Related
I am developing an embedded C application for my Cortex M3 microcontroller using the GNU arm-none-eabi toolchain.
I have plan to adopt an assembly subroutine that the vendor implemented into my C application. I plan to make a new C function, then within that, write an inline assembly block using the extended inline assembly protocol. In this post, I plan to treat this assembly subroutine as a black box, and plan to ask this forum about how to structure the inputs and clobber list; this routine has no outputs.
The assembly subroutine expects r0, r1, and r2 to be pre-set prior to the call. Further, the subroutine uses registers r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9 as scratch registers to do its function. It writes to a range of memory on the device, specified by r0 and r1 which are the start and stop addresses, respectively.
So, I am checking if my assumptions are correct. My questions follow.
My function that I think I should write, is this right?:
void my_asm_ported_func(int reg_r0, int reg_r1, int reg_r2 {
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"ldr r0, %0 \n\t",
"ldr r1, %1 \n\t",
"ldr r2, %2 \n\t",
"<vendor code...> ",
: /* no outputs */
: "r" (reg_r0), "r" (reg_r1), "r" (reg_r2) /* inputs */
: "r0", "r1", "r2", "r4", "r5", "r6",
"r7", "r8", "r9", "memory" /* clobbers */
);
}
Since this asm subroutine writes to a range of other memory on the device, is adding "memory" to the clobber list enough? Seems too simple.
Is there a more elegant way to feed in r0 - r2 from the input parameters in the surrounding C function? I understand from AAPCS that the registers r0-r3 are input parameters 1-4, so this seems redundant to feed r0-r2 inputs manually like I did in the input list. Should I somehow just have this be a pure assembly function in a separater .S file?
Thank you in advance.
I tried the above but with the basic inline assembly protocol with terrible results - it crashed. I did it that way because I thought the assembly block would naturally take r0-r2 via the function prologue, which it evidently did because it wrote the memory correctly, but crashed once my breakpoint at the beginning of the asm block was kicked off (my vs code extension doesn't have the step-by-step disassembly view, so it just runs it as a block box and it crashed). I haven't tried the extended yet, I have been doing a lot of reading into this so I just wanted to make sure my black box approach should work and I'm not missing anything too big.
Yes, a volatile asm with a "memory" clobber is fine for MMIO (or pretty much anything that's supported at all): the compiler will make sure the asm it generates has memory contents in sync with the C abstract machine before the asm statement, and will assume that any globally-reachable memory has changed after. See How can I indicate that the memory *pointed* to by an inline ASM argument may be used? for a more in-depth explanation of why this matters when the pointed-to memory is C variables that you also access outside inline asm, not just MMIO registers.
Registers
To avoid wasted instructions, tell the compiler which registers you want inputs in, or better let the compiler pick and change the "vendor code" to use %0 instead of the hard register r0.
ldr r0, r0 from filling in your ldr r0, %0 template string is either invalid or treats the source r0 as a symbol name. Either way doesn't get the function arg into r0, since you force the compiler to have it in a different register (by declaring a clobber on "r0".) If you did want to copy between registers, the ARM instruction for that is mov. But if that's the first instruction of an asm template string, usually that means you're doing it wrong and should use better constraints to tell the compiler what you want.
// Worse way, but can use a template string with hard-coded registers unchanged
void my_asm_ported_func(int a, int b, int c)
{
register int reg_r0 asm ("r0") = a; // forces "r" to pick r0 for an asm template
register int reg_r1 asm ("r1") = b; // no other *guaranteed* effects.
register int reg_r2 asm ("r2") = c;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
// no extra mov or load instructions
"<vendor code...> " // still unchanged
: "+r" (reg_r0), "+r" (reg_r1), "+r" (reg_r2) // read-write outputs
: // no pure inputs
: "r4", "r5", "r6",
"r7", "r8", "r9", "memory" // clobbers
);
}
Best way
void my_asm_ported_func(int reg_r0, int reg_r1, int reg_r2) {
__asm__ __volatile__ (
// no extra mov or load instructions.
