Subversion Repositories openrisc

For a package to be usable in the &eCos; component framework it must

conform to certain rules imposed by that framework. Packages must be

distributed in a form that is understood by the component repository

administration tool. There must be a top-level &CDL; script which

describes the package to the component framework. There are certain

limitations related to how a package gets built, so that the package

can still be used in a variety of host environments. In addition to

these rules, the component framework provides a number of guidelines.

Packages do not have to conform to the guidelines, but sticking to

them can simplify certain operations.

This chapter deals with the general organization of a package, for

example how to distinguish between private and exported header files.

 describes the &CDL; language.

 details the build process.

All &eCos; installations include a component repository. This is a

directory structure for all installed packages. The component

framework comes with an administration tool that allows new packages

or new versions of a package to be installed, old packages to be

removed, and so on. The component repository includes a simple

database, maintained by the administration tool, which contains

details of the various packages.

Each package has its own little directory hierarchy within the

component repository. Keeping several packages in a single directory

is illegal. The error, infra and kernel packages all live at the

top-level of the repository. For other types of packages there are

some pre-defined directories: 

class="directory">compat is used for compatibility

packages, which implement other interfaces such as &uITRON; or POSIX

using native &eCos; calls; hal

is used for packages that port &eCos; to different architectures or

platforms, and this directory is further organized on a

per-architecture basis; io is

intended for device drivers; 

class="directory">language is used for language support

libraries, for example the C library. There are no strict rules

defining where new packages should get installed. Obviously if an

existing top-level directory such as 

class="directory">compat is applicable then the new package

should go in there. If a new category is desirable then it is possible

to create a new sub-directory in the component repository. For

example, an organization planning to release a number of &eCos;

packages may want them all to appear below a sub-directory

corresponding to the organization's name — in the hope that

the name will not change too often. It is possible to add new packages

directly to the top-level of the component repository, but this should

be avoided.

The ecos.db file holds the component repository

database and is managed by the administration tool. The various

configuration tools read in this file when they start-up to obtain

information about the various packages that have been installed. When

developing a new package it is necessary to add some information to

the file, as described in . The

templates directory holds

various configuration templates.

Earlier releases of &eCos; came with two separate files,

targets and packages. The

ecos.db database replaces both of these.

The current ecos.db database does not yet provide

all of the information needed by the component framework. Its format

is subject to change in future releases, and the file may be replaced

completely if necessary. There are a number of other likely future

developments related to the component repository and the database. The

way targets are described is subject to change. Sometimes it is

desirable for component writers to do their initial development in a

directory outside the component repository, but there is no specific

support in the framework for that yet.

Below each package directory there can be one or more version

sub-directories, named after the versions. This is a requirement of

the component framework: it must be possible for users to install

multiple versions of a package and select which one to use for any

given application. This has a number of advantages to users: most

importantly it allows a single component repository to be shared

between multiple users and multiple projects, as required; also it

facilitates experiments, for example it is relatively easy to try out

the latest version of some package and see if it makes any difference.

There is a potential disadvantage in terms of disk space. However

since &eCos; packages generally consist of source code intended for

small embedded systems, and given typical modern disk sizes, keeping a

number of different versions of a package installed will usually be

acceptable. The administration tool can be used to remove versions

that are no longer required.

The version current is special. Typically it

corresponds to the very latest version of the sources, obtained by

anonymous &CVS;. These sources may change frequently, unlike full

releases which do not change (or only when patches are produced).

Component writers may also want to work on the

current version.

All other subdirectories of a package correspond to specific releases

of that package. The component framework allows users to select the

particular version of a package they want to use, but by default the

most recent one will be used. This requires some rules for ordering

version numbers, a difficult task because of the wide variety of ways

in which versions can be identified.

The version current is always considered to be

the most recent version.

If the first character of both strings are either v

or V, these are skipped because it makes little

sense to enforce case sensitivity here. Potentially this could result

in ambiguity if there are two version directories

V1.0 and v1.0, but this will

match the confusion experienced by any users of such a package.

