Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.compilers > #3339

Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C

From anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups comp.compilers
Subject Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C
Date 2023-01-22 09:56 +0000
Organization Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID <23-01-071@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <23-01-041@comp.compilers> <23-01-062@comp.compilers> <23-01-065@comp.compilers> <23-01-067@comp.compilers> <23-01-069@comp.compilers>

Show all headers | View raw


anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>AMD64 specifies zero-extension for both signed
>and unsigned ints (and has instructions that generate zero-extended
>results).

Looking at <https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/elf/x86_64-abi-0.99.pdf>, I
find no such specification.  However, compilers certainly behave in
that way.  E.g., for

int add (int a, int b)
{
    return a+b;
}

gcc generates:

   0:   8d 04 37                lea    (%rdi,%rsi,1),%eax
   3:   c3                      retq

which zero-extends the result.  This certainly rules out an ABI that
requires sign-extension for signed integers.

One interesting case is:

long add (unsigned a, long b)
{
    return a+b;
}

which gcc compiles into

   0:   89 ff                   mov    %edi,%edi
   2:   48 8d 04 37             lea    (%rdi,%rsi,1),%rax
   6:   c3                      retq

What's the point of the MOV instruction here?  It performs a
32->64-bit zero extension of %rdi.  So gcc apparently assumes that
passed operands are garbage-extended on AMD64.  Or maybe gcc is just
cautious here.  Another test:

unsigned bar(int x);

unsigned long foo(long x)
{
  return bar(x);
}

gcc -O compiles this to:

   0:   48 83 ec 08             sub    $0x8,%rsp
   4:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  9 <foo+0x9>
   9:   89 c0                   mov    %eax,%eax
   b:   48 83 c4 08             add    $0x8,%rsp
   f:   c3                      retq

There is no zero or sign-extension on passing x to bar(), so the value
is passed garbage-extended.  There is a zero extension for converting
the return value unsigned long, so gcc assumes that the return value
of bar is not necessarily zero-extended.

Conclusion: In the System V ABI for AMD64, values are passed around
garbage-extended (in the general case).

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C "Lucian Popescu" <lucic71@ctrl-c.club> - 2023-01-05 10:05 +0000
  RE: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C "Nuno Lopes" <nuno.lopes@tecnico.ulisboa.pt> - 2023-01-05 10:24 +0000
  Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 18:06 +0000
    Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-05 16:22 -0800
      Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2023-01-06 08:41 +0000
      Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 16:12 +0100
        Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-06 10:33 -0800
          Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-06 11:39 -0800
          Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-07 12:10 +0000
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2023-01-13 20:46 +0000
        Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-09 10:14 +0000
          Re: Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Jon Chesterfield <jonathanchesterfield@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 10:46 +0000
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-01-11 09:34 +0000
              Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-12 05:21 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-12 12:21 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-01-12 21:50 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-15 04:17 +0000
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 14:20 +0100
              Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-18 13:14 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-18 21:14 +0100
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-18 21:10 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-20 10:45 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-20 13:54 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-23 18:50 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in Fortran "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2023-01-26 21:12 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in Fortran gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-26 17:50 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 21:18 -0800
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2023-01-20 20:42 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2023-01-21 11:54 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2023-01-22 09:56 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-22 07:04 +0000
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2023-01-23 17:12 +0000
          Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 17:32 +0100
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-10 15:57 -0800
              Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 14:40 +0100
                Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2023-01-11 16:09 -0800
            Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2023-01-28 10:35 -0500
  Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2023-01-06 07:47 +0000
  Re: Undefined Behavior Optimizations in C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-09 09:10 +0000

csiph-web