I'm learning ARM inline assembly, and is confused about a very simple function: assign the value of x to y (both are int type), on arm32 and arm64 why different clobber description required?
Here is the code:
#include <arm_neon.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void asm_test()
{
int x = 10;
int y = 0;
#ifdef __aarch64__
asm volatile(
"mov %w[in], %w[out]"
: [out] "=r"(y)
: [in] "r"(x)
: "r0" // r0 not working, but r1 or x1 works
);
#else
asm volattile(
"mov %[in], %[out]"
: [out] "=r"(y)
: [in] "r"(x)
: "r0" // r0 works, but r1 not working
);
#endif
printf("y is %d\n", y);
}
int main() {
arm_test();
return 0;
}
Tested on my rooted android phone, for arm32, r0 generates correct result but r1 won't. For arm64, r1 or x1 generate correct result, and r0 won't. Why on arm32 and arm64 they are different? What is the concrete rule for this and where can I find it?
ARM / AArch64 syntax is mov dst, src
Your asm statement only works if the compiler happens to pick the same register for both "=r" output and "r" input (or something like that, given extra copies of x floating around).
Different clobbers simply perturb the compiler's register-allocation choices. Look at the generated asm (gcc -S or on https://godbolt.org/, especially with -fverbose-asm.)
Undefined Behaviour from getting the constraints mismatched with the instructions in the template string can still happen to work; never assume that an asm statement is correct just because it works with one set of compiler options and surrounding code.
BTW, x86 AT&T syntax does use mov src, dst, and many GNU C inline-asm examples / tutorials are written for that. Assembly language is specific to the ISA and the toolchain, but a lot of architectures have an instruction called mov. Seeing a mov does not mean this is an ARM example.
Also, you don't actually need a mov instruction to use inline asm to copy a valid. Just tell the compiler you want the input to be in the same register it picks for the output, whatever that happens to be:
// not volatile: has no side effects and produces the same output if the input is the same; i.e. the output is a pure function of the input.
asm (""
: "=r"(output) // pick any register
: "0"(input) // pick the same register as operand 0
: // no clobbers
);
Related
Trying to multiply 400 by 2 with inline assembly, using the fact imul implicity multiplies by eax. However, i'm getting "undefined reference" compile errors to $1 and $2
int c;
int a = 400;
int b = 2;
__asm__(
".intel_syntax;"
"mov eax, $1;"
"mov ebx, $2;"
"imul %0, ebx;"
".att_syntax;"
: "=r"(c)
: "r" (a), "r" (b)
: "eax");
std::cout << c << std::endl;
Do not use fixed registers in inline asm, especially if you have not listed them as clobbers and have not made sure inputs or outputs don't overlap them. (This part is basically a duplicate of segmentation fault(core dumped) error while using inline assembly)
Do not switch syntax in inline assembly as the compiler will substitute wrong syntax. Use -masm=intel if you want intel syntax.
To reference arguments in an asm template string use % not $ prefix. There's nothing special about $1; it gets treated as a symbol name just like if you'd used my_extern_int_var. When linking, the linker doesn't find a definition for a $1 symbol.
Do not mov stuff around unnecessarily. Also remember that just because something seems to work in a certain environment, that doesn't guarantee it's correct and will work everywhere every time. Doubly so for inline asm. You have to be careful. Anyway, a fixed version could look like:
__asm__(
"imul %0, %1"
: "=r"(c)
: "r" (a), "0" (b)
: );
Has to be compiled using -masm=intel. Notice b has been put into the same register as c.
using the fact imul implicity multiplies by eax
That's not true for the normal 2-operand form of imul. It works the same as other instructions, doing dst *= src so you can use any register, and not waste uops writing the high half anywhere if you don't even want it.
This function "strcpy" aims to copy the content of src to dest, and it works out just fine: display two lines of "Hello_src".
