My code is written in C++, and compiled with gcc version 4.7.2.
It's linked with 3rd party library, which is written in C, and compiled with gcc 4.5.2.
My code calls a function initStuff(). During the debug I found out that the value of R15 register before the call to initStuff() is not the same as the value upon return from that function.
As a quick hack I did:
asm(" mov %%r15, %0" : "=r" ( saveR15 ) );
initStuff();
asm(" mov %0, %%r15;" : : "r" (saveR15) );
which seems to work for now.
Who is to blame here? How can I find if it's a compiler issue, or maybe compatibility issue?
gcc on x86-64 follows the System V ABI, which defines r15 as a callee-saved register; any function which uses this register is supposed to save and restore it.
So if this third-party function is not doing so, it is failing to conform to the ABI, and unless this is documented, it is to blame. AFAIK this part of the ABI has been stable forever, so if compiler-generated code (with default options) is failing to save and restore r15, that would be a compiler bug. More likely some part of the third-party code uses assembly language and is buggy, or conceivably it was built with non-standard compiler options.
You can either dig into it, or as a workaround, write a wrapper around it that saves and restores r15. Your current workaround is not really safe, since the compiler might reorder your asm statements with respect to surrounding code. You should instead put the call to initStuff inside a single asm block with the save-and-restore (declaring it as clobbering all caller-saved registers), or write a "naked" assembly wrapper which does the save/restore and call, and call it instead. (Make sure to preserve stack alignment.)
Related
How could I enforce gcc/g++ to not use registers but only stack in x86_64
to pass arguments to functions,
like it was in 32-bit version
(and possibly take the function result this way).
I know it breaks official ABI and both the caller side and the called side
must be compiled this way so it works. I don't care if push/pop or mov/sub way
is used. I expect there should be a flag to compiler that could enforce it
but I couldn't find it.
It seems you can't without hacking GCC's source code.
There is no standard x86-64 calling convention that uses inefficient stack args.
GCC only knows how to use standard calling conventions, in this case x86-64 SysV and MS Windows fastcall and vectorcall. (e.g. __attribute__((ms_abi)) or vectorcall). Normally nobody wants this; MS's calling convention is already friendly enough for wrappers or variadic functions. You can use that for some functions (controlled by __attribute__) even when compiling for Linux, MacOS, *BSD, etc., if that helps. Hard to imagine a use-case for pure stack args.
GCC lets you specify a register as fixed (never touched by GCC, like -ffixed-rdi), call-clobbered, or call-preserved. But using those with arg-passing registers just creates wrong code, not what you want.
e.g.
int foo(int a, int b, int c);
void caller(int x) {
foo(1,2,3);
//foo(4,x,6);
}
compiled by gcc9.2 -O3 -fcall-saved-rdi
caller:
push rdi
mov edx, 3
mov esi, 2
pop rdi
jmp foo
It saves/restores RDI but doesn't put a 1 in it before calling foo.
And it doesn't leave RDI out of the arg-passing sequence and bump other args later. (I was thinking you might be able to invent a calling convention where all the arg-passing registers were fixed or call-saved, maybe getting GCC to fall back to stack args. But nope.)
I saw the code of switch_to in the article "Evolution of the x86 context switch in Linux" in the link https://www.maizure.org/projects/evolution_x86_context_switch_linux/
Most versions of switch_to only save/restore ESP/RSP and/or EBP/RBP, not other call-preserved registers in the inline asm. But the Linux 2.2.0 version does save them in this function, because it uses software context switching instead of relying on hardware TSS stuff. Later Linux versions still do software context switching, but don't have these push / pop instructions.
Are the registers are saved in other function (maybe in the schedule() function)? Or is there no need to save these registers in the kernel context?
(I know that those registers of the user context are saved in the kernel stack when the system enters kernel mode).
Linux versions before 2.2.0 use hardware task switching, where the TSS saves/restores registers for you. That's what the "ljmp %0\n\t" is doing. (ljmp is AT&T syntax for a far jmp, presumably to a task gate). I'm not really familiar with hardware TSS stuff because it's not very relevant; it's still used in modern kernels for getting RSP pointing to the kernel stack for interrupt handlers, but not for context switching between tasks.
Hardware task switching is slow, so later kernels avoid it. Linux 2.2 does save/restore the call-preserved registers manually, with push/pop before/after swapping stacks. EAX, EDX, and ECX are declared as dummy outputs ("=a" (eax), "=d" (edx), "=c" (ecx)) so the compiler knows that the old values of those registers are no longer available.
This is a sensible choice because switch_to is probably used inside a non-inline function. The caller will make a function call that eventually returns (after running another task for a while) with the call-preserved registers restored, and the call-clobbered registers clobbered, just like a regular function call. (So compiler code-gen for the function that uses the switch_to macro doesn't need to emit save/restore code outside of the inline asm). If you think about writing a whole context switch function in asm (not inline asm), you'd get this clobbering of volatile registers for free because callers expect that.
