Странное поведение с линейной сборкой GCC

Question

При встронении сборки в GCC я регулярно нахожусь, чтобы добавить пустые блоки ASM, чтобы сохранить переменные в более ранних блоках, например:

asm("rcr $1,%[borrow];"
    "movq 0(%[b_],%[i],8),%%rax;"
    "adcq %%rax,0(%[r_top],%[i],8);"
    "rcl $1,%[borrow];"
    : [borrow]"+r"(borrow)
    : [i]"r"(i),[b_]"r"(b_.data),[r_top]"r"(r_top.data)
    : "%rax","%rdx");

asm("" : : "r"(borrow) : ); // work-around to keep borrow alive ...

.

Другой пример странности состоит в том, что код ниже работает отлично без оптимизаций, но с -3 он SEG-неисправности:

ulong carry = 0,hi = 0,qh = s.data[1],ql = s.data[0];
asm("movq 0(%[b]),%%rax;"
    "mulq %[ql];"
    "movq %%rax,0(%[sb]);"
    "movq %%rdx,%[hi];"
    : [hi]"=r"(hi)
    : [ql]"r"(ql),[b]"r"(b.data),[sb]"r"(sb.data)
    : "%rax","%rdx","memory");
for (long i = 1; i < b.size; i++)
{
    asm("movq 0(%[b],%[i],8),%%rax;"
        "mulq %[ql];"
        "xorq %%r10,%%r10;"
        "addq %%rax,%[hi];"
        "adcq %%rdx,%[carry];"
        "adcq $0,%%r10;"
        "movq -8(%[b],%[i],8),%%rax;"
        "mulq %[qh];"
        "addq %%rax,%[hi];"
        "adcq %%rdx,%[carry];"
        "adcq $0,%%r10;"
        "movq %[hi],0(%[sb],%[i],8);"
        "movq %[carry],%[hi];"
        "movq %%r10,%[carry];"
        : [carry]"+r"(carry),[hi]"+r"(hi)
        : [i]"r"(i),[ql]"r"(ql),[qh]"r"(qh),[b]"r"(b.data),[sb]"r"(sb.data)
        : "%rax","%rdx","%r10","memory");
}
asm("movq -8(%[b],%[i],8),%%rax;"
    "mulq %[qh];"
    "addq %%rax,%[hi];"
    "adcq %%rdx,%[carry];"
    "movq %[hi],0(%[sb],%[i],8);"
    "movq %[carry],8(%[sb],%[i],8);"
    : [hi]"+r"(hi),[carry]"+r"(carry)
    : [i]"r"(long(b.size)),[qh]"r"(qh),[b]"r"(b.data),[sb]"r"(sb.data)
    : "%rax","%rdx","memory");

.

Я думаю, что это связано с тем, что он использует так много регистров.Здесь есть что-то, что я не хватает, или выделение реестра просто глючит с помощью встроенной сборки GCC?

Answer 1

What you're missing is that GCC's optimiser will assume that the only side-effect of an asm block is to change the output operands. If those operands are not subsequently used, it may assume that the asm block in unnecessary and can be deleted.

e.g. in your first example, if borrow is not subsequently used, it is free to assume that there is no point in including the asm block at all, because its only side-effect is to update a variable that is never used again. And in the second example, if hi and carry are not used again after the code you've shown, it will probably infer that it can delete pretty much everything!

You can tell GCC that your inline assembly blocks should not be deleted by writing asm volatile(...) instead of just asm(...).

For more detail about this, see http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html (about half-way down the page).