:17 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-07-15 00:45 +0300
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 23:00 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-07-15 04:04 +0300
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2017-07-16 16:58 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2017-07-14 20:05 -0400
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-07-15 11:53 +0300
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-07-15 12:05 +0200
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2017-07-20 11:11 +0000
                Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2017-07-20 10:29 +0000
        Re: ARM Cortex Mx vs the rest of the gang "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2017-06-14 09:54 +0200

csiph-web