#include <stdio.h>
static inline char * strcpy(char * dest,const char *src)
{
int d0, d1, d2;
__asm__ __volatile__("1:\tlodsb\n\t"
"stosb\n\t"
"testb %%al,%%al\n\t"
"jne 1b"
: "=&S" (d0), "=&D" (d1), "=&a" (d2)
: "0"(src),"1"(dest)
: "memory");
return dest;
}
int main(void) {
char src_main[] = "Hello_src";
char dest_main[] = "Hello_des";
strcpy(dest_main, src_main);
puts(src_main);
puts(dest_main);
return 0;
}
I tried to change the line : "0"(src),"1"(dest) to : "S"(src),"D"(dest), the error occurred: ‘asm’ operand has impossible constraints. I just cannot understand. I thought that "0"/"1" here specified the same constraint as the 0th/1th output variable. the constraint of 0th output is =&S, te constraint of 1th output is =&D. If I change 0-->S, 1-->D, there shouldn't be any wrong. What's the matter with it?
Does "clobbered registers" or the earlyclobber operand(&) have any use? I try to remove "&" or "memory", the result of either circumstance is the same as the original one: output two lines of "Hello_src" strings. So why should I use the "clobbered" things?
The earlyclobber & means that the particular output is written before the inputs are consumed. As such, the compiler may not allocate any input to the same register. Apparently using the 0/1 style overrides that behavior.
Of course the clobber list also has important use. The compiler does not parse your assembly code. It needs the clobber list to figure out which registers your code will modify. You'd better not lie, or subtle bugs may creep in. If you want to see its effect, try to trick the compiler into using a register around your asm block:
extern int foo();
int bar()
{
int x = foo();
asm("nop" ::: "eax");
return x;
}
Relevant part of the generated assembly code:
call foo
movl %eax, %edx
nop
movl %edx, %eax
Notice how the compiler had to save the return value from foo into edx because it believed that eax will be modified. Normally it would just leave it in eax, since that's where it will be needed later. Here you can imagine what would happen if your asm code did modify eax without telling the compiler: the return value would be overwritten.
I have a series of functions that are ultimately implemented with an SVC call. For instance:
void func(int arg) {
asm volatile ("svc #123");
}
as you might imagine, the SVC operates on 'arg' which is presumably in a register. if i explictly add a 'noinline' attribute to the definition, everything works as you'd expect.
but, were the function inlined at a higher optimization level, the code that loads 'arg' into a register would be omitted -- as there is apprently no reference to 'arg'.
I've tried adding a 'used' attribute to the declaration of 'arg' itself -- but gcc apparently yields a warning in this case.
I've also tried adding "dummy" asm statements such as
asm ("" : "=r"(arg));
But this didn't appear to work in general. (maybe i need to say volatile here as well???)
Anyway, it seems unfortunate to have an explicit function call for a routine whose body essentially consists of one asm statement.
A relevant recipe is in the GCC manual, in Assembler Instructions with C Expression Operands section, that uses sysint with the same role of your svc instruction. The idea is to define a local register variable with a specified register, and then use extended asmsyntax to add inputs and outputs to the inline assembly block.
I tried to compile the following code:
#include <stdint.h>
__attribute__((always_inline))
uint32_t func(uint32_t arg) {
register uint32_t r0 asm("r0") = arg;
register uint32_t result asm("r0");
asm volatile ("svc #123":"=r" (result) : "0" (r0));
return result;
}
uint32_t foo(void) {
return func(2);
}
This is the disassembly of the compiled (with -O2 flag) object file:
00000000 <func>:
0: ef00007b svc 0x0000007b
4: e12fff1e bx lr
00000008 <foo>:
8: e3a00002 mov r0, #2
c: ef00007b svc 0x0000007b
10: e12fff1e bx lr
func is expanded inline and the argument is put in r0 correctly. I believe volatile is necessary, because if you don't make use of the return value of the service call, then the compiler might assume that the assembly piece of code is not necessary.
You should have a single asm block, compiler is still free to treat two asm blocks individually until otherwise specified. Meaning requirements put on second asm block won't have any effect on the first one.
You are assuming registers will be in their right places because of the calling convention.
What about something like this? (didn't test)
void func(int arg) {
asm volatile (
"mov r0, %[code]\n\t"
"svc #123"
:
: [code]"r" (code)
);
}
For more information, see ARM GCC Inline Assembler Cookbook.
