But since I'm a Cortex M fanboy I have to defend its reset capabilities :)

For your specific case, try something like

  volatile uint32_t *AIRCR = (volatile uint32_t*)0xE000ED0C;
  const uint32_t VECTKEY = 0x05FA << 16;
  const uint32_t SYSRESETREQ = 1 << 2;

  void take_reset()
  {
    *AIRCR = VECTKEY | SYSRESETREQ;
    __dsb();
    while(1);
  }

Incidentally, even that tiny code snippet is uses a C extension (the __dsb intrinsic) which is either a great example of how C can be wielded to great power (I can generate raw instructions!) or how C is terribly handicapped (I need a special compiler extension or all my system code is horribly broken!). All depends on point of view, I guess...

Anyway, more info @ page 498, http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/teaching/eecs373-f10/readi...

There is "should" and "does" :-) I had followed the exact same sequence and discovered on my system it didn't cause a system reset. I escalated it a bit (in this case ST Micro) and the caveats came out, "Well if you system is correctly designed, if the actual reset pin isn't connected to something that is interfering, if the core is in a state where it can actually take a reset, ..." This being unlike pretty much every processor I've worked on, from PDP-8's, 11's, 10's, VAXen, IBM 360/370, Sun 1, 2, 3, 4, Motorola 6800, 68K, 68K, Z80, 8080, 806, Pentium *, the list goes on. Most actually have a reset instruction, usually privileged, to force a system reset. But the difference is that the reset sequence was guaranteed to force a system reset if it executed, all of those previous processors had a company that made the processor as opposed to simply licensed the processor to a third party. Since it is completely reproducible on my system I've got an action item to create a small test case for errata analysis.

Yes, that is the code they suggest, with assurances that it will work in pretty much any case. Except when it might not. It was a bit stunning for me, I still marvel at the notion. Like an add statement that will 99.999% of the time add its operands together[1] unless it doesn't.

[1] No there isn't such a thing in ARM it is just the way I hear "It will almost always reset the system."

It's also true that ARM has heard some of these complaints, which is why there were steps toward standardizing some things--like, the SYSTICK interface--in v7-M. It's really been a step up since the ARM7TDMI, and I hope that it will continue with v8-M or whatever the next revision ends up being.

Personally, when I'm dealing with a discrete chip and I need to reset it I've found that the most reliable methods that don't set off the hack-o-meter too badly are to wait for or directly invoke watchdog hardware... but yes, that's essentially always device specific.

The Data Synchronization Barrier (DSB) acts as a special kind of memory barrier. The DSB operation will complete when all explicit memory accesses before this instruction have completed. No instructions after the DSB will be executed until the DSB instruction has completed, that is, when all of the pending accesses have completed.

http://www.mikroe.com/mikropascal/

http://www.mikroe.com/mikrobasic/

I'm curious, why do you say "safer"? These are languages for microcontroller programming. The things you do there are bound to be "unsafe", like peeking and poking memory for memory mapped i/o and disabling/enabling interrupts.

Unless, of course, all the possible things (i/o, timers, interrupts, etc) are wrapped in some kind of "safe" api so you essentially don't have access to low level facilities any more. The Arduino programming environment is kinda like this but you can still cause bad things to happen and if all else fails, hang the device with an infinite loop.

Is there any backing for such claims of "safety"?

There are things which are inherently safe by design in languages like Pascal -- e.g. in a naively-written program you can't write past the boundary of the UART RX buffer and thrash some other array in your program -- but your observation is fair.

Which, of course, you can accomplish in C by wrapping your UART buffer handling code in functions that do bounds checking. And I assume that a micro controller Pascal or Basic dialect will have some kind of peek/poke from/to arbitrary memory addresses that can be misused just as a pointer access in C.

Safety is hard to quantify and measure and calling one language safer than another sounds more like an opinion than a factual claim, especially in this context.

Let's not confuse languages and libraries/apis here (that may or may not be shipped with the compiler). There are libraries for C and related languages (e.g. Arduino) that actually do give you a "safe" way to deal with the hardware on microcontrollers.

It's still easy to shoot yourself in the foot in C with a bad pointer access (esp. because there are no helpers to work with strings) but I don't really see how a Pascal dialect with peek/poke would be inherently better.

I do agree that buying one of these Pascal/Basic software products that come with a fancy standard library that does safe access to the hw may help writing safer software but I don't see how that is an inherent quality of the language.

1) array bounds checking (which can be used for safe hardware access instead of peek/poke)

2) pascal-style strings (with actual support for them, both in the language and in the standard library) (meaning a missing \0 doesn't erase the entire memory)

3) type-safe pointers

4) no pointer arithmetic

5) no preprocessor

...