"<vendor code changed to use %0 instead of r0, etc...> "
: "+r" (reg_r0), "+r" (reg_r1), "+r" (reg_r2) // read-write outputs
: // no pure inputs
: "r4", "r5", "r6",
"r7", "r8", "r9", "memory" // clobbers. Not including r3??
);
// the C variables reg_r0 and so on have modified values here
// but they're local to this function so no effect outside of this
}
Actually, a further improvement would be to replace the register clobbers like "r4" through "r9" with "=r"(dummy1) output operands to let the compiler pick which registers to clobber.
I'm surprised the template string doesn't use r3. If it does, you forgot to tell the compiler about it, which is undefined behaviour that will bite you when this function inlines. You mentioned crashes; that could be the cause, if your ldr isn't.
Using %0 instead of r0 in the "vendor code" will get the compiler to fill in the register name it picked. Normally it will pick r0 for the C variable whose value was already there, unless the function inline and the value was in a different register.
I'm assuming the asm template modifies that register, which is why I made it an input/output operand with "+r"(reg_r0), with the output side basically being a dummy to let the compiler know that register changed. You can't declare a clobber on a register that's also an operand, and if you're letting the compiler pick registers you wouldn't even know which one.
If any of the input registers are left unmodified by the asm template, make them pure inputs. You can use [name] "r"(c_var) in the operands and %[name] in the template string to use names instead of numbers, making it easy to move them around without having to renumber and keep track of which operand is which number.
See also
ARM inline asm: exit system call with value read from memory re: getting values into specific ARM registers
https://stackoverflow.com/tags/inline-assembly/info
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Local-Register-Variables.html register T foo asm("regname") syntax.
Separate .S file:
Should I somehow just have this be a pure assembly function in a separate .S file?
That's 100% a valid option, especially if call/ret overhead is minor compared to how long this takes, or it's not called all the time.
Look at compiler-generated asm (gcc -S) if you're not sure about the syntax for declaring a function (.globl foo ; foo: to define the symbol, put its machine code after it.) And of course push and pop any call-preserved registers your function uses.
(GNU C inline asm requires you to describe the asm precisely to the compiler; the function-calling convention is irrelevant because it's inline asm. You're dancing with the compiler and need to not step on its toes, instead of just following the standard calling convention.)
I would like to know a method that can store the value of the stack pointer onto a variable in C.
I find inline asm to be useless as it is so compiler specific, esp for something like this just use an asm function. for gnu assembler:
.thumb
.thumb_func
.globl GETSP
GETSP:
mov r0,sp
bx lr
in c
extern unsigned int GETSP ( void );
...
unsigned int sp;
...
sp=GETSP();
understand that each place you use this will give the same value every time. for many compilers the whole function will give the same result across the function, if the function is reused by other different functions then you might get the sp value to vary.
I was reading some answers and questions on here and kept coming up with this suggestion but I noticed no one ever actually explained "exactly" what you need to do to do it, On Windows using Intel and GCC compiler. Commented below is exactly what I am trying to do.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
//assembly code begin
/*
push x into stack; < Need Help
x=y; < With This
pop stack into y; < Please
*/
//assembly code end
printf("x=%d,y=%d",x,y);
getchar();
return 0;
}
You can't just push/pop safely from inline asm, if it's going to be portable to systems with a red-zone. That includes every non-Windows x86-64 platform. (There's no way to tell gcc you want to clobber it). Well, you could add rsp, -128 first to skip past the red-zone before pushing/popping anything, then restore it later. But then you can't use an "m" constraints, because the compiler might use RSP-relative addressing with offsets that assume RSP hasn't been modified.
But really this is a ridiculous thing to be doing in inline asm.
Here's how you use inline-asm to swap two C variables:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
asm("" // no actual instructions.
