CODEWITHSUNDEEP
assemblyx86-64nasmatt
Ziad
Ziad

Reputation: 23

MOVZBQ equivalent in NASM

Background:

I have been learning x86_64 assembly using NASM on a Linux system and was writing a subroutine for strlen(const char *str)

I wanted to copy one byte starting from a pointer stored in rax and comparing it to 0 to find the end of the string, but when I used mov rbx, [rax] I didn't get the results I wanted which I later learned to be a wrong approach as rbx is quadword length and mov will copy 8 bytes at a time. The suggested solution was to use bl instead which did work.

I also found in AT&T syntax the movzbq mnemonic to copy one byte and zero extend it to a quadword, which in my newbie eyes looked as a neater more accurate representation of the intended instruction as I am not only moving to bl but also erasing the remaining 7 bytes.

Question:

Is there an equivalent to movzbq and other AT&T mov variants in NASM?

Which is a better code practice, movzbq rbx, [address] or mov bl, [address]?

Thank you,

Upvotes: 2

Views: 975

Answers (1)

Nate Eldredge
Nate Eldredge

Reputation: 58518

In Intel syntax, the size of memory operands is indicated by a prefix on the operand. So you would write movzx rbx, byte [address].

However, writes to 32-bit registers automatically zero-extend into the 64-bit register. So movzx ebx, byte [address] is equivalent and saves one byte of code (no REX prefix needed).

Generally movzx ebx, byte [address] is preferable to mov bl, [address] because it overwrites the entire register. Writing to the byte-sized register can have a minor performance penalty in some cases, see Why doesn't GCC use partial registers? for details. Though mov bl, [address] is fewer bytes of code, which may be worth the tradeoff if you need to optimize for size.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions