Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #30474

Re: Arm registers

Show all headers | View raw

David: writing an assembler isn't really a "big effort" although
the documentation of the Arm and the heaps of machine codes it
has moves in that direction. As for "why?", there are several
reasons and fun is one.
   Thanks for the direction regarding the Arm device.

Hul

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 17/04/2021 17:53, Hul Tytus wrote:
> > David - I'm in the process of putting together an assembler for the Arm
> > 32 bit processors. There is no all-knowing compiler envolved so I need
> > to know what machine codes are valid for a given processor. Any suggestions
> > on where that information can be found?
> > 

> Why?  There are perfectly good Arm assemblers available freely.  Is this
> just for fun, or do you have a good reason behind it?

> Arm use what they call "Unified Assembly Language" to let people write
> assembly in a single consistent format that can be used to generated
> object code in the various instruction formats.  That means a single UAL
> instruction might lead to multiple object code instructions if necessary
> (for example, loading a register with a constant might need multiple
> instructions depending on the constant value and the instruction set).

> Add to that there /lots/ of different subsets of the instructions that
> are available on different devices.  It is a big effort writing an
> assembler her.


> > 
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >> On 16/04/2021 21:30, Hul Tytus wrote:
> >>> sci.electronics.design
> >>> Arm Cortex assembley code
> >>>
> >>>     Does the Arm Cortex support both the "thumb" 16 bit machine codes and also 
> >>> the 32 bit codes? I had been under the impression that Cortex devices only 
> >>> provided the thumb codes but a little time going through "Arm v7-M 
> >>> Architecture Reference Manual" indicates otherwise. Whether or not that 
> >>> reference manual is suitable for Cortex information needs verification also. 
> >>> There may be a more pertinent text available.
> >>>    And another question: the thumb instructions show 8 available registers 
> >>> rather than 16. However, somewhere on the internet a site states that 16 
> >>> registers are available & which group of 8 varies with the "processor state". 
> >>> Any suggestions on an Arm manual or text that defines "processor state"? The 
> >>> CPS (change processor state) machine code description in the "Arm v7-M 
> >>> Architecture Reference Manual" doesn't mention register groups. 
> >>>
> > 
> >> You seem to be mixing up a range of different things here.  (That is not
> >> surprising - ARM has /seriously/ confusing terminology here, with
> >> similar names for different things, different names for similar things,
> >> different numbers for instruction sets, architectures, and implementations.)
> > 
> >> The answers you got from Richard are all correct - I am just wording
> >> things a little differently, to see if that helps your understand.
> > 
> >> In the beginning, Arm used a 32-bit fixed-size instruction set.  It was
> >> fast, but not very compact.  Most instructions had three registers (so
> >> you have "Rx = Ry + Rz"), with 16 registers - that adds up to 12 bits of
> >> instruction just for the registers.
> > 
> >> When they started getting serious in the microcontroller market, this
> >> extra space was a cost - it meant code was bigger than for other
> >> microcontrollers, and you needed a bigger and more expensive flash.  So
> >> they invented the "Thumb" mode.  Here, instructions are 16-bit only and
> >> so much more compact.  These were a subset of the ARM instructions -
> >> instructions only cover two registers, and for many operations these
> >> could only come from 8 registers (so only needed 6 bits of the
> >> instruction set).  The cpu decoder expanded the Thumb instructions into
> >> 32-bit ARM instructions before executing them.
> > 
> >> Thumb gave more compact code, but slower code, and there were some
> >> things you simply could not do in Thumb mode.  So the microcontrollers
> >> had to support both instruction sets, and you would switch sets in code
> >> (interrupts, for example, would be in ARM mode for speed).  It was all a
> >> bit of a mess.
> > 
> >> So ARM invented "Thumb-2".  This was a set of 32-bit instructions that
> >> can be mixed along with the slightly re-named "Thumb-1" 16-bit
> >> instructions.  Sometimes it is now all called "Thumb2", or just "Thumb"
> >> (since for the vast majority of ARM programmers, 16-bit only thumb was
> >> ancient history from before they started using the devices).  16-bit and
> >> 32-bit instructions are called "narrow" and "wide" forms.  These new
> >> 32-bit additions to thumb meant you could get a mixed code that was
> >> compact, fast, and covered all needs (including full access to all
> >> registers).
> > 
> >> So for the Cortex-M devices, Thumb2 is the only set needed - they don't
> >> support "old-style" 32-bit Arm instructions.  You no longer need to
> >> worry about changing states or modes, you are always in "thumb2" mode.
> > 
> >> Different Cortex-M processors support different subsets and extensions
> >> of this, so it is important that you inform your compiler of exactly
> >> which device you are using.  Do that, and you don't really need to care
> >> about the details for the most part - the compiler does the work.  But
> >> it can be interesting to know what is going on.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> There are also Cortex-A devices for applications processors - basically,
> >> running Linux (including Android) or, occasionally, Windows.  And there
> >> are Cortex-R devices for safety-critical systems.  But I expect you are
> >> talking about Cortex-M devices here.

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-16 19:30 +0000
  Re: Arm registers Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-04-16 16:20 -0400
    Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-16 22:12 +0000
      Re: Arm registers Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-04-16 19:41 -0400
        Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-17 15:43 +0000
          Re: Arm registers Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-04-17 21:45 +0100
            Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-18 13:57 +0000
              Re: Arm registers Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-04-18 16:31 +0100
                Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-19 21:22 +0000
  Re: Arm registers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-04-17 12:43 +0200
    Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-17 15:53 +0000
      Re: Arm registers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-04-17 18:50 +0200
        Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-17 19:30 +0000
          Re: Arm registers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-04-18 15:02 +0200
      Re: Arm registers Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-04-17 13:16 -0400
        Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-17 19:23 +0000
        Re: Arm registers Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-04-17 21:42 +0100
      Re: Arm registers Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-04-17 21:09 +0300
        Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-17 19:38 +0000
          Re: Arm registers Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-04-18 11:44 +0300
            Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-18 14:07 +0000
          Re: Arm registers David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-04-18 15:10 +0200
      Re: Arm registers antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-04-17 21:05 +0000
        Re: Arm registers Hul Tytus <ht@panix.com> - 2021-04-18 14:00 +0000

csiph-web