: "=r"(y), "=r"(x) // request both outputs in the compiler's choice of register
: "0"(x), "1"(y) // matching constraints: request each input in the same register as the other output
);
// apparently "=m" doesn't compile: you can't use a matching constraint on a memory operand
printf("x=%d,y=%d\n",x,y);
// getchar(); // Set up your terminal not to close after the program exits if you want similar behaviour: don't embed it into your programs
return 0;
}
gcc -O3 output (targeting the x86-64 System V ABI, not Windows) from the Godbolt compiler explorer:
.section .rodata
.LC0:
.string "x=%d,y=%d"
.section .text
main:
sub rsp, 8
mov edi, OFFSET FLAT:.LC0
xor eax, eax
mov edx, 1
mov esi, 2
#APP
# 8 "/tmp/gcc-explorer-compiler116814-16347-5i3lz1/example.cpp" 1
# I used "\n" instead of just "" so we could see exactly where our inline-asm code ended up.
# 0 "" 2
#NO_APP
call printf
xor eax, eax
add rsp, 8
ret
C variables are a high level concept; it doesn't cost anything to decide that the same registers now logically hold different named variables, instead of swapping the register contents without changing the varname->register mapping.
When hand-writing asm, use comments to keep track of the current logical meaning of different registers, or parts of a vector register.
The inline-asm didn't lead to any extra instructions outside the inline-asm block either, so it's perfectly efficient in this case. Still, the compiler can't see through it, and doesn't know that the values are still 1 and 2, so further constant-propagation would be defeated. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DontUseInlineAsm
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int x=1;
int y=2;
printf("x::%d,y::%d\n",x,y);
__asm__( "movl %1, %%eax;"
"movl %%eax, %0;"
:"=r"(y)
:"r"(x)
:"%eax"
);
printf("x::%d,y::%d\n",x,y);
return 0;
}
/* Load x to eax
Load eax to y */
If you want to exchange the values, it can also be done using this way. Please note that this instructs GCC to take care of the clobbered EAX register. For educational purposes, it is okay, but I find it more suitable to leave micro-optimizations to the compiler.
You can use extended inline assembly. It is a compiler feature whicg allows you to write assembly instructions within your C code. A good reference for inline gcc assembly is available here.
The following code copies the value of x into y using pop and push instructions.
( compiled and tested using gcc on x86_64 )
This is only safe if compiled with -mno-red-zone, or if you subtract 128 from RSP before pushing anything. It will happen to work without problems in some functions: testing with one set of surrounding code is not sufficient to verify the correctness of something you did with GNU C inline asm.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
asm volatile (
"pushq %%rax\n" /* Push x into the stack */
"movq %%rbx, %%rax\n" /* Copy y into x */
"popq %%rbx\n" /* Pop x into y */
: "=b"(y), "=a"(x) /* OUTPUT values */
: "a"(x), "b"(y) /* INPUT values */
: /*No need for the clobber list, since the compiler knows
which registers have been modified */
);
printf("x=%d,y=%d",x,y);
getchar();
return 0;
}
Result x=2 y=1, as you expected.
The intel compiler works in a similar way, I think you have just to change the keyword asm to __asm__. You can find info about inline assembly for the INTEL compiler here.
This question already has answers here:
Why can't I get the value of asm registers in C?
(2 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I remember seeing a way to use extended gcc inline assembly to read a register value and store it into a C variable.
I cannot though for the life of me remember how to form the asm statement.
Editor's note: this way of using a local register-asm variable is now documented by GCC as "not supported". It still usually happens to work on GCC, but breaks with clang. (This wording in the documentation was added after this answer was posted, I think.)
The global fixed-register variable version has a large performance cost for 32-bit x86, which only has 7 GP-integer registers (not counting the stack pointer). This would reduce that to 6. Only consider this if you have a global variable that all of your code uses heavily.
Going in a different direction than other answers so far, since I'm not sure what you want.
GCC Manual § 5.40 Variables in Specified Registers
register int *foo asm ("a5");
Here a5 is the name of the register which should be used…
Naturally the register name is cpu-dependent, but this is not a problem, since specific registers are most often useful with explicit assembler instructions (see Extended Asm). Both of these things generally require that you conditionalize your program according to cpu type.