How? Peek/poke at the wrong address will generate an error in any case, and any MMU-less platform worth using will have the memory-mapped peripherals into a lower region, where it doesn't get thrashed by writing past the end of a buffer. I have seen bugs occurring because of data located past a buffer getting thrashed, but I don't remember seeing one in the context of hardware access.

> 2) pascal-style strings (with actual support for them, both in the language and in the standard library) (meaning a missing \0 doesn't erase the entire memory)

That shouldn't happen in C, i.e. there are library routines you should use so that it doesn't happen. Not that string processing isn't a pain :-).

> 3) type-safe pointers

No complaints here :-)

> 4) no pointer arithmetic

That's not always good, but it does decrease the likelihood of certain types of bugs, so yep!

> 5) no preprocessor

Also yep :)

It happens every day and it will as long as there's C. Zero-terminated strings are part of the standard library and almost infinite number of other libraries. You can't pretend it doesn't exist as the most common convention.

For 1) see waps' comment with byte absolute.

One complete program from that time which uses that feature: http://kd5col.info/swag/INTERRUP/0019.PAS.html

var EGAVGAScreen : Array[0..41360] of Byte absolute $A000:0000;

Et voila : bounds-checked memory mapped hardware access.

(note: the very well known "Crt" unit uses a memory mapped video buffer like this. So if you programmed a turbo pascal program, chances were good it was using this trick for screen output. Advantage : the speed is unbeatable)

Of course, and you pay other hefty prices in Pascal or Basic for getting this sort of stuff "out of the box". Pascal isn't my favourite systems programming language, either :-).

There are zero features in C that Pascal and Basic dialects for system programming don't support. The only difference is that you need to turn safety off explicitly.

I was doing low level coding in Turbo Pascal before I even cared about C.

Don't get me wrong, I wrote low-level code in Pascal, too. It's nice and I probably wouldn't grumble too much if I had to do it again, but there's a bunch of stuff that comes in the same package with using something other than a language widely considered adequate for systems programming.

I do conceed that even though bashing C is a pasttime of mine, I would use it if it is the best option for a given project, depending on the set of factors to be considered for the said project.

In real life projects, there should be no place for tooling religion anyway,

See http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/rust.html#unsafety

Nothing new in software development. All the "new" shinies are decades (!) old.

I wonder how we got sidetracked like that.

1. Performance reasons. For example: zero copy data structures, mutable data structures, controlling data locality.

2. Direct memory mapped hardware access. For example: device drivers, kernel, embedded systems, microcontrollers.

3. Bitwise and machine specific conversions. For example: endianess conversions.

4. Structure type coercion. For example: object systems, tagged data structures etc.

#leaves to check some old code

.

.

.

#comes back

Apparently my younger self knew what he was doing. ( The conversion is done correctly :shocked: )

"In fact, C may be part of the problem: in C it's easy to make byte order look like an issue. If instead you try to write byte-order-dependent code in a type-safe language, you'll find it's very hard. In a sense, byte order only bites you when you cheat."

Whereas in C there is no way to distinguish between unsafe and safe code.

Of course doing this usually means your code isn't portable, sometimes not even to other versions of the same compiler. I often wish C had a defined order for bitfields, for example.

One of the things I do to help debug & test embedded code is to factor out code which isn't dependent on the hardware platform (eg communication protocols) into a library, and compile it for, and write test programs to test them on, the host. So even embedded code is often best written to be as portable as possible.

If you are going to invoke the usual C FUD about bounds checking and such, you can disable them on parts where performance REALLY matters.

Plus all compilers share the same backend.

I primarily write C# (for cash reasons) but my heart will always be with C.

Citation needed. I hate hate hated C and am very glad to have seen the back of it.

Then suddenly... click.

Suddenly, in my mind appeared an abstract model for it. It was complete and possible for one person to understand.

Since then I understand what I'm doing rather than know how to drive the compiler.

That has never happened for any other language I've written and that includes Z80+6502+X86 ASM, C++, C#, VB3-6, PDS7, ksh, Python, Perl and PHP to name a few. Assembly is close but not abstract enough.

Enlightenment is probably the best word to describe it.

I'll never forget the time when programming changed from mechanically entering statements, to controlling the flow of data through a program though (also in C). Definitely a brain-expanding experience :)

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/

The following is a link to some university course page that has the book as pdf

http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~buoni/cs16/The_C_Programming_Languag...

Don't hold your breath.