However if two subsequent releases are called V1.0

and v1.1, e.g. because of a minor mix-up when

making the distribution file, then the case difference is ignored.

Next the two version strings are compared one character at a time.

If both strings are currently at a digit then a string to number

conversion takes place, and the resulting numbers are compared.

For example v10 is a more recent release than

v2. If the two numbers are the same then processing

continues, so for v2b and v2c

the version comparison code would move on to b and

c.

The characters dot ., hyphen -

and underscore _ are treated as equivalent

separators, so if one release goes out as v1_1 and

the next goes out as v1.2 the separator has no

effect.

If neither string has yet terminated but the characters are different,

ASCII comparison is used. For example V1.1b is

more recent than v1.1alpha.

If one version string terminates before the other, the current

character determines which is the more recent. If the other string is

currently at a separator character, for example

v1.3.1 and v1.3, then the former

is assumed to be a minor release and hence more recent than the

latter. If the other string is not at a separator character, for

example v1.3beta, then it is treated as an

experimental version of the v1.3 release and hence

older.

There is no special processing of dates, so with two versions

ss-20000316 and ss-20001111

the numerical values 20001111 and

20000316 determine the result: larger values are

more recent. It is suggested that the full year be used in such cases

rather than a shorthand like 00, to avoid

Y2100 problems.

There is no limit on how many levels of versioning are used, so

there could in theory be a v3.1.4.1.5.9.2.7 release

of a package. However this is unlikely to be of benefit to typical

users of a package.

The version comparison rules of the component framework may not be

suitable for every version numbering scheme in existence, but they

should cope with many common cases.

There are some issues still to be resolved before it is possible to

combine the current sources available via

anonymous &CVS and full releases of &eCos; and additional packages in

a single component repository. The first problem relates to the

ecos.db database: if a new package is added via

the CVS repository then this requires a database update, but the

administration tool is bypassed. The second problem arises if an

organization chooses to place its component repository under source

code control using &CVS;, in which case different directories will

belong to different &CVS; servers. These issues will be addressed in a

future release.

A typical package contains the following:

Some number of source files which will end up in a library. The

application code will be linked with this library to produce an

executable. Some source files may serve other purposes, for example to

provide a linker script.

Exported header files which define the interface provided by the

package.

On-line documentation, for example reference pages for each exported

function.

Some number of test cases, shipped in source format, allowing users to

check that the package is working as expected on their particular

hardware and in their specific configuration.

One or more &CDL; scripts describing the package to the configuration

system.

It is also conventional to have a per-package

ChangeLog file used to keep track of changes to

that package. This is especially valuable to end users of the package

who may not have convenient access to the source code control system

used to manage the master copy of the package, and hence cannot find

out easily what has changed. Often it can be very useful to the main

developers as well.

Any given packages need not contain all of these. It is compulsory to

have at least one &CDL; script describing the package, otherwise the

component framework would be unable to process it. Some packages may

not have any source code: it is possible to have a package that merely

defines a common interface which can then be implemented by several

other packages, especially in the context of device drivers; however

it is still common to have some code in such packages to avoid

replicating shareable code in all of the implementation packages.

Similarly it is possible to have a package with no exported header

files, just source code that implements an existing interface: for

example an ethernet device driver might just implement a standard

interface and not provide any additional functionality. Packages do

not need to come with any on-line documentation, although this may

affect how many people will want to use the package. Much the same

applies to per-package test cases.

The component framework has a recommended per-package directory layout

which splits the package contents on a functional basis:

For example, if a package has an 

class="directory">include sub-directory then the component

framework will assume that all header files in and below that

directory are exported header files and will do the right thing at

build time. Similarly if there is &doc; property indicating the

location of on-line documentation then the component framework will

first look in the doc

sub-directory.

This directory layout is just a guideline, it is not enforced by the

component framework. For simple packages it often makes more sense to

have all of the files in just one directory. For example a package

could just contain the files hello.cxx,

hello.h, hello.html and

hello.cdl. By default

hello.h will be treated as an exported header

file, although this can be overridden with the 

linkend="ref.include-files">&include-files; property. Assuming

there is a &doc; property referring to hello.html

and there is no doc

sub-directory then the tools will search for this file relative to the

package's top-level and everything will just work. Much the same

applies to hello.cxx and

hello.cdl.

