Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • The following content is provided under a Creative

  • Commons license.

  • Your support will help MIT Open Courseware

  • continue to offer high quality educational resources for free.

  • To make a donation or to view additional materials

  • from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseware

  • at ocw.mit.edu.

  • JULIAN SHUN: Good afternoon, everyone.

  • So today, we have TB Schardl here.

  • He's going to give us the lecture on C to assembly.

  • So TB's a research scientist here at MIT

  • working with Charles Leiserson.

  • He also taught this class with me last year,

  • and he got one of the best ratings ever for this class.

  • So I'm really looking forward to his lecture.

  • TAO SCHARDL: All right, great.

  • So thank you for the introduction, Julian.

  • So I hear you just submitted the beta for project 1.

  • Hopefully, that went pretty well.

  • How many of you slept in the last 24 hours?

  • OK, good.

  • All right, so it went pretty well.

  • That sounds great.

  • Yeah, so today, we're going to be talking about C to assembly.

  • And this is really a continuation

  • from the topic of last lecture, where

  • you saw computer architecture, if I understand correctly.

  • Is that right?

  • You looked at computer architecture, x86-64 assembly,

  • that sort of thing.

  • So how many of you walked away from that lecture thinking, oh

  • yeah, x86-64 assembly, this is easy?

  • This is totally intuitive.

  • Everything makes perfect sense.

  • There's no weirdness going on here whatsoever.

  • How many of you walked away not thinking that?

  • Thinking that perhaps this is a little bit strange,

  • this whole assembly language.

  • Yeah, I'm really in the later cab. x86 is

  • kind of a strange beast.

  • There are things in there that make no sense.

  • Quad word has 8 bytes.

  • P stands for integer, that sort of thing.

  • So when we move on to the topic of seeing how C code gets

  • translated into assembly, we're translating

  • into something that's already pretty complicated.

  • And the translation itself isn't going

  • to be that straightforward.

  • So we're going to have to find a way to work through that.

  • And I'll outline the strategy that we'll

  • be using in the start of this presentation.

  • But first, let's quickly review.

  • Why do we care about looking at assembly?

  • You should have seen this slide from the last lecture.

  • But essentially, assembly is a more precise representation

  • of the program than the C code itself.

  • And if you look at the assembly, that

  • can reveal details about the program that are not obvious

  • when you just look at the C code directly.

  • There are implicit things going on in the C code,

  • such as type cast or the usage of registers

  • versus memory on the machine.

  • And those can have performance implications.

  • So it's valuable to take a look at the assembly code directly.

  • It can also reveal what the compiler did or did not

  • do when it tried to optimize the program.

  • For example, you may have written a division operation

  • or a multiply operation.

  • But somehow, the compiler figured out

  • that it didn't really need to do a divide

  • or multiply to implement that operation.

  • It could implement it more quickly using simpler, faster

  • operations, like addition and subtraction or shift.

  • And you would be able to see that

  • from looking at the assembly.

  • Bugs can also arise only at a low level.

  • For example, there may be a bug in the program that only

  • creates unexpected behavior when you optimize the code at 03.

  • So that means, when you're debugging and with that OG

  • or -01, you wouldn't see any unusual behaviors.

  • But when you crank up the optimization level,

  • suddenly, things start to fall apart.

  • Because the C code itself didn't change,

  • it can be hard to spot those bugs.

  • Looking at the assembly can help out in that regard.

  • And when worse comes to worse, if you really

  • want to make your code fast, it is

  • possible to modify the assembly code by hand.

  • One of my favorite uses of looking at the assembly,

  • though, is actually reverse engineering.

  • If you can read the assembly for some code,

  • you can actually decipher what that program does,

  • even when you only have access to the binary of that program,

  • which is kind of a cool thing.

  • It takes some practice to read assembly at that level.

  • One trick that some of us in Professor Leiserson's research

  • group have used in the past to say

  • figure out what Intel's Math Kernel Library

  • is doing to multiply matrices.

  • Now, as I mentioned before, at the end of last lecture,

  • you saw some computer architecture.

  • And you saw the basics of x86-64 assembly,

  • including all the stuff, like the instructions,

  • the registers, the various data types, memory addressing modes,

  • the RFLAGS registered with those condition codes,

  • and that sort of thing.

  • And today, we want to talk about how C code gets implemented

  • in that assembly language.

  • OK, well, if we consider how C code becomes assembly

  • and what that process actually looks like,

  • we know that there is a compiler involved.

  • And the compiler is a pretty sophisticated piece

  • of software.

  • And, frankly, the compiler has a lot of work

  • to do in order to translate a C program into assembly.

  • For example, it has to choose what assembly instructions are

  • going to be used to implement those C operations.

  • It has to implement C conditionals and loops--

  • those if, then, elses and those for and why loops--

  • into jumps and branches.

  • It has to choose registers and memory locations

  • to store all of the data in the program.

  • It may have to move data among the registers and the memory

  • locations in order to satisfy various data dependencies.

  • It has to coordinate all the function calls that

  • happen when subroutine A calls B and calls C, and then returns,

  • and so on and so forth.

  • And on top of that, these days, we

  • expect our compiler to try really

  • hard to make that code fast.

  • So that's a lot of work that the compiler has to do.

