Why are drivers and firmwares almost always written in C or ASM and not C++?

I am just curious why drivers and firmwares almost always are written in C or Assembly, and not C++?

I have heard that there is a technical reas开发者_运维技巧on for this.

Does anyone know this?

Lots of love, Louise

Because, most of the time, the operating system (or a "run-time library") provides the stdlib functionality required by C++.

In C and ASM you can create bare executables, which contain no external dependencies.

However, since windows does support the C++ stdlib, most Windows drivers are written in (a limited subset of) C++.

Also when firmware is written ASM it is usually because either (A) the platform it is executing on does not have a C++ compiler or (B) there are extreme speed or size constraints.

Note that (B) hasn't generally been an issue since the early 2000's.

Code in the kernel runs in a very different environment than in user space. There is no process separation, so errors are a lot harder to recover from; exceptions are pretty much out of the question. There are different memory allocators, so it can be harder to get new and delete to work properly in a kernel context. There is less of the standard library available, making it a lot harder to use a language like C++ effectively.

Windows allows the use of a very limited subset of C++ in kernel drivers; essentially, those things which could be trivially translated to C, such as variable declarations in places besides the beginning of blocks. They recommend against use of new and delete, and do not have support for RTTI or most of the C++ standard library.

Mac OS X use I/O Kit, which is a framework based on a limited subset of C++, though as far as I can tell more complete than that allowed on Windows. It is essentially C++ without exceptions and RTTI.

Most Unix-like operating systems (Linux, the BSDs) are written in C, and I think that no one has ever really seen the benefit of adding C++ support to the kernel, given that C++ in the kernel is generally so limited.

1) "Because it's always been that way" - this actually explains more than you think - given that the APIs on pretty much all current systems were originally written to a C or ASM based model, and given that a lot of prior code exists in C and ASM, it's often easier to 'go with the flow' than to figure out how to take advantage of C++.

2) Environment - To use all of C++'s features, you need quite a runtime environment, some of which is just a pain to provide to a driver. It's easier to do if you limit your feature set, but among other things, memory management can get very interesting in C++, if you don't have much of a heap. Exceptions are also very interesting to consider in this environment, as is RTTI.

3) "I can't see what it does". It is possible for any reasonably skilled programmer to look at a line of C and have a good idea of what happens at a machine code level to implement that line. Obviously optimization changes that somewhat, but for the most part, you can tell what's going on. In C++, given operator overloading, constructors, destructors, exception, etc, it gets really hard to have any idea of what's going to happen on a given line of code. When writing device drivers, this can be deadly, because you often MUST know whether you are going to interact with the memory manager, or if the line of code affects (or depends on) interrupt levels or masking.

It is entirely possible to write device drivers under Windows using C++ - I've done it myself. The caveat is that you have to be careful about which C++ features you use, and where you use them from.

Except for wider tool support and hardware portability, I don't think there's a compelling reason to limit yourself to C anymore. I often see complicated hand-coded stuff done in C that can be more naturally done in C++:

• The grouping into "modules" of functions (non-general purpose) that work only on the same data structure (often called "object") -> Use C++ classes.
• Use of a "handle" pointer so that module functions can work with "instances" of data structures -> Use C++ classes.
• File scope static functions that are not part of a module's API -> C++ private member functions, anonymous namespaces, or "detail" namespaces.
• Use of function-like macros -> C++ templates and inline/constexpr functions
• Different runtime behavior depending on a type ID with either hand-made vtable ("descriptor") or dispatched with a switch statement -> C++ polymorphism
• Error-prone pointer arithmetic for marshalling/demarshalling data from/to a communications port, or use of non-portable structures -> C++ stream concept (not necessarily std::iostream)
• Prefixing the hell out of everything to avoid name clashes: C++ namespaces
• Macros as compile-time constants -> C++11 constexpr constants
• Forgetting to close resources before handles go out of scope -> C++ RAII

None of the C++ features described above cost more than the hand-written C implementations. I'm probably missing some more. I think the inertia of C in this area has more to do with C being mostly used.

Of course, you may not be able to use STL liberally (or at all) in a constrained environment, but that doesn't mean you can't use C++ as a "better C".