Defining such a register variable does not reserve the register; it remains available for other uses in places where flow control determines the variable's value is not live.
GCC Manual § 3.18 Options for Code Generation Conventions
-ffixed-reg
Treat the register named reg as a fixed register; generated code should never refer to it (except perhaps as a stack pointer, frame pointer or in some other fixed role).
This can replicate Richard's answer in a simpler way,
int main() {
register int i asm("ebx");
return i + 1;
}
although this is rather meaningless, as you have no idea what's in the ebx register.
If you combined these two, compiling this with gcc -ffixed-ebx,
#include <stdio.h>
register int counter asm("ebx");
void check(int n) {
if (!(n % 2 && n % 3 && n % 5)) counter++;
}
int main() {
int i;
counter = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= 100; i++) check(i);
printf("%d Hamming numbers between 1 and 100\n", counter);
return 0;
}
you can ensure that a C variable always uses resides in a register for speedy access and also will not get clobbered by other generated code. (Handily, ebx is callee-save under usual x86 calling conventions, so even if it gets clobbered by calls to other functions compiled without -ffixed-*, it should get restored too.)
On the other hand, this definitely isn't portable, and usually isn't a performance benefit either, as you're restricting the compiler's freedom.
Here is a way to get ebx:
int main()
{
int i;
asm("\t movl %%ebx,%0" : "=r"(i));
return i + 1;
}
The result:
main:
subl $4, %esp
#APP
movl %ebx,%eax
#NO_APP
incl %eax
addl $4, %esp
ret
Edit:
The "=r"(i) is an output constraint, telling the compiler that the first output (%0) is a register that should be placed in the variable "i". At this optimization level (-O5) the variable i never gets stored to memory, but is held in the eax register, which also happens to be the return value register.
I don't know about gcc, but in VS this is how:
int data = 0;
__asm
{
mov ebx, 30
mov data, ebx
}
cout<<data;
Essentially, I moved the data in ebx to your variable data.
This will move the stack pointer register into the sp variable.
intptr_t sp;
asm ("movl %%esp, %0" : "=r" (sp) );
Just replace 'esp' with the actual register you are interested in (but make sure not to lose the %%) and 'sp' with your variable.
From the GCC docs itself: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html
#include <stdio.h>
void gav(){
//rgv_t argv = get();
register unsigned long long i asm("rax");
register unsigned long long ii asm("rbx");
printf("I`m gav - first arguman is: %s - 2th arguman is: %s\n", (char *)i, (char *)ii);
}
int main(void)
{
char *test = "I`m main";
char *test1 = "I`m main2";
printf("0x%llx\n", (unsigned long long)&gav);
asm("call %P0" : :"i"((unsigned long long)&gav), "a"(test), "b"(test1));
return 0;
}
You can't know what value compiler-generated code will have stored in any register when your inline asm statement runs, so the value is usually meaningless, and you'd be much better off using a debugger to look at register values when stopped at a breakpoint.
That being said, if you're going to do this strange task, you might as well do it efficiently.
On some targets (like x86) you can use specific-register output constraints to tell the compiler which register an output will be in. Use a specific-register output constraint with an empty asm template (zero instructions) to tell the compiler that your asm statement doesn't care about that register value on input, but afterward the given C variable will be in that register.