  • And as a result, if we take a look

  • at the assembly for any arbitrary piece of C code,

  • the mapping from that C code to the assembly

  • is not exactly obvious, which makes

  • it hard to execute this particular lecture and hard to,

  • in general, read the binary or the assembly for some program

  • and figure out what's really going on.

  • So what we're going to do today to understand this translation

  • process is we're going to take a look at how

  • that compiler actually reasons about translating

  • C code into assembly.

  • Now this is not a compiler class.

  • 6172 is not a class you take if you want to learn

  • how to build a compiler.

  • And you're not going to need to know everything

  • about a compiler to follow today's lecture.

  • But what we will see is just a little bit about

  • how the compiler understands a program

  • and, later on, how the compiler can translate that program

  • into assembly code.

  • Now when a compiler compiles a program,

  • it does so through a sequence of stages, which

  • are illustrated on this slide.

  • Starting from the C code, it first pre-processes that code,

  • dealing with all the macros.

  • And that produces a pre-process source.

  • Then the compiler will translate that source code

  • into an intermediate representation.

  • For the client compiler that you're using,

  • that intermediate representation is called LLVM IR.

  • LLVM being the name of the underlying compiler,

  • and IR being the creative name for the intermediate

  • representation.

  • That LLVM IR is really a sort of pseudo-assembly.

  • It's kind of like assembly, but as we'll see,

  • it's actually a lot simpler than x86-64 assembly.

  • And that's why we'll use it to understand this translation

  • process.

  • Now it turns out that the compiler

  • does a whole lot of work on that intermediate representation.

  • We're not going to worry about that today.

  • We'll just skip to the end of this pipeline

  • when the compiler translates LLVM IR into assembly code.

  • Now the nice thing about taking a look at the LLVM IR

  • is that If you're curious, you can actually

  • follow along with the compiler.

  • It is possible to ask clang to compile your code

  • and give you the LLVM IR rather than the assembly.

  • And the flags to do that are somewhat familiar.

  • Rather than passing the dash s flag, which, hopefully, you've

  • already seen, that will translate C code directly

  • into assembly.

  • If you pass dash s dash omit LLVM,

  • that will produce the LLVM IR.

  • You can also ask clang to translate LLVM IR itself

  • directly into assembly code, and that process

  • is pretty straightforward.

  • You just use the dash S flag once again.

  • So this is the outline of today's lecture.

  • First, we're going to start with a simple primer on LLVM IR.

  • I know that LLVM IR sounds like another language.

  • Oh, gosh, we have to learn another language.

  • But don't worry.

  • This primer, I would say, is simpler than the x86-64 primer.

  • Based on the slides, for x86-64, that primer

  • was 20-some slides long.

  • This primer is six slides, so maybe a little over a quarter.

  • Then we'll take a look at how the various constructs in the C

  • programming language get translated into LLVM IR,

  • including straight line code, C functions, conditionals--

  • in other words, if, then, else--

  • loops.

  • And we'll conclude that section with just a brief mention

  • of LLVM IR attributes.

  • And finally, we'll take a look at how LLVM IR gets

  • translated into assembly.

  • And for that, we'll have to focus

  • on what's called the Linux x86-64 calling convention.

  • And we'll conclude with a case study, where

  • we see how this whole process works on a very simple code

  • to compute Fibonacci numbers.

  • Any questions so far?

  • All right, let's get started.

  • Brief primer on LLVM IR--

  • so I've shown this in smaller font on some previous slides,

  • but here is a snippet of LLVM IR code.

  • In particular, this is one function

  • within an LLVM IR file.

  • And just from looking at this code,

  • we can see a couple of the basic components of LLVM IR.

  • In LLVM IR, we have functions.

  • That's how code is organized into these chunks--

  • chunks called functions.

  • And within each function, the operations of the function

  • are encoded within instructions.

  • And each instruction shows up, at least on this slide,

  • on a separate line.

  • Those functions operate on what are called LLVM IR registers.

  • These are kind of like the variables.

  • And each of those variables has some associated type.

  • So the types are actually explicit within the IR.

  • And we'll take a look at the types in more

  • detail in a couple of slides.

  • So based on that high-level overview,

  • we can do a little bit of a comparison between LLVM

  • IR and assembly language.

  • The first thing that we see is that it looks kind

  • of similar to assembly, right?

  • It still has a simple instruction format.

  • There is some destination operand, which

  • we are calling a register.

  • And then there is an equal sign and then an op code, be it add,

  • or call, or what have you, and then

  • some list of source operations.

  • That's roughly what each instruction looks like.

  • We can also see that the LLVM IR code, it'll turn out.

  • The LLVM IR code adopts a similar structure

  • to the assembly code itself.

  • And control flow, once again, is implemented

  • using conditional branches, as well as unconditional branches.

  • But one thing that we'll notice is that LLVM IR

  • is simpler than assembly.

  • It has a much smaller instruction set.

  • And unlike assembly language, LLVM IR

  • supports an infinite number of registers.

  • If you can name it, it's a register.

  • So in that sense, LLVM's notion of registers

  • is a lot closer to C's notion of variables.

  • And when you read LLVM IR, and you see those registers,

  • you should just think about C variables.

  • There's no implicit RFLAGS register, and there no implicit

  • condition codes going on.

  • Everything is pretty explicit in terms of the LLVM.

  • There's no explicit stack pointer or frame pointer.

