Why GCC (ARM Cortex-M0) generates UXTB instruction when it should know that data is already uint8 - gcc

Question

I'm using a Cortex-M0 MCU from NXP (LPC845) and I'm trying to figure out what GCC is trying to do :)
Basically, the C code (pseudo) is as follows:
volatile uint8_t readb1 = 0x1a; // dummy
readb1 = GpioPadB(GPIO_PIN);
and the macro I wrote is
(*((volatile uint8_t*)(SOME_GPIO_ADDRESS)))
Now the code is working, but it produced some extra UXTB instruction I don't understand
00000378: ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
0000037a: ldr r2, [pc, #200] ; (0x444 <AppInit+272>)
0000037c: uxtb r3, r3
0000037e: strb r3, [r2, #0]
105 asm("nop");
My explanation is as follows:
load BYTE from address specified in R3, put result in R3 <-- this is load from GPIO register as BYTE
load in R2 address of readb1 variable
UXTB extends the uint8 value ??? But rotate argument is 0, so basically does nothing for uint8 !
store as BYTE to R2's address (my variable) data from R3
Why does that?
First of all, it should know that data in R3 has just a BYTE meaning (it already generates LDRB correctly). Second, the STRB will already trim 7..0 LSB so why using UXTB ?
Thanks for clarifications,
EDITED:
Compiler version:
gcc version 9.2.1 20191025 (release) [ARM/arm-9-branch revision 277599] (GNU Tools for Arm Embedded Processors 9-2019-q4-major)
I use -O3

Answer 1

Looks like an extra instruction left in by the compiler and/or there is some nuance to the cortex-m or newer cores (would love to know what that nuance is).
#define GpioPadB(x) (*((volatile unsigned char *)(x)))
volatile unsigned char readb1;
void fun ( void )
{
readb1 = 0x1A;
readb1 = GpioPadB(0x1234000);
}
an apt gotten gcc
arm-none-eabi-gcc --version
arm-none-eabi-gcc (15:4.9.3+svn231177-1) 4.9.3 20150529 (prerelease)
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O2 -c -mthumb so.c -o so.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -d so.o
00000000 <fun>:
0: 231a movs r3, #26
2: 4a03 ldr r2, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
4: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
6: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
8: 781b ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
a: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
c: 4770 bx lr
e: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
10: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
14: 01234000 .word 0x01234000
as one would expect.
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O2 -c -mthumb -march=armv7-m so.c -o so.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -d so.o
so.o: file format elf32-littlearm
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <fun>:
0: 4a03 ldr r2, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
2: 211a movs r1, #26
4: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
6: 7011 strb r1, [r2, #0]
8: 781b ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
a: b2db uxtb r3, r3
c: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
e: 4770 bx lr
10: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
14: 01234000 .word 0x01234000
with the extra utxb instruction in there
Something a bit newer
arm-none-eabi-gcc --version
arm-none-eabi-gcc (GCC) 10.2.0
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
for armv6m and armv7m
00000000 <fun>:
0: 231a movs r3, #26
2: 4a03 ldr r2, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
4: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
6: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
8: 781b ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
a: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
c: 4770 bx lr
e: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
10: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
14: 01234000 .word 0x01234000
for armv4t
00000000 <fun>:
0: 231a movs r3, #26
2: 4a03 ldr r2, [pc, #12] ; (10 <fun+0x10>)
4: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
6: 4b03 ldr r3, [pc, #12] ; (14 <fun+0x14>)
8: 781b ldrb r3, [r3, #0]
a: 7013 strb r3, [r2, #0]
c: 4770 bx lr
e: 46c0 nop ; (mov r8, r8)
10: 00000000 .word 0x00000000
14: 01234000 .word 0x01234000
and the utxb is gone.
I think it is just a missed optimization, peephole or otherwise.
As answered already though, when you use non-gpr-sized variables you can expect and/or tolerate the compiler converting up to the register size. Varies by compiler and target as to whether they do it on the way in or the way out (when a variable is read or just before it is written or used down the road).
For x86 where you can access various portions of the register separately (or use memory based operands) you will see they do not do this (in gcc) even for cases when it clearly needs a sign extension or padding. And sort it out down the road when the value is used.
You can search the gcc sources for utxb and perhaps see the issue or a comment.
EDIT
Note that clang takes a different path, it burns clocks generating the address but does not do the extension
00000000 <fun>:
0: f240 0000 movw r0, #0
4: f2c0 0000 movt r0, #0
8: 211a movs r1, #26
a: 7001 strb r1, [r0, #0]
c: f244 0100 movw r1, #16384 ; 0x4000
10: f2c0 1123 movt r1, #291 ; 0x123
14: 7809 ldrb r1, [r1, #0]
16: 7001 strb r1, [r0, #0]
18: 4770 bx lr
clang --version
clang version 11.1.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 1fdec59bffc11ae37eb51a1b9869f0696bfd5312)
Target: armv7m-none-unknown-eabi
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /opt/llvm11armv7m/bin
I think it is simply an optimization problem with gcc/gnu.

Answer 2

The "volatile" modifier is to blame. It does not call type extensions when written, because it doesn't make sense. But when reading, it always calls the extension. Because now the data is stored in a register, and must be ready for any operations, over the entire range of the visibility limit.
Abandoning "volatile" removes any additional operations on the data, but it can also remove the very fact of using the variable.
https://godbolt.org/z/cGvc8r6se

Answer 3

First of all, it should know that data in R3 has just a BYTE meaning
Registers are only 32 bits. They do not have any other "meaning". The register must contain the same value as the loaded byte - thus UXTB. Any other operation later (for example adding something requires the whole register to contain the correct value.
Generally speaking, using shorter types than 32 bit usually adds some overhead as Cortex-Mx processors do not do operations on the "portions" of the registers.

Answer 4

To fix this problem, you need to file a bug at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/. But there are two difficult situations.
There are a lot of bugs related to "volatile", and all of them are not closed, and most of them are not even confirmed. As far as I understand, the developers are already tired of fighting windmills, and do not even react to it.
To successfully fix the problem - you need to find the extreme, the very one that wrote the root of evil. Authorship and all. You will not be allowed into someone else's branch, and only the most advanced are allowed into the master.
But even before this moment, you need to find the reason for this behavior, and here again there are problems.
The GCC code is huge, you can search endlessly.
My personal opinion: GCC treats ARM kernel registers as part of fast memory. This memory can be accessed via a physical address, which only adds to the problems. Well, if this is memory, and the dimension does not match, then, according to GCC, you need to add expansion commands.
Why does GCC use the correct commands when simply accessed? - well, he reads from memory to memory. Emphasis - "from memory". No matter what happens next, you need to read it right now.