This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

ARMCC: How to generate assembly

I'd like to generate assembly file for a corresponding .c file and I've tried the following which do not work.

armcc.exe -c test.c -o test.o
fromelf.exe -c test.o -o test.s

The above generates test.s but it does not have assembly code for any of the functions defined in the test.c file. I'm looking something similar to

objdump -d test.o

Environment

Windows PC
ARM_Compiler_5.06u6

Top replies

Martin Weidmann over 7 years ago in reply to c0deface +1 verified

Ah, ok - I misunderstood what sort of output you wanted to see. Yes, fromelf will is the tool you want and it is the "-c" flag that gives you disassembly output. I think the problem for your test case...

Parents

0 c0deface over 7 years ago in reply to Martin Weidmann

Thank you, but still the .s file here is not something I'm looking for. So for example, for the following dummy 'C' code

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>

typedef struct data_t {
        uint32_t        a;
        uint16_t        b;
} data_t;


static void WriteS32(uint32_t x, uint32_t y)
{
        data_t testdata;
        testdata.a = x;
        testdata.b = y;
}

static void ReadS32(data_t emp)
{
        uint32_t x = emp.a;
        uint32_t y = emp.b;
}

I, get the following .s file

; generated by Component: ARM Compiler 5.06 update 6 (build 750) Tool: armcc [4d3637]
; commandline armcc [-c --asm test.c]
THUMB
PRESERVE8

AREA ||.arm_vfe_header||, DATA, READONLY, NOALLOC, ALIGN=2

DCD 0x00000000

IMPORT ||Lib$$Request$$armlib|| [CODE,WEAK]

ATTR FILESCOPE
ATTR SETVALUE Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t,2
ATTR SETVALUE Tag_ABI_enum_size,1
ATTR SETVALUE Tag_ABI_optimization_goals,3
ATTR SETVALUE AV,18,1

ASSERT {ENDIAN} = "little"
ASSERT {INTER} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {ROPI} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {RWPI} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {IEEE_FULL} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {IEEE_PART} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {IEEE_JAVA} = {FALSE}
END

However, when I try a similar thing with the gcc and objdump on a x86_64 Linux based system, i get the following code:

$ gcc -c test.c -o test.o
$ objdump -d test.o

test.o:     file format elf64-x86-64


Disassembly of section .text:

0000000000000000 <WriteS32>:
   0:	55                   	push   %rbp
   1:	48 89 e5             	mov    %rsp,%rbp
   4:	89 7d ec             	mov    %edi,-0x14(%rbp)
   7:	89 75 e8             	mov    %esi,-0x18(%rbp)
   a:	8b 45 ec             	mov    -0x14(%rbp),%eax
   d:	89 45 f0             	mov    %eax,-0x10(%rbp)
  10:	8b 45 e8             	mov    -0x18(%rbp),%eax
  13:	66 89 45 f4          	mov    %ax,-0xc(%rbp)
  17:	90                   	nop
  18:	5d                   	pop    %rbp
  19:	c3                   	retq   

000000000000001a <ReadS32>:
  1a:	55                   	push   %rbp
  1b:	48 89 e5             	mov    %rsp,%rbp
  1e:	48 89 7d e0          	mov    %rdi,-0x20(%rbp)
  22:	8b 45 e0             	mov    -0x20(%rbp),%eax
  25:	89 45 f8             	mov    %eax,-0x8(%rbp)
  28:	0f b7 45 e4          	movzwl -0x1c(%rbp),%eax
  2c:	0f b7 c0             	movzwl %ax,%eax
  2f:	89 45 fc             	mov    %eax,-0x4(%rbp)
  32:	90                   	nop
  33:	5d                   	pop    %rbp
  34:	c3                   	retq

I need something similar with ARMCC and probably with use of fromelf

Reply

0 c0deface over 7 years ago in reply to Martin Weidmann

Thank you, but still the .s file here is not something I'm looking for. So for example, for the following dummy 'C' code

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>

typedef struct data_t {
        uint32_t        a;
        uint16_t        b;
} data_t;


static void WriteS32(uint32_t x, uint32_t y)
{
        data_t testdata;
        testdata.a = x;
        testdata.b = y;
}

static void ReadS32(data_t emp)
{
        uint32_t x = emp.a;
        uint32_t y = emp.b;
}

I, get the following .s file

; generated by Component: ARM Compiler 5.06 update 6 (build 750) Tool: armcc [4d3637]
; commandline armcc [-c --asm test.c]
THUMB
PRESERVE8

AREA ||.arm_vfe_header||, DATA, READONLY, NOALLOC, ALIGN=2

DCD 0x00000000

IMPORT ||Lib$$Request$$armlib|| [CODE,WEAK]