  • There's a type system that's explicit in the IR itself.

  • And it's C like in nature, and there

  • are C-like functions for organizing the code overall.

  • So let's take a look at each of these components,

  • starting with LLVM IR registers.

  • This is basically LLVM's name for a variable.

  • All of the data in LLVM IR is stored in these variables,

  • which are called registers.

  • And the syntax is a percent symbol followed by a name.

  • So %0, %1, %2, that sort of thing.

  • And as I mentioned before, LLVM IR registers

  • are a lot like c variables.

  • LLVM supports an infinite number of these things,

  • and each distinct register is just distinguished by its name.

  • So %0 is different from %1, because they have different

  • names.

  • Register names are also local to each LLVM IR function.

  • And in this regard, they're also similar to C variables.

  • If you wrote a C program with two functions, A and B,

  • and each function had a local variable apple,

  • those are two different apples.

  • The apple in A is not the same thing as the apple in B.

  • Similarly, if you had two different LLVM IR functions,

  • and they both described some register five,

  • those are two different variables.

  • They're not automatically aliased.

  • So here's an example of an LLVM IR snippet.

  • And what we've done here is just highlighted

  • all of the registers.

  • Some of them are being assigned, because they're

  • on the left-hand side of an equal symbol.

  • And some of them are being used as arguments when they show up

  • on the right-hand side.

  • There is one catch, which we'll see later on, namely

  • that the syntax for LLVM registers

  • ends up being hijacked when LLVM needs to refer

  • to different basic blocks.

  • We haven't defined basic blocks yet.

  • We'll see what that's all about in just a couple of slides.

  • Everyone good so far?

  • So LLVM IR code is organized into instructions,

  • and the syntax for these instructions

  • is pretty straightforward.

  • We have a register name on the left-hand side,

  • then an equal symbol, and then and op code,

  • followed by an operand list.

  • For example, the top highlight instruction

  • has register six equal to add of sum arguments.

  • And we'll see a little bit more about those arguments later.

  • That's the syntax for when an instruction actually

  • returns some value.

  • So addition returns the sum of the two operands.

  • Other instructions don't return a value, per se,

  • not a value that you'd store in a local register.

  • And so the syntax for those instructions

  • is just an op code followed by a list of operands.

  • Ironically, the return instruction

  • that you'd find at the end of a function

  • doesn't assign a particular register value.

  • And of course, the operands can be either registers,

  • or constants, or, as we'll see later on,

  • they can identify basic blocks within the function.

  • The LLVM IR instruction set is smaller than that of x86.

  • x86 contains hundreds of instructions

  • when you start counting up all the vector instructions.

  • And LLVM IR is far more modest in that regard.

  • There's some instructions for data movements,

  • including stack allocation, reading memory, writing memory,

  • converting between types.

  • Yeah, that's pretty much it.

  • There are some instructions for doing arithmetic or logic,

  • including integer arithmetic, floating-point arithmetic,

  • Boolean logic, binary logic, or address calculations.

  • And then there are a couple of instructions

  • to do control flow.

  • There are unconditional branches or jumps,

  • conditional branches or jumps, subroutines--

  • that's call or return--

  • and then there's this magical phi function,

  • which we'll see more of later on in these slides.

  • Finally, as I mentioned before, everything in LLVM IR

  • is explicitly typed.

  • It's a strongly-typed language in that sense.

  • And the type system looks something like this.

  • For integers, whenever there's a variable of an integer type,

  • you'll see an i followed by some number.

  • And that number defines the number of bits in that integer.

  • So if you see a variable of type i64,

  • that means it's a 64-bit integer.

  • If you see a variable of type i1,

  • that would be a 1-bit integer or, in other words,

  • a Boolean value.

  • There are also floating-point types,

  • such as double and float.

  • There are pointer types, when you follow an integer

  • or floating-point type with a star, much like in C,

  • you can have a raise.

  • And that uses a square bracket notation,

  • where, within the square brackets,

  • you'll have some number and then times and then some other type.

  • Maybe it's a primitive type, like an integer

  • or a floating-point.

  • Maybe it's something more complicated.

  • You can have structs with an LLVM IR.

  • And that uses squiggly brackets with types

  • enumerated on the inside.

  • You can have vector types, which uses angle brackets

  • and otherwise adopts a similar syntax to the array type.

  • Finally, you can occasionally see a variable,

  • which looks like an ordinary register,

  • except that its type is label.

  • And that actually refers to a basic block.

  • Those are the basic components of LLVM IR.

  • Any questions so far?

  • Everything clear?

  • Everything unclear?

  • STUDENT: What's the basic [INAUDIBLE]??

  • TAO SCHARDL: That should be unclear,

  • and we'll talk about it.

  • Yeah?

  • STUDENT: Is the vector notation there

  • for the vectorization that's done, like the special register

  • is used?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Is the vector notation used for the vector

  • registers?

  • In a sense, yes.

  • The vector operations with an LLVM

  • don't look like SEC or AVX, per se.

  • They look more like ordinary operations,

  • except those ordinary operations work on a vector type.

  • So that's how the vector operations show up in LLVM IR.

  • That make some sense?

  • Cool.

  • Anything else?

  • OK, that's the whole primer.

  • That's pretty much all of the language

  • that you're going to need to know,

  • at least for this slide deck.

  • We'll cover some of the details as we go along.