Older versions of the &eCos; build system only supported packages that

followed the directory structure exactly. Hence certain core packages

such as error implement the full directory

structure, even though that is a particularly simple package and the

full directory structure is inappropriate. Component writers can

decide for themselves whether or not the directory structure

guidelines are appropriate for their package.

The full build process is described in , but

a summary is appropriate here. A build involves three directory

structures:

The component repository. This is where all the package source code is

held, along with &CDL; scripts, documentation, and so on. For build

purposes a component repository is read-only. Application developers

will only modify the component repository when installing or removing

packages, via the administration tool. Component writers will

typically work on just one package in the component repository.

The build tree. Each configuration has its own build tree, which can

be regenerated at any time using the configuration's

ecos.ecc savefile. The build tree contains only

intermediate files, primarily object files. Once a build is complete

the build tree contains no information that is useful for application

development and can be wiped, although this would slow down any

rebuilds following changes to the configuration.

The install tree. This is populated during a build, and contains all

the files relevant to application development. There will be a

lib sub-directory which

typically contains libtarget.a, a linker script,

start-up code, and so on. There will also be an 

class="directory">include sub-directory containing all the

header files exported by the various packages. There will also be a

include/pkgconf sub-directory

containing various configuration header files with

#define's for the options. Typically the install

tree is created within the build tree, but this is not a requirement.

The build process involves the following steps:

Given a configuration, the component framework is responsible for

creating all the directories in the build and install trees. If these

trees already exist then the component framework is responsible for

any clean-ups that may be necessary, for example if a package has been

removed then all related files should be expunged from the build and

install trees. The configuration header files will be generated at

this time. Depending on the host environment, the component framework

will also generate makefiles or some other way of building the various

packages. Every time the configuration is modified this step needs to

be repeated, to ensure that all option consequences take effect. Care

is taken that this will not result in unnecessary rebuilds.

At present this step needs to be invoked manually. In a future version

the generated makefile may if desired perform this step automatically,

using a dependency on the ecos.ecc savefile.

The first step in an actual build is to make sure that the install

tree contains all exported header files. All compilations will use

the install tree's include

directory as one of the places to search for header files.

All source files relevant to the current configuration get compiled.

This involves a set of compiler flags initialized on a per-target

basis, with each package being able to modify these flags, and with

the ability for the user to override the flags as well. Care has to be

taken here to avoid inappropriate target-dependencies in packages that

are intended to be portable. The component framework has built-in

knowledge of how to handle C, C++ and assembler source files —

other languages may be added in future, as and when necessary. The

&compile; property is used to

list the files that should get compiled. All object files end up in

the build tree.

Once all the object files have been built they are collected into a

library, typically libtarget.a, which can then be

linked with application code. The library is generated in the install

tree.

The component framework provides support for custom build steps, using

the &make-object; and

&make; properties. The results of

these custom build steps can either be object files that should end up

in a library, or other files such as a linker script. It is possible

to control the order in which these custom build steps take place, for

example it is possible to run a particular build step before any of

the compilations happen.

All packages should be totally portable to all target hardware (with

the obvious exceptions of HAL and device driver packages). They should

also be totally bug-free, require the absolute minimum amount of code

and data space, be so efficient that cpu time usage is negligible, and

provide lots of configuration options so that application developers

have full control over the behavior. The configuration options are

optional only if a package can meet the requirements of every

potential application without any overheads. It is not the purpose of

this guide to explain how to achieve all of these requirements.

The &eCos; component framework does have some important implications

for the source code: compiler flag dependencies; package interfaces

vs. implementations; and how configuration options affect source code.

Wherever possible component writers should avoid dependencies on

particular compiler flags. Any such dependencies are likely to impact

portability. For example, if one package needs to be built in

big-endian mode and another package needs to be built in little-endian

mode then usually it will not be possible for application developers

to use both packages at the same time; in addition the application

developer is no longer given a choice in the matter. It is far better

for the package source code to adapt the endianness at compile-time,

or possibly at run-time although that will involve code-size

overheads.