The comments I run into as why a shop is using C for an embedded system versus C++ are:

1. C++ produces code bloat
2. C++ exceptions take up too much room.
3. C++ polymorphism and virtual tables use too much memory or execution time.
4. The people in the shop don't know the C++ language.

The only valid reason may be the last. I've seen C language programs that incorporate OOP, function objects and virtual functions. It gets very ugly very fast and bloats the code.

Exception handling in C, when implemented correctly, takes up a lot of room. I would say about the same as C++. The benefit to C++ exceptions: they are in the language and programmers don't have to redesign the wheel.

The reason I prefer C++ to C in embedded systems is that C++ is a stronger typed language. More issues can be found in compile time which reduces development time. Also, C++ is an easier language to implement Object Oriented concepts than C.

Most of the reasons against C++ are around design concepts rather than the actual language.

The biggest reason C is used instead of say extremely guarded Java is that it is very easy to keep sight of what memory is used for a given operation. C is very addressing oriented. Of key concern in writing kernel code is avoiding referencing memory that might cause a page fault at an inconvenient moment.

C++ can be used but only if the run-time is specially adapted to reference only internal tables in fixed memory (not pageable) when the run-time machinery is invoked implicitly eg using a vtable when calling virtual functions. This special adaptation does not come "out of the box" most of the time.

Integrating C with a platform is much easier to do as it is easy to strip C of its standard library and keep control of memory accesses utterly explicit. So what with it also being a well-known language it is often the choice of kernel tools designers.

Edit: Removed reference to new and delete calls (this was wrong/misleading); replaced with more general "run-time machinery" phrase.

The reason that C, not C++ is used is NOT:

• Because C++ is slower
• Or because the c-runtime is already present.

It IS because C++ uses exceptions. Most implementations of C++ language exceptions are unusable in driver code because drivers are invoked when the OS is responding to hardware interrupts. During a hardware interrupt, driver code is NOT allowed to use exceptions as that would/could cause recursive interrupts. Also, the stack space available to code while in the context of an interrupt is typically very small (and non growable as a consequence of the no exceptions rule).

You can of course use new(std::nothrow), but because exceptions in c++ are now ubiqutious, that means you cannot rely on any library code to use std::nothrow semantics.

It IS also because C++ gave up a few features of C :- In drivers, code placement is important. Device drivers need to be able to respond to interrupts. Interrupt code MUST be placed in code segments that are "non paged", or permanently mapped into memory, as, if the code was in paged memory, it might be paged out when called upon, which will cause an exception, which is banned. In C compilers that are used for driver development, there are #pragma directives that can control which type of memory functions end up on. As non paged pool is a very limited resource, you do NOT want to mark your entire driver as non paged: C++ however generates a lot of implicit code. Default constructors for example. There is no way to bracket C++ implicitly generated code to control its placement, and because conversion operators are automatically called there is no way for code audits to guarantee that there are no side effects calling out to paged code.

So, to summarise :- The reason C, not C++ is used for driver development, is because drivers written in C++ would either consume unreasonable amounts of non-paged memory, or crash the OS kernel.

C is very close to a machine independent assembly language. Most OS-type programming is down at the "bare metal" level. With C, the code you read is the actual code. C++ can hide things that C cannot.

This is just my opinion, but I've spent a lot of time in my life debugging device drivers and OS related things. Often by looking at assembly language. Keep it simple at the low level and let the application level get fancy.

Windows drivers are written in C++.
Linux drivers are written in c because the kernel is written in c.

Probably because c is still often faster, smaller when compiled, and more consistent in compilation between different OS versions, and with fewer dependencies. Also, as c++ is really built on c, the question is do you need what it provides?

There is probably something to the fact that people that write drivers and firmware are usually used to working at the OS level (or lower) which is in c, and therefore are used to using c for this type of problem.