  • Let's start translating C code into LLVM IR.

  • Is that good?

  • All right, let's start with pretty much the simplest

  • thing we can--

  • straight line C code.

  • What do I mean by straight line C code?

  • I mean that this is a blob of C code

  • that contains no conditionals or loops.

  • So it's just a whole sequence of operations.

  • And that sequence of operations in C code

  • turns into a sequence of operations in LLVM IR.

  • So in this example here, we have foo of n minus 1

  • plus bar of n minus 2.

  • That is a sequence of operations.

  • And it turns into the LLVM IR on the right.

  • We can see how that happens.

  • There are a couple rules of thumb

  • when reading straight line C code

  • and interpreting it in the IR.

  • Arguments to any operation are evaluated

  • before the operation itself.

  • So what do I mean by that?

  • Well, in this case, we need to evaluate n minus 1

  • before we pass the results to foo.

  • And what we see in the LLVM IR is

  • that we have an addition operation that

  • computes n minus 1.

  • And then the result of that--

  • stored into register 4-- gets passed to the call

  • instruction on the next line, which

  • calls out to function foo.

  • Sound good?

  • Similarly, we need to evaluate n minus 2

  • before passing its results to the function bar.

  • And we see that sequence of instructions

  • showing up next in the LLVM IR.

  • And now, we actually need the return value-- oh, yeah?

  • Question?

  • STUDENT: What is NSW?

  • TAO SCHARDL: NSW?

  • Essentially, that is an attribute,

  • which we'll talk about later.

  • These are things that decorate the instructions, as well

  • as the types, within LLVM IR, basically,

  • as the compiler figures stuff out.

  • So it helps the compiler along with analysis and optimization.

  • Good?

  • So for the last operation here, we

  • had to evaluate both foo and bar and get their return values

  • before we could add them together.

  • And so the very last operation in this sequence

  • is the addition.

  • That just takes us those return values and computes their sum.

  • Now all of that used primitive types, in particular, integers.

  • But it's possible that your code uses aggregate types.

  • By aggregating types, I mean, arrays or struts,

  • that sort of thing.

  • And aggregate types are harder to store within registers,

  • typically speaking.

  • And so they're typically stored within memory.

  • As a result, if you want to access something

  • within an aggregate type, if you want to read some elements out

  • of an array, that involves performing a memory access

  • or, more precisely, computing some address into memory,

  • and then loading or storing that address.

  • So here, for example, we have an array A of seven integers.

  • And we're going to access A sub x.

  • In LLVM IR, that turns into two instructions--

  • this getelementptr followed by a load.

  • And in the getelementptr case, this computes an address

  • into memory and stores the result

  • of that address into a register, in this case, register 5.

  • The next instruction, the load, takes

  • the address stored in register 5 and simply loads

  • that particular memory address, storing

  • the result into another register, in this case, 6.

  • Pretty simple.

  • When reading the getelementptr instruction,

  • the basic syntax involves a pointer

  • into memory followed by a sequence of indices.

  • And all that getelementptr really

  • does is it computes an address by taking that pointer

  • and then adding on that sequence of indices.

  • So in this case, we have a getelementptr instruction,

  • which takes the address in register 2,

  • and then adds onto it--

  • yeah, that's a pointer into memory--

  • and then it adds onto it to indices.

  • One is the literal value 0, and the other

  • is the value stored in register 4.

  • So that just computes the address,

  • starting at 2 plus 0 plus whatever was in register 4.

  • That's all for straight line code.

  • Good so far?

  • feel free to interrupt if you have questions.

  • Cool.

  • Functions-- let's talk about C functions.

  • So when there's a function in your C code,

  • generally speaking, you'll have a function within the LLVM code

  • as well.

  • And similarly, when there's a return statement in the C code,

  • you'll end up with a return statement in the LLVM IR.

  • So here, we have just the bare bones C

  • code for this fib routine.

  • That corresponds to this fib function within LLVM IR.

  • And the function declaration itself

  • looks pretty similar to what you would get in ordinary C.

  • The return statement is also similar.

  • It may take an argument, if you're returning

  • some value to the caller.

  • In this case, for the fib routine,

  • we're going to return a 64-bit integer.

  • And so we see that this return statement returns

  • the 64-bit integer stored in register 0, a lot like in C.

  • Functions can have parameters.

  • And when you have a C function with a list of parameters,

  • basically, in LLVM IR, you're going

  • to end up with a similar looking function

  • with the exact same list of parameters translated

  • into LLVM IR.

  • So here, we have this C code for the mm base routine.

  • And we have the corresponding LLVM IR

  • for an mm-based function.

  • And what we see is we have a pointer to a double

  • as the first parameter, followed by a 32-bit integer,

  • followed by another pointer to a double,

  • followed by another 32-bit integer,

  • following another pointer to a double,

  • and another 33-bit integer, and another 32-bit integer.

  • One implicit thing with an LLVM IR if you're looking

  • at a function declaration or definition,

  • the parameters are automatically named %0, %1, %2,

  • so on and so forth.

  • There's one unfortunate thing about LLVM IR.

  • The registers are a lot like C functions,

  • but unfortunately, that implies that when

  • you're reading LLVM IR, it's a lot like reading

  • the code from your teammate, who always insists on naming things

  • with nondescript, single-letter variable names.