A related issue is that the current support for handling compiler

flags in the component framework is still limited and incapable of

handling flags at a very fine-grain. The support is likely to be

enhanced in future versions of the framework, but there are

non-trivial problems to be resolved.

The component framework provides encapsulation at the package level. A

package A has no way of accessing the

implementation details of another package B at

compile-time. In particular, if there is a private header file

somewhere in a package's src

sub-directory then this header file is completely invisible to other

packages. Any attempts to cheat by using relative pathnames beginning

with ../.. are generally doomed

to failure because of the presence of package version directories.

There are two ways in which one package can affect another: by means

of the exported header files, which define a public interface; or via

the &CDL; scripts.

This encapsulation is a deliberate aspect of the overall &eCos;

component framework design. In most cases it does not cause any

problems for component writers. In some cases enforcing a clean

separation between interface and implementation details can improve

the code. Also it reduces problems when a package gets upgraded:

component writers are free to do pretty much anything on the

implementation side, including renaming every single source file; care

has to be taken only with the exported header files and with the &CDL;

data, because those have the potential of impacting other packages.

Application code is similarly unable to access package implementation

details, only the exported interface.

Very occasionally the inability of one package to see implementation

details of another does cause problems. One example occurs in HAL

packages, where it may be desirable for the architectural, variant and

platform HAL's to share some information that should not be visible to

other packages or to application code. This may be addressed in the

future by introducing the concept of friend

packages, just as a C++ class can have friend

functions and classes which are allowed special access to a class

internals. It is not yet clear whether such cases are sufficiently

frequent to warrant introducing such a facility.

Configurability usually involves source code that needs to implement

different behavior depending on the settings of configuration

options. It is possible to write packages where the only consequence

associated with various configuration options is to control what gets

built, but this approach is limited and does not allow for

fine-grained configurability. There are three main ways in which

options could affect source code at build time:

The component code can be passed through a suitable preprocessor,

either an existing one such as 

class="software">m4 or a new one specially designed with

configurability in mind. The original sources would reside in the

component repository and the processed sources would reside in the

build tree. These processed sources can then be compiled in the usual

way.

This approach has two main advantages. First, it is independent from

the programming language used to code the components, provided

reasonable precautions are taken to avoid syntax clashes between

preprocessor statements and actual code. This would make it easier in

future to support languages other than C and C++. Second, configurable

code can make use of advanced preprocessing facilities such as loops

and recursion. The disadvantage is that component writers would have

to learn about a new preprocessor and embed appropriate directives in

the code. This makes it much more difficult to turn existing code into

components, and it involves extra training costs for the component

writers.

Compiler optimizations can be used to elide code that should not be

present, for example:

    …

    if (CYGHWR_NUMBER_UARTS > 0) {

        …

     }

    …

If the compiler knows that CYGHWR_NUMBER_UARTS is

the constant number 0 then it is a trivial operation to get rid of the

unnecessary code. The component framework still has to define this

symbol in a way that is acceptable to the compiler, typically by using

a const variable or a preprocessor symbol. In some

respects this is a clean approach to configurability, but it has

limitations. It cannot be used in the declarations of data structures

or classes, nor does it provide control over entire functions. In

addition it may not be immediately obvious that this code is affected

by configuration options, which may make it more difficult to

understand.

Existing language preprocessors can be used. In the case of C or C++

this would be the standard C preprocessor, and configurable code would

contain a number of #ifdef and

#if statements.

#if (CYGHWR_NUMBER_UARTS > 0)

     …

#endif

This approach has the big advantage that the C preprocessor is a

technology that is both well-understood and widely used. There are

also disadvantages: it is not directly applicable to components

written in other languages such as Java (although it is possible to

use the C preprocessor as a stand-alone program); the preprocessing

facilities are rather limited, for example there is no looping

facility; and some people consider the technology to be ugly. Of

course it may be possible to get around the second objection by

extending the preprocessor that is used by gcc and g++.

