SDL Based Auto Code Generation: A Multi Beneficial Approach Bhaskar Rao.G

1. SDL Based Auto Code Generation: A Multi Beneficial Approach Bhaskar Rao.G Software Engineering Group, Motorola India Electronics Ltd. Banglore, India - 560 042. email: gbr@miel.mot.com.

2. Agenda • Introduction to SDL and Benefits ( 3 min.) • Experiences and Results (17 min.) • Pilot Project • GPRS Layer Study • Problems and Solutions • Challenges Remaining (3 min.) • Conclusions (2 min.)

3. Introduction to SDL and Benefits

4. SDL, Is it only Auto Code Generation? • Methodology • Integrated Methods and Tools for Software Development • Requirements - MSC • SAD - State Charts/UML/SDL • Coding - SDL, C, C++, Java <AUTO CODE > • Unit and Integration Testing - Simulation & Validation • System Testing - TTCN/SDL

5. Auto Code Generation from SDL SDL Code Manual C Code + env SDT Auto Code Tool C Compiler SDL Code Gen. code H2SDL Executable Run Time Library C Headers Simulation, Validation, UNIX, NT, pSOS, VxWorks etc..

6. SDL Usage Perspectives • Design Language • Implementation Methodology • Infrastructure • Handsets? • Test Development Language • Strong data features • Better tool support compared to TTCN tools

7. Range of Benefits Observed • Cycle Time Improvement: 1.2 to 2X • Productivity: 1.2 to 2X • Effort Reduction: 1.2 to 2X • Quality: 2 to 5X • Performance: PROBLEMS NOT NOTICED

8. Experiences and Results

9. Application Interface Network Management Layer Transport Layer Sessions Layer Network Layer Driver Interface Pilot Project Architecture

10. Pilot Project • EIA 709.1 Control Network Protocol • Network Management Layer • Provides services to the application • Uses either Transport layer or Session layer • Session Layer • Provides session services • Transport layer • Acknowledged/Un-acknowledged repeat data transfer • Network layer • Interacts with the driver • Driver • send and receive messages

11. SDL Architecture Application Interface Network Management Process Controller Controller Transmit side (SL, TL) Controller Receive Side (SL, TL) Network Layer Driver Interface

12. Features of the Architecture • Layer independent architecture • Adaptable to any changes • Cadvanced Code Generator (Telelogic Tau) • < 1 year project

13. Pilot Results

14. Observations …. • Simulation based testing has been proved very effective • Less than average of the organization • Script language • Real Time Simulation • Traces • Automatic support of targeting for Windows, pSOS etc. • Significantly impacted customer satisfaction

15. Problems ... • Code Size?????? • 3X • System Testing • Interpreted the AUTO CODE • Less productive

16. Reasons for Code Bloat • Architecture • Too Modular • Layer independent • Tool translation of SDL support functions • Assignment, Equality etc. • StructVari := StructVar2 • if(StructVari = StructVar2) • Overhead is ~400 bytes per structure • Translation of Header files to C code • Hdr.h >>> GenHdr.c

17. Optimization Results on one layer

18. Optimization Features • C code mix is increased to 65% • Pointers are used • Negative impact on Productivity and Quality • Effort increased to locate the error

19. Plans After Pilot • Used in Infrastructure projects • Results are encouraging • Code size is not CRITICAL • Handsets?????

20. Further study • Try new tools • Cmicro Code generator • Proprietary generator • Optimize with the help of the vendors • Excellent help

21. Optimization Results (UNIX)

22. Optimization Results (UNIX)[contd..]

23. Auto Code Generation from SDL (Optimization) SDT Auto Code Tool SDL Code Manual C Code + env C Compiler SDL Code Gen. code SCRIPTS (Optimization) H2SDL Executable Run Time Library C Headers Simulation, Validation, UNIX, NT, pSOS, VxWorks etc..

24. Optimization of Code • Data Types defined only in SDL • NON OO • Minimize C Code Integration • Through common types between SDL and C (Octet = Unsigned Char) • Scripts • Script to convert C constants to SDL macros • Script to convert STRUCTURES to ADTs • Compilation Switches for Optimization • XNOUSEOFREAL, XNOUSEOFOBJECTIDENTIFIER etc.

25. Size of Utility Functions • Default Functions Size: 16 Type: FUNC yDef_zF_MyStruct1 Size: 16 Type: FUNC yDef_zG_MyStruct5 • Equal Functions Size: 192 Type: FUNC yEq_zF_MyStruct1 Size: 192 Type: FUNC yEq_zG_MyStruct5 • Make Functions Size: 152 Type: FUNC yMake_zF_MyStruct1 Size: 152 Type: FUNC yMake_zG_MyStruct5

26. After Optimization newtype MyStruct1 struct a1, a2, a3, a4, a5 Integer; /*#ADT(E(H) D(H) K(H) H) #TYPE #define yDef_#(MyStruct1)(yVar) #define yMake_#(MyStruct1)(yVar1, yVar2) #define yEq_#(MyStruct1) (E1, E2)*/ endnewtype;

27. Size analysis command • Usage $> nm -f <exec_file_name> • Displays Type, Size etc. of all symbols NOTYPE no type was specified OBJECT a data object such as an array or variable in bytes FUNC a function or other executable code in bytes SECTION a section symbol FILE name of the source file.

28. Challenges Remaining

29. No Wider Acceptance?? • Not Part of Curriculum • Industry has to invest • Technical • Performance and Code Size issues • Debugging the generated code (off site and onsite) • Performance, Code Size VS READABILITY of SDL • Customer Related • Cost of the tools • Lack of familiarity and Expertise • Risk of failure

30. 100% Real time Software Development with SDL Methodology VISION VISION

31. For Realizing the Vision • Effective Algorithms for mapping SDL code to implementation language • Effective Approaches to handle on-site testing

32. Conclusions • SDL is a Methodology but only tool for auto code • Positive impact on Cycle Time, Quality and Productivity • Code Size Overheads could be brought down with a few restrictions in SDL • Needs improvement for 100% usage

33. Q &A Q &A Q &A Q &A Q &A • Questions???? Q &A Q &A Q &A Q &A Q &A Q &A Q &A Q &A

34. Thank you Bhaskar Rao.G Motorola India Electronics Ltd., SE Group, Banglore, India- 560 042 gbr@miel.mot.com