C++ to Assembly: Convert, Interpret & Understand

  • Context: C/C++ 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ladesidude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Assembly C++
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conversion of a simple C++ function to its corresponding assembly code. Participants explore the assembly instructions, their meanings, and the implications of different calling conventions and optimizations. The conversation includes technical explanations and clarifications regarding assembly syntax and functionality.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant provides a C++ function and its assembly translation, asking for feedback on the accuracy of their comments on the assembly code.
  • Another participant confirms the correctness of the comment regarding the "leal" instruction and notes that some assembly code is missing, suggesting additional instructions that should precede the provided code.
  • There is a discussion about the differences in syntax between Intel and other assembly standards, particularly regarding operand ordering and size indications.
  • One participant questions the purpose of translating the function to assembly, suggesting it may be an exercise without practical application.
  • A later reply emphasizes that many C++ compilers can generate assembly code, suggesting participants check their compiler's manual for options to output assembly code.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the technical aspects of the assembly code and its interpretation, but there is a disagreement regarding the utility of translating the function to assembly, with some viewing it as potentially unnecessary.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of different calling conventions and optimizations that may affect how parameters are passed and how assembly code is generated, indicating that the discussion is context-dependent on compiler behavior and settings.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in C++ programming, assembly language, compiler design, and low-level programming may find this discussion relevant.

ladesidude
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I have this small function in C++

void myfunc(int a, int b) {
int c = 1;
int d = 2;
c += b;
d += a;
return;

}

the assembly code and my comments follow:

subl $8, %esp ;; subtract 8 from %esp, what we are doing here is decrementing the stack pointer by 8 and then writing the value at the new top of stack address, used for allocating space for local variables.

movl $1, -4(%ebp) ;; copy 1 (which is the values stored in y) at the location using %ebp as the base address with an offset -4, the register is a pointer, the displacement specified how far from the pointer

movl $2, -8(%ebp) ;; copy 2 (which is the value stored in z) at the location using %ebp as the base address with an offset -8, the register is a pointer, the displacement specified how far from the pointer

movl 12(%ebp), %edx ;; copy what is at %ebp + offset 12 into %edx, what this means that the last instruction pushed to the stack is copied to %edx

leal -4(%ebp), %eax ;; this is a variant of movl and instead of copying the data at %ebp + offset -4, its storing the effective address into the destination

addl %edx, (%eax)

movl 8(%ebp), %edx

leal -8(%ebp), %eax

addl %edx, (%eax)


Am I correct in the comments of the lines, if not can someone please help me, also I am confused on leal. Thanks a bunch
 
Technology news on Phys.org
Your comment on the first leal is correct, it's a load effective address instruction.

Some of the assembly code is missing. There shoud be a push ebp, then a mov esp,ebp, before the first instruction you have. After this, [epb+0] = original ebp, [epb+4] = return address, [ebp+8] = first function parameter, [ebp+12] = second function parameter. [ebp-4] = first local variable, [ebp-8] = second local variable.

Note that this syntax is reversed from the Intel standard, where the operands are ordered as destination, source. Also the "l" such as movl, aren't used in the Intel standard, since operand size is determined by register name or specific declartion (dx or word ptr for 16 bit, edx or dword ptr for 32 bit, rdx or qword ptr for 64 bit).

Depending on the level of optimization, some of the function parameters are in registers instead on the stack. Microsoft has _fastcall convention as an option for 32 bit code. For 64 bit code in Microsoft environment the variations were done away with and the convention is similar to the _fastcall convention of 32 bit code, were the first 4 parameters are located in registers. Even though the parameters are located in registers, rsp is subtracted as if the paramters were passed on the stack, as a default place to store the parameters if the called function wishes to use the space.
 
This function doesn't in fact do anything, what is the sense of translating it to assembly? Or is it just an "art for art's sake" exercise?
 
Jeff Reid said:
Your comment on the first leal is correct, it's a load effective address instruction.

Some of the assembly code is missing. There shoud be a push ebp, then a mov esp,ebp, before the first instruction you have. After this, [epb+0] = original ebp, [epb+4] = return address, [ebp+8] = first function parameter, [ebp+12] = second function parameter. [ebp-4] = first local variable, [ebp-8] = second local variable.

Note that this syntax is reversed from the Intel standard, where the operands are ordered as destination, source. Also the "l" such as movl, aren't used in the Intel standard, since operand size is determined by register name or specific declartion (dx or word ptr for 16 bit, edx or dword ptr for 32 bit, rdx or qword ptr for 64 bit).

Depending on the level of optimization, some of the function parameters are in registers instead on the stack. Microsoft has _fastcall convention as an option for 32 bit code. For 64 bit code in Microsoft environment the variations were done away with and the convention is similar to the _fastcall convention of 32 bit code, were the first 4 parameters are located in registers. Even though the parameters are located in registers, rsp is subtracted as if the paramters were passed on the stack, as a default place to store the parameters if the called function wishes to use the space.
great answer, through I'm only familar with the intel standard.
 
Most C++ compilers can generate assembly code as output. To see what Jeff means by "missing" look into your compiler's manual to find the options to create asm as the endpoint of compilation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K