What are you using to build the C part of your PDX?
As you can see in the video, just make in the directory with example.
Arm toolchain installed with playdate sdk and pdc.
Maybe it because my device is early dev revision? Check out the serial number. Could it be?
I’m sure not, because the same layout but who knows…
Hm, I'm not having any luck reproducing that here. Can you check the pdxversion field in the pdxinfo file inside the .pdx game folder. (Whew, that's a lot of pdxes..) It should be 20000 indicating that it was compiled by a 2.0 SDK. That tells the launcher that it can't run the game on a 1.x OS. If the game was somehow build and packaged by (say) the 1.13.x version of pdc, then that field will be 11300 and the launch will think it can run it even though the pdex.bin file is incompatible.
Anyway, how I can test validity of my elf to ensure that it will loaded normally with new loader with relocations?
Also, what relocation model is preferred? PIC or ROPI-RWPI? (llvm reloc-models for example)
Dave, might I ask you to validate my elfs and tell me what's wrong with it, please?
Brothers Elfs.zip (31.5 KB)
There are two relocation models - pic and ropi-rwpi.
And two various linkers used.
I just want to prepare my system for 2.0 with new loader.
Thank you in advance, I appreciate the time you will take to consider this matter.
Can you check the pdx folders and verify that there's a pdex.bin file in there and that it's larger than 0 bytes? There's a missing dependency in the C_API/buildsupport/common.mk file in the SDK which causes it to miss that if you have parallel builds enabled. (see Missing/incorrect dependencies for simulator DYLIB rule in common.mk - #6 by DidierMalenfant) Here's the updated version:
common.mk.zip (1.8 KB)
You shouldn't need to change compilation options, no need for -fPIC or such. We decided not to use the elf relocation format after all, didn't want to force you to include symbolic information in your game that you might not want to have public. pdc adds a relocation table in a custom format, and the loader is much simpler.
2 Likes
If pdc is now using a custom relocation format, does that mean there's no longer going to be a pdex.elf file, per this page? So the necessary recompilation will update the pdxversion and a relocation table inside the pdc-created binary, but no other changes? That seems simpler, and nice. I'm curious because we're having trouble getting 2.0 to work with Rust, and it seems like we shouldn't need any changes on our side if that's true; @fzzr is our expert, but has been stuck on this issue.
1 Like
Oh! I didn't realize the build system had changed, but of course it did--we have to use the relocation table from the elf file to generate our own stripped down version. (My first hacky version of this just compiled it twice with two different target addresses then diffed them to see where it needed to fix up. Using the elf is much cleaner. 
) So that page is correct. On 1.0 our build script compiled an elf file then generated Source/pdex.bin via objcopy, and pdc would copy that to the output folder. On 2.0 pdc does the elf->bin conversion, so the elf file has to be copied to the Source folder first.
1 Like
@dave, do you think similar binary format changes are likely in future Playdate updates? Some people are still working on figuring out the 2.0 format for Rust, but no luck so far. I don't want to rewrite my game in Lua, but I don't want to risk my game being obsoleted, either.
I hope we won't need to make any more changes, and if we do we'll keep support for older builds as long as we can. What happened with 2.0 is the new hardware maps external memory to a different address, so we had to add a relocation table to the pdex.bin file. If you have a v1 device you can still run games with C API components compiled with the old SDK, but there's no way for the v2 hardware to do that. I can't predict the future but I also can't think of what would require another change to the binary format.
Oh, and I see I said
You shouldn't need to change compilation options…
up there. As we discovered with "error: compress failed: buffer is empty" error from pdc in SDK 2.0 beta 2 - #22 by DanB91 it turns out you do need to add the -mword-relocations flag to your compile options (and it's now in the SDK's C_API/buildsupport/common.mk file) so that it doesn't generate any "split" addresses that our loader can't deal with. Support for that type of address load is something we could add in the future.. but I don't think it'd be worth the hassle.
1 Like
Seems to I need help.
I tried really many options and didn't understand where I was wrong. So I have no idea for now.
My elf before pdc have correct entry-point with correct (as I suppose) relocation section.
After pdc a new elf foo.pdx/pdex.bin does not contain anything. Not really anything, mostly seems to problem with relocations.
But no errors by pdc.
1 Like
There's a bug where the compiler can't handle pdex.elf files with more than one segment, and it looks like that's the problem here. I'm not sure why there's a second segment in the file, doesn't look like there's anything in there, but its existence causes the compiler to forget how large the binary is. I posted a fixed macOS build of pdc here: "error: compress failed: buffer is empty" error from pdc in SDK 2.0 beta 2 - #17 by dave Can you put that in your SDK's bin folder and give it a try? As far as I can tell, loading and running works correctly with that in place. You get an error after that because an update callback hasn't been set and there's no Lua main.pdz file, but that's a separate issue.
1 Like
Dave, already tried yesterday. Same result.
I’ll try tomorrow with less dummy “project” with update-cb.
And I don’t get a speaking error, just crash and “need reboot, press A”.
Double-checking that, I first ran into the problem that gatekeeper isn't letting me run that pdc build from the SDK/bin folder (but it does let me run it from the Downloads folder??) so I had to sign it with codesign -f -s - pdc. But after that I still don't get the same pdex.bin I did before. It looks like that pdc build didn't actually have the bug fix. 
Let's try this again: pdc.zip (793.3 KB)
And here's the resulting pdx I get
foo.pdx.zip (1007 Bytes)
2 Likes
Seems to IT WORKS. I’ll test and tell you later today.
Also instead of codesign I’m using just xattr -d com.apple.quarantine.
2 Likes
@Dave, I’ve tested and have to say ^that patched pdc works properly.
I have no classic giant bunch of tests, just
- not inlined functions,
- heap allocs, pointers to various parts of prog
- two or more sections.
Looks good for me. Thanks, Dave!
Also have to say, I’ve used PIC relocation model.
1 Like
@Dave, I need debug help. Could you please run foo.pdx.zip (4.8 KB) with debugger and tell me where it crashes and maybe why. Pleeeeeese 
on-device only, no sim build there
For some reason the values in the relocation table are incorrect. The first entry actually points to itself. 
Later values point to other entries, corrupting their values, which then leads to crashing when the bad values are taken as offsets to apply the relocation to. So, first thing is we need to be validating the values in the relocation table and throwing an error if they don't point to actual code. Next is figuring out where those values came from in the first place. Can you send me the pdex.elf this was compiled from? It must be another elf format thing that we're not dealing with properly.
2 Likes
I can't find exactly that elf, but I can build new and it could be reproducible
What I mean:
This is not exactly that elf (source of previously attached pdex.bin),
but it built from that code, so mostly highly probably the same. Anyway I've attached entire build - elf + pdc's output: foo.pdx.zip (12.4 KB)
Thank you so much. Probably that's my wrong 
and not a pdc problem. I don't know. I just tried to build "executable" elf from rust with rustc+ld+arm-gcc-stdlib and it looks like bad idea but interesting case.
Anyway I can build correct binaries with your latest patched pdc - it work awesome! Espetially if not experimenting more
I just looking for a way to minimise size, it needed because LTO and stripping are suffer from relocations requirement. Not so heavy. But I know potentially best option - just to build executable using one toolchain including linker and std, not to mix lime me
So, it's not critical at this point now.
I agree with what you said about needing an input/output validation tool.
Input (elf, that goes to pdc) needs more validation and proper errors output.
Output of pdc needs validation to avoid regular testing on the hardware for example. It can be something like simulator or loader. It could be really useful on CI-testing too.
Also, what tools you are using to analyse relocation tables? "Just hands and head" is ok answer if it so, just interesting.