#include <stdint.h>
int foo() {
uint64_t rax_value; // type width determines register size
asm("" : "=a"(rax_value)); // =letter determines which register (or partial reg)
uint32_t ebx_value;
asm("" : "=b"(ebx_value));
uint16_t si_value;
asm("" : "=S"(si_value) );
uint8_t sil_value; // x86-64 required to use the low 8 of a reg other than a-d
// With -m32: error: unsupported size for integer register
asm("# Hi mom, my output constraint picked %0" : "=S"(sil_value) );
return sil_value + ebx_value;
}
Compiled with clang5.0 on Godbolt for x86-64. Notice that the 2 unused output values are optimized away, no #APP / #NO_APP compiler-generated asm-comment pairs (which switch the assembler out / into fast-parsing mode, or at least used to if that's no longer a thing). This is because I didn't use asm volatile, and they have an output operand so they're not implicitly volatile.
foo(): # #foo()
# BB#0:
push rbx
#APP
#NO_APP
#DEBUG_VALUE: foo:ebx_value <- %EBX
#APP
# Hi mom, my output constraint picked %sil
#NO_APP
#DEBUG_VALUE: foo:sil_value <- %SIL
movzx eax, sil
add eax, ebx
pop rbx
ret
# -- End function
# DW_AT_GNU_pubnames
# DW_AT_external
Notice the compiler-generated code to add two outputs together, directly from the registers specified. Also notice the push/pop of RBX, because RBX is a call-preserved register in the x86-64 System V calling convention. (And basically all 32 and 64-bit x86 calling conventions). But we've told the compiler that our asm statement writes a value there. (Using an empty asm statement is kind of a hack; there's no syntax to directly tell the compiler we just want to read a register, because like I said you don't know what the compiler was doing with the registers when your asm statement is inserted.)
The compiler will treat your asm statement as if it actually wrote that register, so if it needs the value for later, it will have copied it to another register (or spilled to memory) when your asm statement "runs".
The other x86 register constraints are b (bl/bx/ebx/rbx), c (.../rcx), d (.../rdx), S (sil/si/esi/rsi), D (.../rdi). There is no specific constraint for bpl/bp/ebp/rbp, even though it's not special in functions without a frame pointer. (Maybe because using it would make your code not compiler with -fno-omit-frame-pointer.)
You can use register uint64_t rbp_var asm ("rbp"), in which case asm("" : "=r" (rbp_var)); guarantees that the "=r" constraint will pick rbp. Similarly for r8-r15, which don't have any explicit constraints either. On some architectures, like ARM, asm-register variables are the only way to specify which register you want for asm input/output constraints. (And note that asm constraints are the only supported use of register asm variables; there's no guarantee that the variable's value will be in that register any other time.
There's nothing to stop the compiler from placing these asm statements anywhere it wants within a function (or parent functions after inlining). So you have no control over where you're sampling the value of a register. asm volatile may avoid some reordering, but maybe only with respect to other volatile accesses. You could check the compiler-generated asm to see if you got what you wanted, but beware that it might have been by chance and could break later.
You can place an asm statement in the dependency chain for something else to control where the compiler places it. Use a "+rm" constraint to tell the compiler it modifies some other variable which is actually used for something that doesn't optimize away.
uint32_t ebx_value;
asm("" : "=b"(ebx_value), "+rm"(some_used_variable) );
where some_used_variable might be a return value from one function, and (after some processing) passed as an arg to another function. Or computed in a loop, and will be returned as the function's return value. In that case, the asm statement is guaranteed to come at some point after the end of the loop, and before any code that depends on the later value of that variable.
This will defeat optimizations like constant-propagation for that variable, though. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DontUseInlineAsm. The compiler can't assume anything about the output value; it doesn't check that the asm statement has zero instructions.
This doesn't work for some registers that gcc won't let you use as output operands or clobbers, e.g. the stack pointer.
Reading the value into a C variable might make sense for a stack pointer, though, if your program does something special with stacks.
As an alternative to inline-asm, there's __builtin_frame_address(0) to get a stack address. (But IIRC, cause that function to make a full stack frame, even when -fomit-frame-pointer is enabled, like it is by default on x86.)
Still, in many functions that's nearly free (and making a stack frame can be good for code-size, because of smaller addressing modes for RBP-relative than RSP-relative access to local variables).
Using a mov instruction in an asm statement would of course work, too.
Isn't this what you are looking for?
