Why do I find some never called instructions nopl, nopw after ret or jmp in GCC compiled code? [duplicate] - gcc

Question

I've been working with C for a short while and very recently started to get into ASM. When I compile a program:
int main(void)
{
int a = 0;
a += 1;
return 0;
}
The objdump disassembly has the code, but nops after the ret:
...
08048394 <main>:
8048394: 55 push %ebp
8048395: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
8048397: 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%esp
804839a: c7 45 fc 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,-0x4(%ebp)
80483a1: 83 45 fc 01 addl $0x1,-0x4(%ebp)
80483a5: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
80483aa: c9 leave
80483ab: c3 ret
80483ac: 90 nop
80483ad: 90 nop
80483ae: 90 nop
80483af: 90 nop
...
From what I learned nops do nothing, and since after ret wouldn't even be executed.
My question is: why bother? Couldn't ELF(linux-x86) work with a .text section(+main) of any size?
I'd appreciate any help, just trying to learn.

Answer 1

First of all, gcc doesn't always do this. The padding is controlled by -falign-functions, which is automatically turned on by -O2 and -O3:
-falign-functions
-falign-functions=n
Align the start of functions to the next power-of-two greater than n, skipping up to n bytes. For instance,
-falign-functions=32 aligns functions to the next 32-byte boundary, but -falign-functions=24 would align to the next 32-byte boundary only
if this can be done by skipping 23 bytes or less.
-fno-align-functions and -falign-functions=1 are equivalent and mean that functions will not be aligned.
Some assemblers only support this flag when n is a power of two; in
that case, it is rounded up.
If n is not specified or is zero, use a machine-dependent default.
Enabled at levels -O2, -O3.
There could be multiple reasons for doing this, but the main one on x86 is probably this:
Most processors fetch instructions in aligned 16-byte or 32-byte blocks. It can be
advantageous to align critical loop entries and subroutine entries by 16 in order to minimize
the number of 16-byte boundaries in the code. Alternatively, make sure that there is no 16-byte boundary in the first few instructions after a critical loop entry or subroutine entry.
(Quoted from "Optimizing subroutines in assembly
language" by Agner Fog.)
edit: Here is an example that demonstrates the padding:
// align.c
int f(void) { return 0; }
int g(void) { return 0; }
When compiled using gcc 4.4.5 with default settings, I get:
align.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000000000 <f>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
9: c9 leaveq
a: c3 retq
000000000000000b <g>:
b: 55 push %rbp
c: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
f: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
14: c9 leaveq
15: c3 retq
Specifying -falign-functions gives:
align.o: file format elf64-x86-64
Disassembly of section .text:
0000000000000000 <f>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
9: c9 leaveq
a: c3 retq
b: eb 03 jmp 10 <g>
d: 90 nop
e: 90 nop
f: 90 nop
0000000000000010 <g>:
10: 55 push %rbp
11: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
14: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
19: c9 leaveq
1a: c3 retq

Answer 2

This is done to align the next function by 8, 16 or 32-byte boundary.
From “Optimizing subroutines in assembly language” by A.Fog:
11.5 Alignment of code
Most microprocessors fetch code in aligned 16-byte or 32-byte blocks. If an importantsubroutine entry or jump label happens to be near the end of a 16-byte block then themicroprocessor will only get a few useful bytes of code when fetching that block of code. Itmay have to fetch the next 16 bytes too before it can decode the first instructions after thelabel. This can be avoided by aligning important subroutine entries and loop entries by 16.
[...]
Aligning a subroutine entry is as simple as putting as many
NOP
's as needed before thesubroutine entry to make the address divisible by 8, 16, 32 or 64, as desired.

Answer 3

As far as I remember, instructions are pipelined in cpu and different cpu blocks (loader, decoder and such) process subsequent instructions. When RET instructions is being executed, few next instructions are already loaded into cpu pipeline. It's a guess, but you can start digging here and if you find out (maybe the specific number of NOPs that are safe, share your findings please.