The reason that drivers and firmwares are mostly written in C or ASM is, there is no dependency on the actual runtime libraries. If you were to imagine this imaginary driver written in C here

#include <stdio.h>

#define OS_VER   5.10
#define DRIVER_VER "1.2.3"

int drivermain(driverstructinfo **dsi){
   if ((*dsi)->version > OS_VER){
       (*dsi)->InitDriver();
       printf("FooBar Driver Loaded\n");
       printf("Version: %s", DRIVER_VER);
       (*dsi)->Dispatch = fooDispatch;
   }else{
       (*dsi)->Exit(0);
   }
}

void fooDispatch(driverstructinfo *dsi){
   printf("Dispatched %d\n", dsi->GetDispatchId());
}

Notice that the runtime library support would have to be pulled in and linked in during compile/link, it would not work as the runtime environment (that is when the operating system is during a load/initialize phase) is not fully set up and hence there would be no clue on how to printf, and would probably sound the death knell of the operating system (a kernel panic for Linux, a Blue Screen for Windows) as there is no reference on how to execute the function.

Put it another way, with a driver, that driver code has privilege to execute code along with the kernel code which would be sharing the same space, ring0 is the ultimate code execution privilege (all instructions allowed), ring3 is where the front end of the operating system runs in (limited execution privilege), in other words, a ring3 code cannot have a instruction that is reserved for ring0, the kernel will kill the code by trapping it as if to say 'Hey, you have no privilege to tread up ring0's domain'.

The other reason why it is written in assembler, is mainly for code size and raw native speed, this could be the case of say, a serial port driver, where input/output is 'critical' to the function in relation to timing, latency, buffering.

Most device drivers (in the case of Windows), would have a special compiler toolchain (WinDDK) which can use C code but has no linkage to the normal standard C's runtime libraries.

There is one toolkit that can enable you to build a driver within Visual Studio, VisualDDK. By all means, building a driver is not for the faint of heart, you will get stress induced activity by staring at blue screens, kernel panics and wonder why, debugging drivers and so on.

The debugging side is harder, ring0 code are not easily accessible by ring3 code as the doors to it are shut, it is through the kernel trap door (for want of a better word) and if asked politely, the door still stays shut while the kernel delegates the task to a handler residing on ring0, execute it, whatever results are returned, are passed back out to ring3 code and the door still stays shut firmly. That is the analogy concept of how userland code can execute privileged code on ring0.

Furthermore, this privileged code, can easily trample over the kernel's memory space and corrupt something hence the kernel panic/bluescreens...

Hope this helps.

Perhaps because a driver doesn't require object oriented features, while the fact that C still has somewhat more mature compilers would make a difference.

There are many style of programming such as procedural, functional, object oriented etc. Object oriented programming is more suited for modeling real world.

I would use object-oriented for device drivers if it suites it. But, most of the time when you programming device drivers, you would not need the advantages provided by c++ such as, abstraction, polymorphism, code reuse etc.

Well, IOKit drivers for MacOSX are written in C++ subset (no exceptions, templates, multiple inheritance). And there is even a possibility to write linux kernel modules in haskell.)

Otherwise, C, being a portable assembly language, perfectly catches the von Neumann architecture and computation model, allowing for direct control over all it's peculiarities and drawbacks (such as the "von Neumann bottleneck"). C does exactly what it was designed for and catches it's target abstraction model completely and flawlessly (well except for implicit assumption in single control flow which could have been generalized to cover the reality of hardware threads) and this is why i think it is a beautiful language.) Restricting the expressive power of the language to such basics eliminates most of the unpredictable transformation details when different computational models are being applied to this de-facto standard. In other words, C makes you stick to basics and allows pretty much direct control over what you are doing, for example when modeling behavior commonality with virtual functions you control exactly how the function pointer tables get stored and used when comparing to C++'s implicit vtbl allocation and management. This is in fact helpful when considering caches.

Having said that, object-based paradigm is very useful for representing physical objects and their dependencies. Adding inheritance we get object-oriented paradigm which in turn is very useful to represent physical objects' structure and behavior hierarchy. Nothing stops anyone from using it and expressing it in C again allowing full control over exactly how your objects will be created, stored, destroyed and copied. In fact that is the approach taken in linux device model. They got "objects" to represent devices, object implementation hierarchy to model power management dependancies and hacked-up inheritance functionality to represent device families, all done in C.

because from system level, drivers need to control every bits of every bytes of the memory, other higher language cannot do that, or cannot do that natively, only C/Asm achieve~