  • Also, that teammate doesn't comment his code, or her code,

  • or their code.

  • OK, so basic blocks--

  • when we look at the code within a function,

  • that code gets partitioned into chunks,

  • which are called basic blocks.

  • A basic block has a property that's

  • a sequence of instructions.

  • In other words, it's a blob a straight line code,

  • where control can only enter from the first instruction

  • in that block.

  • And it can only leave from the last instruction in that block.

  • So here we have the C code for this routine fib.c.

  • We're going to see a lot of this routine fib.c, by the way.

  • And we have the corresponding LLVM IR.

  • And what we have in the C code, what the C code is

  • telling us is that if n is less than 2,

  • you want to do one thing.

  • Otherwise, you want to do some complicated computation

  • and then return that result.

  • And if we think about that.

  • We've got this branch in our control flow.

  • And what we'll end up with are three different blocks

  • within the LLVM IR.

  • So we end up with one block, which

  • does the computation is n less than 2.

  • And then we end up with another block that says, well,

  • in one case, just go ahead and return something, in this case,

  • the input to the function.

  • In the other case, do some complicated calculations,

  • some straight line code, and then return that result.

  • Now when we partition the code of a function

  • into these basic blocks, we actually

  • have connections between the basic blocks

  • based on how control can move between the basic blocks.

  • These control flow instructions, in particular, the branch

  • instructions, as we'll see, induce edges

  • among these basic blocks.

  • Whenever there's a branch instruction that can specify,

  • that control can leave this basic block

  • and go to that other basic block,

  • or that other basic block, or maybe one or the other,

  • depending on how the result of some computation unfolded.

  • And so for the fib function that we saw before,

  • we had those three basic blocks.

  • And based on whether or not n was than 2, either

  • we would execute the simple return statement,

  • or we would execute the blob of straight line

  • code shown on the left.

  • So those are basic blocks and functions.

  • Everyone still good so far?

  • Any questions?

  • Clear as mud?

  • Let's talk about conditionals.

  • You've already seen one of these conditionals.

  • That's given rise to these basic blocks and these control flow

  • edges.

  • So let's tease that apart a little bit further.

  • When we have a C conditional-- in other words,

  • an if-then-else statement or a switch statement,

  • for that matter--

  • that gets translated into a conditional branch

  • instruction, or BR, in the LLVM IR representation.

  • So what we saw before is that we have this if n less than 2

  • and this basic block with two outgoing edges.

  • If we take a really close look at that first basic block,

  • we can tease it apart and see what each operation does.

  • So first, in order to do this conditional operation,

  • we need to compute whether or not n is less than 2.

  • We need to do a comparison between n

  • and the literal value 2.

  • That comparison operation turns into an icmp instruction

  • within the LLVM IR, an integer comparison in the LLVM IR.

  • The result of that comparison then

  • gets passed to a conditional branch as one of its arguments,

  • and the conditional branch specifies a couple of things

  • beyond that one argument.

  • In particular, that conditional branch takes out 1-bit

  • integer-- that Boolean result--

  • as well as labels of two different basic blocks.

  • So that Boolean value is called the predicate.

  • And that's, in this case, a result of that comparison

  • from before.

  • And then the two basic blocks say

  • where to go if the predicate is true

  • or where to go if the predicate is false.

  • The first label is the destination when it's true,

  • second label destination when it's false--

  • pretty straightforward.

  • And if we decide to map this onto our control flow

  • graph, which we were looking at before,

  • we can identify the two branches coming out

  • of our first basic block as either the true branch

  • or the false branch based on whether or not

  • you follow that edge when the predicate is true

  • or you follow it when the predicate is false.

  • Sound good?

  • That should be straightforward.

  • Let me know if it's not.

  • Let me know if it's confusing.

  • Now it's also possible that you can

  • have an unconditional branch in LLVM IR.

  • You can just have a branch instruction with one operand,

  • and that one operand specifies a basic block.

  • There's no predicate.

  • There is no true or false.

  • It's just the one basic block.

  • And what that instruction says is, when you get here,

  • now, go to that other basic block.

  • This might seem kind of silly, right?

  • Why wouldn't we just need to jump to another basic block?

  • Why not just merge this code with the code

  • in the subsequent basic block?

  • Any thoughts?

  • STUDENT: For instance, in this case,

  • other things might jump in.

  • TAO SCHARDL: Correct.

  • Other things might go to that basic block.

  • And in general, when we look at the structure

  • that we get for any particular conditional in C,

  • we end up with this sort of diamond shape.

  • And in order to implement that diamond shape,

  • we need these unconditional branches.

  • So there's a good reason for them to be around.

  • And here, we just have an example

  • of a slightly more complicated conditional

  • that creates this diamond shape in our control flow graph.

  • So lets tease this piece of code apart.

  • In the first block, we're going to evaluate if some predicate--

  • and in this case, our predicate is x bitwise and 1.

  • And what we see in the first basic block

  • is that we compute the bitwise and store that result,

  • do a comparison between that result, and the value 1.

  • That gives us a Boolean value, which is stored in register 3.

  • And we branch conditionally on whether 3 is true or false.

  • In the case that it's true, we'll branch to block 4.

  • And in block 4, that contains the code for the consequence,

  • the then clause of the if, then, else.

  • And in the call square, we just call function foo.