So how do later kernels avoid saving/restoring those registers in inline asm?
Linux 2.4 uses "=b" (last) as an output operand, so the compiler has to save/restore EBX in a function that uses this asm. The asm still saves/restores ESI, EDI, and EBP (as well as ESP). The text of the article notes this:
The 2.4 kernel context switch brings a few minor changes: EBX is no longer pushed/popped, but it is now included in the output of the inline assembly. We have a new input argument.
I don't see where they tell the compiler about EAX, ECX, and EDX not surviving, so that's odd. It might be a bug that they get away with by making the function noinline or something?
Linux 2.6 on i386 uses more output operands that get the compiler to handle the save/restore.
But Linux 2.6 for x86-64 introduces the trick that hands off the save/restore to the compiler easily: #define __EXTRA_CLOBBER ,"rcx","rbx","rdx","r8","r9","r10", "r11","r12","r13","r14","r15"
Notice the clobbers declaration: : "memory", "cc" __EXTRA_CLOBBER
This tells the compiler that the inline asm destroys all those registers, so the compiler will emit instructions to save/restore these registers at the start/end of whatever function switch_to ultimately inlines into.
Telling the compiler that all the registers are destroyed after a context switch solves the same problem as manually saving/restoring them with inline asm. The compiler will still make a function that obeys the calling convention.
The context-switch swaps to the new task's stack, so the compiler-generated save/restore code is always running with the appropriate stack pointer. Notice that the explicit push/pop instructions inside the inline asm int Linux 2.2 and 2.4 are before / after everything else.
I have an application I have written in C where I really need to modify the value of one of the processor registers before calling a function. Normally I would do this with inline assembly, but as we all know that has been removed for 64 bit applications. I also cannot do this in a separate .asm file that is compiled with ml64 due to certain project constraints. So basically I need to execute the equivalent of the following code inline:
_asm mov r10d, 0xDEADBEEF
Does anyone know of a creative method or some other compiler intrinsic for x64 that will allow you to modify the value of a register inline?
Unfortunately, after looking at possible workarounds, it seems that Hans was right and it's simply not possible to modify the contents of a register inline. There is no compiler intrinsic that exists to do it and the only alternative is to either write the entire function in 64 bit assembly as a separate .asm file and compile it with ml64, or do as Alexey suggested and allocate an executable block of memory before hand and write the opcodes to it. You can then create a function pointer and just call this code directly. So for example, if I wanted to do the equivalent of:
mov r10d, ecx
ret
Just create an array to store the opcodes:
BYTE copyValueToR10[] = "\x44\x8B\xD1\xC3";
You can then VirtualAlloc memory for this tiny function with PAGE_EXECUTE protection. Next just create a function pointer and you're good to go. Definitely a dirty way to do it, but given the constraints of not having inline asm or wanting to compile using ml64, this seems to be the only other way to do it.
I have an inline AT&T style assembly block, which works with XMM registers and there are no problems in Release configuration of my XCode project, however I've stumbled upon this strange error (which is supposedly a GCC bug) in Debug configuration... Can I fix it somehow? There is nothing special in assembly code, but I am using a lot of memory constraints (12 constraints), can this cause this problem?
Not a complete answer, sorry, but the comments section is too short for this ...
Can you post a sample asm("..." :::) line that demonstrates the problem ?
The use of XMM registers is not the issue, the error message indicates that GCC wanted to create code like, say:
movdqa (%rax),%xmm0
i.e. memory loads/stores through pointers held in general registers, and you specified more memory locations than available general-purpose regs (it's probably 12 in debug mode because because RBP, RSP are used for frame/stackpointer and likely RBX for the global offset table and RAX reserved for returns) without realizing register re-use potential.
You might be able to eek things out by doing something like:
void *all_mem_args_tbl[16] = { memarg1, memarg2, ... };
void *trashme;
asm ("movq (%0), %1\n\t"
"movdqa (%1), %xmm0\n\t"
"movq 8(%0), %1\n\t"
"movdqa (%1), %xmm1\n\t"
...
: "r"all_mem_args_tbl : "r"(trashme) : ...);
i.e. put all the mem locations into a table that you pass as operand, and then manage the actual general-purpose register use on your own. It might be two pointer accesses through the indirection table, but whether that makes a difference is hard to say without knowing your complete assembler code piece.
The Debug configuration uses -O0 by default. Since this flag disables optimisations, the compiler is probably not being able to allocate registers given the constraints specified by your inline assembly code, resulting in register starvation.
One solution is to specify a different optimisation level, e.g. -Os, which is the one used by default in the Release configuration.
I never thought I'd be posting an assembly question. :-)
In GCC, there is an extended version of the asm function. This function can take four parameters: assembly-code, output-list, input-list and overwrite-list.
My question is, are the registers in the overwrite-list zeroed out? What happens to the values that were previously in there (from other code executing).
Update: In considering my answers thus far (thank you!), I want to add that though a register is listed in the clobber-list, it (in my instance) is being used in a pop (popl) command. There is no other reference.
