Quadcopter Uses Bare Metal STM32

[Tim Schumacher] got a Crazepony Mini quadcopter and has been reprogramming it “bare metal” — that is to say he’s programming the STM32 without using an operating system or do-it-all environment. His post on the subject is a good reference for working with the STM32 and the quadcopter, too.

If you haven’t seen the quadcopter, it is basically a PC board with props. The firmware is open source but uses the Keil IDE. The CPU is an STM32 with 64K of program memory. In addition, the drone sports a wireless module, a digital compass, an altimeter, and a gyro with an accelerometer.

Although the post is really about the quadcopter, [Tim] also gives information about the Blue Pill which could be applied to other STM32 boards, as well. On the hardware side, he’s using a common USB serial port and a Python-based loader.

On the software side, he shows how to set up the linker and, using gcc, control output ports. Of course, there’s more to go to work the other peripherals, and Tim’s planning to investigate CMSIS to make that work easier. Our earlier post on STM32 prompted [Wassim] over on Hackaday.io to review a bunch of IDEs. That could be helpful, too.

Crash your code – Lessons Learned From Debugging Things That Should Never Happen™

Let’s be honest, no one likes to see their program crash. It’s a clear sign that something is wrong with our code, and that’s a truth we don’t like to see. We try our best to avoid such a situation, and we’ve seen how compiler warnings and other static code analysis tools can help us to detect and prevent possible flaws in our code, which could otherwise lead to its demise. But what if I told you that crashing your program is actually a great way to improve its overall quality? Now, this obviously sounds a bit counterintuitive, after all we are talking about preventing our code from misbehaving, so why would we want to purposely break it?

Wandering around in an environment of ones and zeroes makes it easy to forget that reality is usually a lot less black and white. Yes, a program crash is bad — it hurts the ego, makes us look bad, and most of all, it is simply annoying. But is it really the worst that could happen? What if, say, some bad pointer handling doesn’t cause an instant segmentation fault, but instead happily introduces some garbage data to the system, widely opening the gates to virtually any outcome imaginable, from minor glitches to severe security vulnerabilities. Is this really a better option? And it doesn’t have to be pointers, or anything of C’s shortcomings in particular, we can end up with invalid data and unforeseen scenarios in virtually any language.

It doesn’t matter how often we hear that every piece of software is too complex to ever fully understand it, or how everything that can go wrong will go wrong. We are fully aware of all the wisdom and cliches, and completely ignore them or weasel our way out of it every time we put a /* this should never happen */ comment in our code.

So today, we are going to look into our options to deal with such unanticipated situations, how we can utilize a deliberate crash to improve our code in the future, and why the average error message is mostly useless.

Continue reading “Crash your code – Lessons Learned From Debugging Things That Should Never Happen™”

Warnings On Steroids – Static Code Analysis Tools

A little while back, we were talking about utilizing compiler warnings as first step to make our C code less error-prone and increase its general stability and quality. We know now that the C compiler itself can help us here, but we also saw that there’s a limit to it. While it warns us about the most obvious mistakes and suspicious code constructs, it will leave us hanging when things get a bit more complex.

But once again, that doesn’t mean compiler warnings are useless, we simply need to see them for what they are: a first step. So today we are going to take the next step, and have a look at some other common static code analysis tools that can give us more insight about our code.

You may think that voluntarily choosing C as primary language in this day and age might seem nostalgic or anachronistic, but preach and oxidate all you want: C won’t be going anywhere. So let’s make use of the tools we have available that help us write better code, and to defy the pitfalls C is infamous for. And the general concept of static code analysis is universal. After all, many times a bug or other issue isn’t necessarily caused by the language, but rather some general flaw in the code’s logic.

Continue reading “Warnings On Steroids – Static Code Analysis Tools”

Warnings Are Your Friend – A Code Quality Primer

If there’s one thing C is known and (in)famous for, it’s the ease of shooting yourself in the foot with it. And there’s indeed no denying that the freedom C offers comes with the price of making it our own responsibility to tame and keep the language under control. On the bright side, since the language’s flaws are so well known, we have a wide selection of tools available that help us to eliminate the most common problems and blunders that could come back to bite us further down the road. The catch is, we have to really want it ourselves, and actively listen to what the tools have to say.

We often look at this from a security point of view and focus on exploitable vulnerabilities, which you may not see as valid threat or something you need to worry about in your project. And you are probably right with that, not every flaw in your code will lead to attackers taking over your network or burning down your house, the far more likely consequences are a lot more mundane and boring. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care about them.

Buggy, unreliable software is the number one cause for violence against computers, and whether you like it or not, people will judge you by your code quality. Just because Linus Torvalds wants to get off Santa’s naughty list, doesn’t mean the technical field will suddenly become less critical or loses its hostility, and in a time where it’s never been easier to share your work with the world, reliable, high quality code will prevail and make you stand out from the masses.

Continue reading “Warnings Are Your Friend – A Code Quality Primer”

It’s All In The Libs – Building A Plugin System Using Dynamic Loading

Shared libraries are our best friends to extend the functionality of C programs without reinventing the wheel. They offer a collection of exported functions, variables, and other symbols that we can use inside our own program as if the content of the shared library was a direct part of our code. The usual way to use such libraries is to simply link against them at compile time, and let the linker resolve all external symbols and make sure everything is in place when creating our executable file. Whenever we then run our executable, the loader, a part of the operating system, will try to resolve again all the symbols, and load every required library into memory, along with our executable itself.

But what if we didn’t want to add libraries at compile time, but instead load them ourselves as needed during runtime? Instead of a predefined dependency on a library, we could make its presence optional and adjust our program’s functionality accordingly. Well, we can do just that with the concept of dynamic loading. In this article, we will look into dynamic loading, how to use it, and what to do with it — including building our own plugin system. But first, we will have a closer look at shared libraries and create one ourselves.