  • And then we need to leave the conditional,

  • so we'll just branch unconditionally.

  • The alternative, if x and 1 is zero, if it's false,

  • then we will execute the function bar,

  • but then also need to leave the conditional.

  • And so we see in block 5, following

  • the false branch that we call bar,

  • then we'd just branch to block 6.

  • And finally, in block 6, we return the result.

  • So we end up with this diamond pattern whenever we

  • have a conditional, in general.

  • We may delete certain basic blocks

  • if the conditional in the code is particularly simple.

  • But in general, it's going to be this kind

  • of diamond-looking thing.

  • Everyone good so far?

  • One last C construct-- loops.

  • Unfortunately, this is the most complicated C construct

  • when it comes to the LLVM IR.

  • But things haven't been too bad so far.

  • So yeah, let's walk into this with some confidence.

  • So the simple part is that what we will see

  • is the C code for a loop translates

  • into LLVM IR that, in the control flow graph

  • representation, is a loop.

  • So a loop in C is literally a loop

  • in this graph representation, which is kind of nice.

  • But to figure out what's really going on with these loops,

  • let's first tease apart the components of a C loop.

  • Because we have a couple of different pieces

  • in an arbitrary C loop.

  • We have a loop body, which is what's

  • executed on each iteration.

  • And then we have some loop control,

  • which manages all of the iterations of that loop.

  • So in this case, we have a simple C loop,

  • which multiplies each element of an input

  • vector x by some scale over a and stores the result into y.

  • That body gets translated into a blob of straight line code.

  • I won't step through all of the straight line code just now.

  • There's plenty of it, and you'll be

  • able to see the slides after this lecture.

  • But that blob of straight line code

  • corresponds to a loop body.

  • And the rest of the code in the LLVM IR snippet

  • corresponds to the loop control.

  • So we have the initial assignment

  • of the induction variable.

  • The comparison would be end of the loop

  • and the increment operation at the end.

  • All of that gets encoded in the stuff highlighted in yellow,

  • that loop control part.

  • Now if we take a look at this code,

  • there's one odd piece that we haven't really understood yet,

  • and it's this phi instruction at the beginning.

  • The phi instruction is weird, and it arises pretty commonly

  • when you're dealing with loops.

  • It basically is there to solve a problem

  • with LLVM's representation of the code.

  • So before we describe the phi instruction,

  • let's actually take a look at the problem

  • that this phi instruction tries to solve.

  • So let's first tease apart the loop to reveal the problem.

  • The C loop produces this looping pattern

  • in the control flow graph, literally, an edge that

  • goes back to the beginning.

  • If we look at the different basic blocks we have,

  • we have one block at the beginning, which

  • initializes the induction variable and sees

  • if there are any iterations of the loop that need to be run.

  • If there aren't any iterations, then they'll

  • branch directly to the end of loop.

  • It will just skip the loop entirely.

  • No need to try to execute any of that code.

  • And in this case, it will simply return.

  • And then inside the loop block, we

  • have these two incoming edges-- one

  • from the entry point of the loop, where i has just

  • been set to zero, and another where we're repeating the loop,

  • where we've decided there's one more iteration to execute.

  • And we're going to go back from the end of the loop

  • to the beginning.

  • And that back edge is what creates the loop structure

  • in the control flow graph.

  • Make sense?

  • I at least see one nod over there.

  • So that's encouraging.

  • OK, so if we take a look at the loop control,

  • there are a couple of components to that loop control.

  • There's the initialization of the induction variable.

  • There is the condition, and there's the increment.

  • Condition says when do you exit.

  • Increment updates the value of the induction variable.

  • And we can translate each of these components

  • from the C code for the loop control

  • into the LLVM IR code for that loop.

  • So the increment, we would expect

  • to see some sort of addition where we add 1 to some register

  • somewhere.

  • And lo and behold, there is an add operation.

  • So we'll call that the increment.

  • For the condition, we expect some comparison operation

  • and a conditional branch based on that comparison.

  • Look at that.

  • Right after the increment, there's

  • a compare and a conditional branch

  • that we'll either take us back to the beginning of the loop

  • or out of the loop entirely.

  • And we do see that there is some form of initialization.

  • The initial value of this induction variable is 0.

  • And we do see a 0 among this loop control code.

  • It's kind of squirreled away in that weird notation there.

  • And that weird notation is sitting next

  • to the phi instruction.

  • What's not so clear here is where exactly

  • is the induction variable.

  • We had this single variable i in our C code.

  • And what we're looking at in the LLVM IR

  • are a whole bunch of different registers.

  • We have a register that stores what

  • we're claiming to be i plus 1, then

  • we do this comparison and branch thing.

  • And then we have this phi instruction

  • that takes 0 or the result of the increment.

  • Where did i actually go?

  • So the problem here is that i is really

  • represented across all of those instructions.

  • And that happens because the value of the induction variable

  • changes as you execute the loop.

  • The value of i is different on iteration 0 versus iteration 1

  • versus iteration 2 versus iteration 3

  • and so on and so forth.

  • i is changing as you execute the loop.

  • And there's this funny invariant.

  • Yeah, so if we try to map that induction variable to the LLVM

  • IR, it kind of maps to all of these locations.

  • It maps to various uses in the loop body.

  • It maps, roughly speaking, to the return value of this field

  • instruction, even though we're not sure what that's all about.