I'm working on homework project for OS development class. One task is to save context of SSE registers upon interrupt. Now, saving and restoring context is easy (fxsave/fxsave). But I have problem with testing. I want to put same sample date into one of registers, but all I get is error interrupt 6. Here is code:
// load some SSE registers
struct Vec4 {
int x, y, z, w;
} vec = { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
asm volatile ( "movl %0, %%eax"
: /* no output */
: "r"( &vec )
:
);
asm volatile ( "movups (%eax), %xmm0" );
I searched on internet for solution. All I got is that it might something to do with effective address space. But I don't know what it is.
You need to use a memory operand as a constraint in the inline assembly. This is much better than generating the address by yourself (as you tried with the & operator) and loading in in a register, because the latter will not work if the address is rip relative or relocatable.
asm volatile ( "movups %0, %%xmm0"
: /* no output */
: "m"( vec )
:
);
And you need to use two "%%" before register names.
Read more about gcc's constraints here: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Simple-Constraints.html#Simple-Constraints . The title is somewhat misleading, as this concept is far from simple :-)
I found out what is problem. Execution of SSE instructions must be enabled by setting some flags in CR0 and CR4 registers. More info here: http://wiki.osdev.org/SSE
You're making this way harder than it needs to be - just use the intrinsics in the *mmintrin.h headers, e.g.
#include <emmintrin.h>
__m128i vec = _mm_set_epi32(3, 2, 1, 0);
If you need to put this in a specific XMM register then use the above example as a starting point, then generate asm, e.g. using gcc -S and use the generated asm as a template for your own code.
How to write this assembly code as inline assembly? Compiler: gcc(i586-elf-gcc). The GAS syntax confuses me. Please give tell me how to write this as inline assembly that works for gcc.
.set_video_mode:
mov ah,00h
mov al,13h
int 10h
.init_mouse:
mov ax,0
int 33h
Similar one I have in assembly. I wrote them separate as assembly routines to call them from my C program. I need to call these and some more interrupts from C itself.
Also I need to put some values in some registers depending on which interrupt routine I'm calling. Please tell me how to do it.
All that I want to do is call interrupt routines from C. It's OK for me even to do it using int86() but i don't have source code of that function.
I want int86() so that i can call interrupts from C.
I am developing my own tiny OS so i got no restrictions for calling interrupts or for any direct hardware access.
I've not tested this, but it should get you started:
void set_video_mode (int x, int y) {
register int ah asm ("ah") = x;
register int al asm ("al") = y;
asm volatile ("int $0x10"
: /* no outputs */
: /* no inputs */
: /* clobbers */ "ah", "al");
}
I've put in two 'clobbers' as an example, but you'll need to set the correct list of clobbers so that the compiler knows you've overwritten register values (maybe none).
First, keep in mind GCC doesn't support 16-bit code yet, so you'll end up compiling 32-bit code in 16-bit mode, which is very inefficient but doable (it is used, for example, by Linux and SeaBIOS). It can be done with the following at the begging of each file:
__asm__ (".code16gcc");
Newer GCC versions (since 4.9 IIRC) support the -m16 flag that does the same thing.
Also, there's no mouse driver available unless you load it previous to your kernel running init_mouse.
You seem to be using an API commonly available in several x86 DOS.
asm can take care of the register assignments, so the code can be reduced to:
void set_video_mode(int mode)
{
mode &= 255;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"int $0x10"
: "+a" (mode) /* %eax = mode & 255 => %ah = 0, %al = mode */
);
}
void init_mouse(void)
{
/* XXX it is really important to check the IDT entry isn't 0 */
int tmp = 0;
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"int $0x33"
: "+a" (tmp) /* %eax = 0*/
:: "ebx" /* %ebx is also clobbered by DOS mouse drivers */
);
}
The asm statement is documented in the GCC manual, although perhaps not in enough depth and lacks x86 examples. The outputs (after first colon) have a distinctively obscure syntax, while the rest is far easier to understand (the second colon specifies the inputs and the third the clobbered registers, flags and/or memory).
The outputs must be prefixed with =, meaning you don't care the previous value it may have had, or +, meaning you want to use it as an input too. In this context we use that instead of an input because the value is modified by the interrupt and you're not allowed to specify input registers in the clobbered list (because the compiler is forbidden from using them).