Continue reading “It’s All In The Libs – Building A Plugin System Using Dynamic Loading”

MSDOS Development with GCC

It might seem odd to think about programming in MSDOS in 2018. But if you are vintage computer enthusiast or have to support some old piece of equipment with an MSDOS single board computer, it could be just the thing. The problem is, where do you get a working compiler that doesn’t have to run on the ancient DOS machine? Turns out, gcc can do the trick. [RenéRebe] offers a video demo based on a blog post by [Chris Wellons]. You can see the video, below.

The technique generates COM files, not EXE files, so there are some limitations, such as a 64K file size. The compiler also won’t generate code for any CPU lower than a 80386, so if you have a real 8086, 80186, or 80286 CPU, you are out of luck. The resulting code will run in a real DOS environment on a ‘386 or higher or in a simulator like DOSBox.

You might be thinking why not use the DJGPP port of gcc to DOS. That sounds good, but it actually doesn’t produce true DOS code. It produces code for a DOS extender. In addition, [Chris] had trouble getting it to work with a modern setup.

The only real trick here is using the right combination of gcc flags to create a standalone image with the right codes. A COM file is just a dump of memory, so you don’t need a fancy header or anything. You also, of course, won’t have any library support, so you’ll have to write everything including functions to, say, print on the screen. Of course, you can borrow [Chris’] if you like.

The last pieces of the puzzle include adding a small stub to set up and call main and getting the linker to output a minimal file. Once you have that, you are ready to program like it is 1993. Don’t miss part 2, which covers interrupts.

If you pine away for QuickBasic instead of C, go download this. If you just want to run some old DOS games, that’s as close as your browser.

Continue reading “MSDOS Development with GCC”

gcc: Some Assembly Required

There was a time when you pretty much had to be an assembly language programmer to work with embedded systems. Yes, there have always been high-level languages available, but it took improvements in tools and processors for that to make sense for anything but the simplest projects. Today, though, high-quality compilers are readily available for a lot of languages and even an inexpensive CPU is likely to outperform even desktop computers that many of us have used.

So assembly language is dead, right? Not exactly. There are several reasons people still want to use assembly. First, sometimes you need to get every clock cycle of performance out of a chip. It can be the case that a smart compiler will often produce better code than a person will write off the cuff. However, a smart person who is looking at performance can usually find a way to beat a compiler’s generated code. Besides, people can make value trades of speed versus space, for example, or pick entirely different algorithms. All a compiler can do is convert your code over as cleverly as possible.

Besides that, some people just like to program in assembly. Morse code, bows and arrows, and steam engines are all archaic, but there are still people who enjoy mastering them anyway. If you fall into that category, you might just want to write everything in assembly (and that’s fine). Most people, though, would prefer to work with something at a higher level and then slip into assembly just for that critical pieces. For example, a program might spend 5% of its time reading data, 5% of its time writing data, and 90% of the time crunching data. You probably don’t need to recreate the reading and writing parts. They won’t go to zero, after all, and so even if you could cut them in half (and you probably can’t) you get a 2.5% boost for each one. That 90% section is the big target.

The Profiler

Sometimes it is obvious what’s taking time in your programs. When it isn’t, you can actually turn on profiling. If you are running GCC under Linux, for example, you can use the -pg option to have GCC add profiling instrumentation to your code automatically. When you compile the code with -pg, it doesn’t appear to do anything different. You run your program as usual. However, the program will now silently write a file named gmon.out during execution. This file contains execution statistics you can display using gprof (see partial output below). The function b_fact takes up 65.9% of CPU time.


If you don’t have a profiling option for your environment, you might have to resort to toggling I/O pins or writing to a serial port to get an idea of how long your code spends doing different functions. However you do it, though, it is important to figure it out so you don’t waste time optimizing code that doesn’t really affect overall performance (this is good advice, by the way, for any kind of optimization).


If you start with a C or C++ program, one thing you can do is ask the compiler to output assembly language for you. With GCC, use a file name like test.s with the -o option and then use -S to force assembly language output. The output isn’t great, but it is readable. You can also use the -ahl option to get assembly code mixed with source code in comments, which is useful.

You can use this trick with most, if not all, versions of GCC. Of course, the output will be a lot different, depending. A 32-bit Linux compiler, a 64-bit Linux compiler, a Raspberry Pi compiler, and an Arduino compiler are all going to have very different output. Also, you can’t always figure out how the compiler mangles your code, so that is another problem.

If you find a function or section of code you want to rewrite, you can still use GCC and just stick the assembly language inline. Exactly how that works depends on what platform you use, but in general, GCC will send a string inside asm() or __asm__() to the system assembler. There are rules about how to interact with the rest of the C program, too. Here’s a simple example from the a GCC HOWTO document (from a PC program):

__asm__ ("movl %eax, %ebx\n\t"
"movl $56, %esi\n\t"
"movl %ecx, $label(%edx,%ebx,$4)\n\t"
"movb %ah, (%ebx)");

You can also use extended assembly that lets you use placeholders for parts of the C code. You can read more about that in the HOWTO document. If you prefer Arduino, there’s a document for that, too. If you are on ARM (like a Raspberry Pi) you might prefer to start with this document.


You may never need to mix assembly language with C code. But if you do, it is good to know it is possible and maybe not even too difficult. You do need to find what parts of your program can benefit from the effort. Even if you aren’t using GCC, there is probably a way to mix assembly and your language, you just have to learn how. You also have to learn the particulars of your platform.

On the other hand, what if you want to write an entire program in assembly? That’s even more platform-specific, but we’ll look at that next time.