  • But we can tell it maps to that, because we're going

  • to increment that later on.

  • And we're going to use that in a comparison.

  • So it kind of maps all over the place.

  • And because it changes values with the increment operation,

  • we're going to encounter--

  • so why does it change registers?

  • Well, we have this property in LLVM

  • that each instruction defines the value

  • of a register, at most, once.

  • So for any particular register with LLVM,

  • we can identify a unique place in the code

  • of the function that defines that register value.

  • This invariant is called the static single assignment

  • invariant.

  • And it seems a little bit weird, but it turns out

  • to be an extremely powerful invariant within the compiler.

  • It assists with a lot of the compiler analysis.

  • And it also can help with reading the LLVM

  • IR if you expect it.

  • So this is a nice invariant, but it

  • poses a problem when we're dealing

  • with induction variables, which change as the loop unfolds.

  • And so what happens when control flow merges at the entry

  • point of a loop, for example?

  • How do we define what the induction

  • variable is at that location?

  • Because it could either be 0, if this

  • is the first time through the loop, or whatever you lost

  • incremented.

  • And the solution to that problem is the phi instruction.

  • The phi instruction defines a register that says,

  • depending on how you get to this location in the code,

  • this register will have one of several different values.

  • And the phi instruction simply lists

  • what the value of that register will be,

  • depending on which basic block you came from.

  • So in this particular code, the phi instruction says,

  • if you came from block 6, which was the entry

  • point of the loop, where you initially checked if there were

  • any loop iterations to perform, if you come from that block,

  • then this register 9 is going to adopt the value 0.

  • If, however, you followed the back edge of the loop,

  • then the register is going to adopt the value,

  • in this case, 14.

  • And 14, lo and behold, is the result

  • of the incremental operation.

  • And so this phi instruction says,

  • either you're going to start from zero,

  • or you're going to be i plus 1.

  • Just to note, the phi instruction

  • is not a real instruction.

  • It's really a solution to a problem with an LLVM.

  • And when you translate this code into assembly,

  • the phi instruction isn't going to map

  • to any particular assembly instruction.

  • It's really a representational trick.

  • Does that make some sense?

  • Any questions about that?

  • Yeah?

  • STUDENT: Why is it called phi?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Why is it called phi?

  • That's a great question.

  • I actually don't know why they chose the name phi.

  • I don't think they had a particular affinity

  • for the Golden Ratio, but I'm not

  • sure what the rationale was.

  • I don't know if anyone else knows.

  • Yeah?

  • Google knows all, sort of.

  • Yeah, so adopt the value 0 from block 6 or 14 from block 8.

  • So that's all of the basic components

  • of C translated into LLVM IR.

  • The last thing I want to leave you

  • with in this section on LLVM IR is a discussion

  • of these attributes.

  • And we already saw one of these attributes before.

  • It was this NSW thing attached the add instruction.

  • In general, these LLVM IR constructs

  • might be decorated with these extra words and keywords.

  • And those are the keywords I'm referring to as attributes.

  • Those attributes convey a variety of information.

  • So in this case, what we have here is C code

  • that performs this memory calculation,

  • which you might have seen from our previous lecture.

  • And what we see in the corresponding LLVM IR

  • is that there's some extra stuff tacked onto that load

  • instruction where you load memory.

  • One of those pieces of extra information is this align 4.

  • And what that align 4 attribute says

  • is it describes the alignment of that read from memory.

  • And so if subsequent stages of the compiler

  • can employ that information, if they can optimize

  • reads that are 4-byte aligned, then this attribute will say,

  • this is a load that you can go ahead and optimize.

  • There are a bunch of places where

  • attributes might come from.

  • Some of them are derived directly from the source code.

  • If you write a function that takes

  • a parameter marked as const, or marked as restrict, then

  • in the LLVM IR, you might see that the corresponding function

  • parameter is marked as no alias, because the restricted keyword

  • said this pointer can ever alias or the const keyword says,

  • you're only ever going to read from this pointer.

  • So this pointer is going to be marked read-only.

  • So in that case, the source code itself-- the C code--

  • was the source of the information

  • for those attributes.

  • There are some other attributes that occur simply

  • because the compiler is smart, and it

  • does some clever analysis.

  • So in this case, the LLVM IR has a load operation

  • that's 8-byte aligned.

  • It was really analysis that figured out the alignment

  • of that load operation.

  • Good so far?

  • Cool.

  • So let's summarize this part of the discussion with what

  • we've seen about LLVM IR.

  • LLVM IR is similar to assembly, but a lot simpler

  • in many, many ways.

  • All of the computed values are stored in registers.

  • And, really, when you're reading LLVM IR,

  • you can think of those registers a lot

  • like ordinary C variables.

  • LLVM IR is a little bit funny in that

  • it adopts a static, single assignment paradigm--

  • this invariant-- where each registered name, each variable

  • is written by, at most, one instruction within the LLVM IR

  • code.

  • So if you're ever curious where %14 is defined within this

  • function, just do a search for where %14 is on the left-hand

  • side of an equals, and there you go.

  • We can model of function in LLVM IR

  • as a control flow graph, whose nodes

  • correspond to basic blocks--

  • these blobs of straight line code--

  • and whose edges do node control flow among those basic blocks.

  • And compared to C, LLVM IR is pretty similar,

  • except that all of these operations are explicit.

