CODEWITHSUNDEEP
gccassemblyx86clanginline-assembly
intrigued_66
intrigued_66

Reputation: 17268

Write inline assembly without clobber lists?

Is it possible to write inline assembly (Intel syntax) with GCC or Clang, without needing to understand the clobber list "stuff"?

I'm going to guess "no" because the clobber list "stuff" ensures you don't over-write the register the compiler wrote to (immediately before your inline assembly begins)?

Upvotes: 1

Views: 874

Answers (1)

Peter Cordes
Peter Cordes

Reputation: 365517

GNU C Basic inline asm statements (no operand/clobber lists) are not recommended for basically anything except maybe the body of an __attribute__((naked)) function. Why can't local variable be used in GNU C basic inline asm statements? (globals can't safely be used either.)

https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DontUseInlineAsm says to see ConvertBasicAsmToExtended for reasons not to use Basic asm statements. You can't really do anything safely in Basic asm; even asm("cli"); can get reordered with any memory accesses that aren't volatile.

If you're going to use inline asm at all (instead of writing a stand-alone function in asm, or C with intrinsics), you need to describe your string of asm instruction in exact detail to the compiler, in terms of a black box with input and/or output operands, and/or clobbers. See https://stackoverflow.com/tags/inline-assembly/info for links to guides, including some SO answers about using input / output constraints.

Think hard before deciding it's really worth using GNU C inline asm for anything. If you can get the compiler to emit the same instructions another way, that's almost always better. Intrinsics or pure C allow constant-propagation optimization; inline asm doesn't (unless you do stuff like if(_builtin_constant_p(x)) { pure C version } else { inline asm version }).

Intel syntax: in GCC, compile with -masm=intel so your asm template will be part of an Intel-syntax .s, and the compiler will substitute in operands in Intel syntax. (Like dword ptr [rsp] instead of (%rsp) for "m"(my_int)).

In clang I'm not sure there's any convenient way to use Intel-syntax in normal asm statements.

There is one other option though, if you don't care about efficient code (but then why are you using asm?): clang supports -fasm-blocks to allow syntax like MSVC's inefficient style of inline asm. And yes, this uses Intel syntax.

Is there any way to complie a microsoft style inline-assembly code on a linux platform? shows how inefficient the resulting code is: full of compiler-generated instructions to store input variables to memory for the asm{} block to read them. Because MSVC-style asm blocks can't do inputs or outputs in registers. (Clang doesn't support the leave-a-value-in-EAX method for getting a single value out so the output has to be stored/reloaded as well.)

You don't get to specify clobbers for this, so I assume an asm block implies a "memory" clobber, along with clobbers on all registers you write. (Or maybe even just mention.)

I would not recommend this; it's basically not possible to wrap a single instruction or handful of instructions efficiently this way. Only if you're writing a whole loop can you amortize the overhead of getting inputs into an asm{} block.

Upvotes: 5

Related Questions