ATTR FILESCOPE
ATTR SETVALUE Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t,2
ATTR SETVALUE Tag_ABI_enum_size,1
ATTR SETVALUE Tag_ABI_optimization_goals,3
ATTR SETVALUE AV,18,1

ASSERT {ENDIAN} = "little"
ASSERT {INTER} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {ROPI} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {RWPI} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {IEEE_FULL} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {IEEE_PART} = {FALSE}
ASSERT {IEEE_JAVA} = {FALSE}
END

However, when I try a similar thing with the gcc and objdump on a x86_64 Linux based system, i get the following code:

$ gcc -c test.c -o test.o
$ objdump -d test.o

test.o:     file format elf64-x86-64


Disassembly of section .text:

0000000000000000 <WriteS32>:
   0:	55                   	push   %rbp
   1:	48 89 e5             	mov    %rsp,%rbp
   4:	89 7d ec             	mov    %edi,-0x14(%rbp)
   7:	89 75 e8             	mov    %esi,-0x18(%rbp)
   a:	8b 45 ec             	mov    -0x14(%rbp),%eax
   d:	89 45 f0             	mov    %eax,-0x10(%rbp)
  10:	8b 45 e8             	mov    -0x18(%rbp),%eax
  13:	66 89 45 f4          	mov    %ax,-0xc(%rbp)
  17:	90                   	nop
  18:	5d                   	pop    %rbp
  19:	c3                   	retq   

000000000000001a <ReadS32>:
  1a:	55                   	push   %rbp
  1b:	48 89 e5             	mov    %rsp,%rbp
  1e:	48 89 7d e0          	mov    %rdi,-0x20(%rbp)
  22:	8b 45 e0             	mov    -0x20(%rbp),%eax
  25:	89 45 f8             	mov    %eax,-0x8(%rbp)
  28:	0f b7 45 e4          	movzwl -0x1c(%rbp),%eax
  2c:	0f b7 c0             	movzwl %ax,%eax
  2f:	89 45 fc             	mov    %eax,-0x4(%rbp)
  32:	90                   	nop
  33:	5d                   	pop    %rbp
  34:	c3                   	retq

I need something similar with ARMCC and probably with use of fromelf

Children

+1 Martin Weidmann

over 7 years ago in reply to c0deface

Ah, ok - I misunderstood what sort of output you wanted to see. Yes, fromelf will is the tool you want and it is the "-c" flag that gives you disassembly output.

I think the problem for your test case is that compiler is being clever. It's detected that the two functions are static and not referenced, and has performed redundant code elimination. As a result you end up with an empty file. It's something I've hit when creating small test cases before, the compiler optimizes code away if it doesn't do anything.

For your test, a couple of tweaks should stop the compiler optimizing everything out. Removing static from the function definitions gives:

** Section #1 '.text' (SHT_PROGBITS) [SHF_ALLOC + SHF_EXECINSTR]
    Size   : 8 bytes (alignment 4)
    Address: 0x00000000

    $a
    .text
    WriteS32
        0x00000000:    e12fff1e    ../.    BX       lr
    ReadS32
        0x00000004:    e12fff1e    ../.    BX       lr

So now the functions are there. But the compiler has still worked out that the code is ultimately "redundant" and made reduced them to stubs.

Modifying the functions to reference a global structure, rather than a local one, and having the read function return something:

** Section #1 '.text' (SHT_PROGBITS) [SHF_ALLOC + SHF_EXECINSTR]
    Size   : 40 bytes (alignment 4)
    Address: 0x00000000

    $a
    .text
    WriteS32
        0x00000000:    e59f201c    . ..    LDR      r2,[pc,#28] ; [0x24] = 0
        0x00000004:    e5820000    ....    STR      r0,[r2,#0]
        0x00000008:    e1c210b4    ....    STRH     r1,[r2,#4]
        0x0000000c:    e12fff1e    ../.    BX       lr
    ReadS32
        0x00000010:    e92d4003    .@-.    PUSH     {r0,r1,lr}
        0x00000014:    e1dd00b4    ....    LDRH     r0,[sp,#4]
        0x00000018:    e59d1000    ....    LDR      r1,[sp,#0]
        0x0000001c:    e0800001    ....    ADD      r0,r0,r1
        0x00000020:    e8bd800c    ....    POP      {r2,r3,pc}
    $d
        0x00000024:    00000000    ....    DCD    0

0 c0deface over 7 years ago in reply to Martin Weidmann

thanks a ton :)
Cancel
Vote up 0 Vote down

Cancel
0 Holly R. Malin over 6 years ago in reply to Martin Weidmann

Thanks for this information
Cancel
Vote up 0 Vote down

Cancel