No, they are not zeroed out. The purpose of the overwrite list (more commonly called the clobber list) is to inform GCC that, as a result of the asm instructions the register(s) listed in the clobber list will be modified, and so the compiler should preserve any which are currently live.
For example, on x86 the cpuid instruction returns information in four parts using four fixed registers: %eax, %ebx, %ecx and %edx, based on the input value of %eax. If we were only interested in the result in %eax and %ebx, then we might (naively) write:
int input_res1 = 0; // also used for first part of result
int res2;
__asm__("cpuid" : "+a"(input_res1), "=b"(res2) );
This would get the first and second parts of the result in C variables input_res1 and res2; however if GCC was using %ecx and %edx to hold other data; they would be overwritten by the cpuid instruction without gcc knowing. To prevent this; we use the clobber list:
int input_res1 = 0; // also used for first part of result
int res2;
__asm__("cpuid" : "+a"(input_res1), "=b"(res2)
: : "%ecx", "%edx" );
As we have told GCC that %ecx and %edx will be overwritten by this asm call, it can handle the situation correctly - either by not using %ecx or %edx, or by saving their values to the stack before the asm function and restoring after.
Update:
With regards to your second question (why you are seeing a register listed in the clobber list for a popl instruction) - assuming your asm looks something like:
__asm__("popl %eax" : : : "%eax" );
Then the code here is popping an item off the stack, however it doesn't care about the actual value - it's probably just keeping the stack balanced, or the value isn't needed in this code path. By writing this way, as opposed to:
int trash // don't ever use this.
__asm__("popl %0" : "=r"(trash));
You don't have to explicitly create a temporary variable to hold the unwanted value. Admittedly in this case there isn't a huge difference between the two, but the version with the clobber makes it clear that you don't care about the value from the stack.
If by "zeroed out" you mean "the values in the registers are replaced with 0's to prevent me from knowing what some other function was doing" then no, the registers are not zeroed out before use. But it shouldn't matter because you're telling GCC you plan to store information there, not that you want to read information that's currently there.
You give this information to GCC so that (reading the documentation) "you need not guess which registers or memory locations will contain the data you want to use" when you're finished with the assembly code (eg., you don't have to remember if the data will be in the stack register, or some other register).
GCC needs a lot of help for assembly code because "The compiler ... does not parse the assembler instruction template and does not know what it means or even whether it is valid assembler input. The extended asm feature is most often used for machine instructions the compiler itself does not know exist."
Update
GCC is designed as a multi-pass compiler. Many of the passes are in fact entirely different programs. A set of programs forming "the compiler" translate your source from C, C++, Ada, Java, etc. into assembly code. Then a separate program (gas, for GNU Assembler) takes that assembly code and turns it into a binary (and then ld and collect2 do more things to the binary). Assembly blocks exist to pass text directly to gas, and the clobber-list (and input list) exist so that the compiler can do whatever set up is needed to pass information between the C, C++, Ada, Java, etc. side of things and the gas side of things, and to guarantee that any important information currently in registers can be protected from the assembly block by copying it to memory before the assembly block runs (and copying back from memory afterward).
The alternative would be to save and restore every register for every assembly code block. On a RISC machine with a large number of registers that could get expensive (the Itanium has 128 general registers, another 128 floating point registers and 64 1-bit registers, for instance).
It's been a while since I've written any assembly code. And I have much more experience using GCC's named registers feature than doing things with specific registers. So, looking at an example:
#include <stdio.h>
long foo(long l)
{
long result;
asm (
"movl %[l], %[reg];"
"incl %[reg];"
: [reg] "=r" (result)
: [l] "r" (l)
);
return result;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
printf("%ld\n", foo(5L));
}
I have asked for an output register, which I will call reg inside the assembly code, and that GCC will automatically copy to the result variable on completion. There is no need to give this variable different names in C code vs assembly code; I only did it to show that it is possible. Whichever physical register GCC decides to use -- whether it's %%eax, %%ebx, %%ecx, etc. -- GCC will take care of copying any important data from that register into memory when I enter the assembly block so that I have full use of that register until the end of the assembly block.
I have also asked for an input register, which I will call l both in C and in assembly. GCC promises that whatever physical register it decides to give me will have the value currently in the C variable l when I enter the assembly block. GCC will also do any needed recordkeeping to protect any data that happens to be in that register before I enter the assembly block.
What if I add a line to the assembly code? Say:
"addl %[reg], %%ecx;"
Since the compiler part of GCC doesn't check the assembly code it won't have protected the data in %%ecx. If I'm lucky, %%ecx may happen to be one of the registers GCC decided to use for %[reg] or %[l]. If I'm not lucky, I will have "mysteriously" changed a value in some other part of my program.
I suspect the overwrite list is just to give GCC a hint not to store anything of value in these registers across the ASM call; since GCC doesn't analyze what ASM you're giving it, and certain instructions have side-effects that touch other registers not explicitly named in the code, this is the way to tell GCC about it.