Syntax:
asm ("fsinx %1,%0" : "=f" (result) : "f" (angle));
My Code
const int howmany = 5046;
char buffer[howmany];
asm("lea buffer,%esi"); //Get the address of buffer
asm("mov howmany,%ebx"); //Set the loop number
asm("buf_loop:"); //Lable for beginning of loop
asm("movb (%esi),%al"); //Copy buffer[x] to al
asm("inc %esi"); //Increment buffer address
asm("dec %ebx"); //Decrement loop count
asm("jnz buf_loop"); //jump to buf_loop if(ebx>0)
My Problem
I am using the gcc compiler. For some reason my buffer/howmany variables are undefined in the eyes of my asm. I'm not sure why. I just want to move the beginning address of my buffer array into the esi register, loop it 'howmany' times while copying each element to the al register.
Are you using the inline assembler in gcc? (If not, in what other C++ compiler, exactly?)
If gcc, see the details here, and in particular this example:
asm ("leal (%1,%1,4), %0"
: "=r" (five_times_x)
: "r" (x)
);
%0 and %1 are referring to the C-level variables, and they're listed specifically as the second (for outputs) and third (for inputs) parameters to asm. In your example you have only "inputs" so you'd have an empty second operand (traditionally one uses a comment after that colon, such as /* no output registers */, to indicate that more explicitly).
The part that declares an array like that
int howmany = 5046;
char buffer[howmany];
is not valid C++. In C++ it is impossible to declare an array that has "variable" or run-time size. In C++ array declarations the size is always a compile-time constant.
If your compiler allows this array declaration, it means that it implements it as an extension. In that case you have to do your own research to figure out how it implements such a run-time sized array internally. I would guess that internally buffer will be implemented as a pointer, not as a true array. If my guess is correct and it is really a pointer, then the proper way to load the address of the array into esi might be
mov buffer,%esi
and not a lea, as in your code. lea will only work with "normal" compile-time sized arrays, but not with run-time sized arrays.
Another question is whether you really need a run-time sized array in your code. Could it be that you just made it so by mistake? If you simply change the howmany declaration to
const int howmany = 5046;
the array will turn into an "normal" C++ array and your code might start working as is (i.e. with lea).
All of those asm instructions need to be in the same asm statement if you want to be sure they're contiguous (without compiler-generated code between them), and you need to declare input / output / clobber operands or you will step on the compiler's registers.
You can't use lea or mov to/from a C variable name (except for global / static symbols which are actually defined in the compiler's asm output, but even then you usually shouldn't).
Instead of using mov instructions to set up inputs, ask the compiler to do it for you using input operand constraints. If the first or last instruction of a GNU C inline asm statement, usually that means you're doing it wrong and writing inefficient code.
And BTW, GNU C++ allows C99-style variable-length arrays, so howmany is allowed to be non-const and even set in a way that doesn't optimize away to a constant. Any compiler that can compile GNU-style inline asm will also support variable-length arrays.
How to write your loop properly
If this looks over-complicated, then https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DontUseInlineAsm. Write a stand-alone function in asm so you can just learn asm instead of also having to learn about gcc and its complex but powerful inline-asm interface. You basically have to know asm and understand compilers to use it correctly (with the right constraints to prevent breakage when optimization is enabled).
Note the use of named operands like %[ptr] instead of %2 or %%ebx. Letting the compiler choose which registers to use is normally a good thing, but for x86 there are letters other than "r" you can use, like "=a" for rax/eax/ax/al specifically. See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html, and also other links in the inline-assembly tag wiki.
I also used buf_loop%=: to append a unique number to the label, so if the optimizer clones the function or inlines it multiple places, the file will still assemble.