The current component framework generates configuration header files

with C preprocessor #define's for each option

(typically, there various properties which can be used to control

this). It is up to component writers to decide whether to use

preprocessor #ifdef statements or language

constructs such as if. At present there is no

support for languages which do not involve the C preprocessor,

although such support can be added in future when the need arises.

A package's exported header files should specify the interface

provided by that package, and avoid any implementation details.

However there may be performance or other reasons why implementation

details occasionally need to be present in the exported headers.

Not all programming languages have the concept of a header file. In

some cases the component framework would need extensions to support

packages written in such languages.

Configurability has a number of effects on the way exported header

files should be written. There may be configuration options which

affect the interface of a package, not just the implementation. It is

necessary to worry about nested #include's and how

this affects package and application builds. A special case of this

relates to whether or not exported header files should

#include configuration headers. These configuration

headers are exported, but should only be #include'd

when necessary.

Many configuration options affect only the implementation of a

package, not the interface. However some options will affect the

interface as well, which means that the options have to be tested in

the exported header files. Some implementation choices, for example

whether or not a particular function should be inlined, also need to

be tested in the header file because of language limitations.

Consider a configuration option

CYGFUN_KERNEL_MUTEX_TIMEDLOCK which controls

whether or not a function cyg_mutex_timedlock is

provided. The exported kernel header file 

class="headerfile">cyg/kernel/kapi.h could contain the

following:

#include <pkgconf/kernel.h>

…

#ifdef CYGFUN_KERNEL_MUTEX_TIMEDLOCK

extern bool cyg_mutex_timedlock(cyg_mutex_t*);

#endif

This is a correct header file, in that it defines the exact interface

provided by the package at all times. However is has a number of

implications. First, the header file is now dependent on 

class="headerfile">pkgconf/kernel.h, so any changes to

kernel configuration options will cause 

class="headerfile">cyg/kernel/kapi.h to be out of date, and

any source files that use the kernel interface will need rebuilding.

This may affect sources in the kernel package, in other packages, and

in application source code. Second, if the application makes use of

this function somewhere but the application developer has

misconfigured the system and disabled this functionality anyway then

there will now be a compile-time error when building the application.

Note that other packages should not be affected, since they should

impose appropriate constraints on

CYGFUN_KERNEL_MUTEX_TIMEDLOCK if they use that

functionality (although of course some dependencies like this may get

missed by component developers).

An alternative approach would be:

extern bool cyg_mutex_timedlock(cyg_mutex_t*);

Effectively the header file is now lying about the functionality

provided by the package. The first result is that there is no longer a

dependency on the kernel configuration header. The second result is

that an application file using the timed-lock function will now

compile, but the application will fail to link. At this stage the

application developer still has to intervene, change the

configuration, and rebuild the system. However no application

recompilations are necessary, just a relink.

Theoretically it would be possible for a tool to analyze linker errors

and suggest possible configuration changes that would resolve the

problem, reducing the burden on the application developer. No such

tool is planned in the short term.

It is up to component writers to decide which of these two approaches

should be preferred. Note that it is not always possible to avoid

#include'ing a configuration header file in an

exported one, for example an option may affect a data structure rather

than just the presence or absence of a function. Issues like this will

vary from package to package.

As a general rule, unnecessary #include's should be

avoided. A header file should #include only those

header files which are absolutely needed for it to define its

interface. Any additional #include's make it more

likely that package or application source files become dependent on

configuration header files and will get rebuilt unnecessarily when

there are minor configuration changes.

Exported header files should avoid #include'ing

configuration header files unless absolutely necessary, to avoid

unnecessary rebuilding of both application code and other packages

when there are minor configuration changes. A

#include is needed only when a configuration option

affects the exported interface, or when it affects some implementation

details which is controlled by the header file such as whether or not

a particular function gets inlined.

There are a couple of ways in which the problem of unnecessary

rebuilding could be addressed. The first would require more

intelligent handling of header file dependency handling by the tools

(especially the compiler) and the build system. This would require

changes to various non-eCos tools. An alternative approach would be to

support finer-grained configuration header files, for example there