Source + compiler asm output on the Godbolt compiler explorer.
void ext(char *);
int foo(void)
{
int howmany = 5046; // could be a function arg
char buffer[howmany];
//ext(buffer);
const char *bufptr = buffer; // copy the pointer to a C var we can use as a read-write operand
unsigned char result;
asm("buf_loop%=: \n\t" // do {
" movb (%[ptr]), %%al \n\t" // Copy buffer[x] to al
" inc %[ptr] \n\t"
" dec %[count] \n\t"
" jnz buf_loop \n\t" // } while(ebx>0)
: [res]"=a"(result) // al = write-only output
, [count] "+r" (howmany) // input/output operand, any register
, [ptr] "+r" (bufptr)
: // no input-only operands
: "memory" // we read memory that isn't an input operand, only pointed to by inputs
);
return result;
}
I used %%al as an example of how to write register names explicitly: Extended Asm (with operands) needs a double % to get a literal % in the asm output. You could also use %[res] or %0 and let the compiler substitute %al in its asm output. (And then you'd have no reason to use a specific-register constraint unless you wanted to take advantage of cbw or lodsb or something like that.) result is unsigned char, so the compiler will pick a byte register for it. If you want the low byte of a wider operand, you could use %b[count] for example.
This uses a "memory" clobber, which is inefficient. You don't need the compiler to spill everything to memory, only to make sure that the contents of buffer[] in memory matches the C abstract machine state. (This is not guaranteed by passing a pointer to it in a register).
gcc7.2 -O3 output:
pushq %rbp
movl $5046, %edx
movq %rsp, %rbp
subq $5056, %rsp
movq %rsp, %rcx # compiler-emitted to satisfy our "+r" constraint for bufptr
# start of the inline-asm block
buf_loop18:
movb (%rcx), %al
inc %rcx
dec %edx
jnz buf_loop
# end of the inline-asm block
movzbl %al, %eax
leave
ret
Without a memory clobber or input constraint, leave appears before the inline asm block, releasing that stack memory before the inline asm uses the now-stale pointer. A signal-handler running at the wrong time would clobber it.
A more efficient way is to use a dummy memory operand which tells the compiler that the entire array is a read-only memory input to the asm statement. See get string length in inline GNU Assembler for more about this flexible-array-member trick for telling the compiler you read all of an array without specifying the length explicitly.
In C you can define a new type inside a cast, but you can't in C++, hence the using instead of a really complicated input operand.
int bar(unsigned howmany)
{
//int howmany = 5046;
char buffer[howmany];
//ext(buffer);
buffer[0] = 1;
buffer[100] = 100; // test whether we got the input constraints right
//using input_t = const struct {char a[howmany];}; // requires a constant size
using flexarray_t = const struct {char a; char x[];};
const char *dummy;
unsigned char result;
asm("buf_loop%=: \n\t" // do {
" movb (%[ptr]), %%al \n\t" // Copy buffer[x] to al
" inc %[ptr] \n\t"
" dec %[count] \n\t"
" jnz buf_loop \n\t" // } while(ebx>0)
: [res]"=a"(result) // al = write-only output
, [count] "+r" (howmany) // input/output operand, any register
, "=r" (dummy) // output operand in the same register as buffer input, so we can modify the register
: [ptr] "2" (buffer) // matching constraint for the dummy output
, "m" (*(flexarray_t *) buffer) // whole buffer as an input operand
//, "m" (*buffer) // just the first element: doesn't stop the buffer[100]=100 store from sinking past the inline asm, even if you used asm volatile
: // no clobbers
);
buffer[100] = 101;
return result;
}
I also used a matching constraint so buffer could be an input directly, and the output operand in the same register means we can modify that register. We got the same effect in foo() by using const char *bufptr = buffer; and then using a read-write constraint to tell the compiler that the new value of that C variable is what we leave in the register. Either way we leave a value in a dead C variable that goes out of scope without being read, but the matching constraint way can be useful for macros where you don't want to modify the value of your input (and don't need the type of your input: int dummy would work fine, too.)
The buffer[100] = 100; and buffer[100] = 101; assignments are there to show that they both appear in the asm, instead of being merged across the inline-asm (which does happen if you leave out the "m" input operand). IDK why the buffer[100] = 101; isn't optimized away; it's dead so it should be. Also note that asm volatile doesn't block this reordering, so it's not an alternative to a "memory" clobber or using the right constraints.