  • The types are explicit everywhere.

  • The integer sizes are all apparent.

  • You don't have to remember that int really

  • means a 32-bit integer, and you need

  • n-64 to be a 64-bit integer, or you need a long or anything.

  • It's just i and then a bit width.

  • There no implicit operations at the LLVM IR level.

  • All the typecasts are explicit.

  • In some sense, LLVM IR is like assembly

  • if assembly were more like c.

  • And that's doubly a statement that would not

  • have made sense 40 minutes ago.

  • All right, so you've seen how to translate C code into LLVM IR.

  • There's one last step.

  • We want to translate the LLVM IR into assembly.

  • And it turns out that structurally speaking,

  • LLVM IR is very similar to assembly.

  • We can, more or less, map each line of LLVM IR

  • to some sequence of lines in the final assembly code.

  • But there is some additional complexity.

  • The compiler isn't done with its work

  • yet when it's compiling C to LLVM IR to assembly.

  • There are three main tasks that the compiler still

  • has to perform in order to generate x86-64.

  • First, it has to select the actual x86 assembly

  • instructions that are going to implement these various LLVM IR

  • operations.

  • It has to decide which general purpose registers are going

  • to hold different values and which values

  • need to be squirreled away into memory,

  • because it just has no other choice.

  • And it has to coordinate all of the function calls.

  • And it's not just the function calls

  • within this particular source file.

  • It's also function calls between that source file,

  • and other source files that you're compiling,

  • and binary libraries that are just sitting on the system.

  • But the compiler never really gets to touch.

  • It has to coordinate all of those calls.

  • That's a bit complicated.

  • That is going to be the reason for a lot of the remaining

  • complexity.

  • And that's what brings our discussion to the Linux

  • x86-64 calling convention.

  • This isn't a very fun convention.

  • Don't worry.

  • But nevertheless, it's useful.

  • So to talk about this convention,

  • let's first take a look at how a program gets laid out

  • in memory when you run it.

  • So when a program executes, virtually memory

  • gets organized into a whole bunch of different chunks

  • which are called segments.

  • There's a segment that corresponds to the stack that's

  • actually located near the top of virtual memory,

  • and it grows downwards.

  • The stack grows down.

  • Remember this.

  • There is a heap segment, which grows upwards

  • from a middle location in memory.

  • And those two dynamically-allocated segments

  • live at the top of the virtual address space.

  • There are then two additional segments--

  • the bss segment for uninitialized data

  • and the data segment for initialized data.

  • And finally, at the bottom of virtual address space,

  • there's a tech segment.

  • And that just stores the code of the program itself.

  • Now when you read assembly code directly,

  • you'll see that the assembly code

  • contains more than just some labels and some instructions.

  • In fact, it's decorated with a whole bunch of other stuff.

  • And these are called assembler directives,

  • and these directives operate on different sections

  • of the assembly code.

  • Some of those directives refer to the various segments

  • of virtual memory.

  • And those segment directives are used

  • to organize the content of the assembly file.

  • For example, the .text directive identifies some chunk

  • of the assembly, which is really code and should be located

  • in the text segment when the program is run.

  • The .bss segment identifies stuff that lives

  • in the assembler directive to identify stuff in the bss

  • segment.

  • The .data directive identify stuff in the data segment,

  • so on and so forth.

  • There are also various storage directives

  • that will store content of some variety

  • directly into the current segment-- whatever was last

  • identified by a segment directive.

  • So if, at some point, there is a directive x colon

  • dot space 20, that space directive says,

  • allocate some amount of memory.

  • And in this case, it says, allocate 20 bytes of memory.

  • And we're going to label that location x.

  • The .long segment says, store a constant long integer value--

  • in this case, 172--

  • in this example, at location y.

  • The asciz segment similarly stores a string

  • at that particular location.

  • So here, we're storing the string 6.172 at location z.

  • There is an align directive that aligns

  • the next content in the assembly file to an 8-byte boundary.

  • There are additional segments for the linker to obey,

  • and those are the scope and linkage directives.

  • For example, you might see .globl in front of a label.

  • And that single is linker that that particular symbol

  • should be visible to the other files that the linker touches.

  • In this case, .globl fib makes fib visible to the other object

  • files, and that allows this other object files to call

  • or refer to this fib location.

  • Now, let's turn our attention to the segment

  • at the top, the stack segment.

  • This segment is used to store data and memory in order

  • to manage function calls and returns.

  • That's a nice high-level description, but what exactly

  • ends up in the stack segment?

  • Why do we need a stack?

  • What data will end up going there?

  • Can anyone tell me?

  • STUDENT: Local variables in function?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Local variables in function.

  • Anything else?

  • You already answered once.

  • I may call on you again.

  • Go ahead.

  • STUDENT: Function arguments?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Sorry?

  • STUDENT: Function arguments?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Function arguments-- very good.

  • Anything else?

  • I thought I saw a hand over here, but--

  • STUDENT: The return address?

  • TAO SCHARDL: The return address.

  • Anything else?

  • Yeah?

  • There's one other important thing

  • that gets stored on stack.

  • Yeah?

  • STUDENT: The return value?

  • TAO SCHARDL: The return value--

  • actually, that one's interesting.

  • It might be stored on the stack, but it might not

  • be stored on the stack.

  • Good guess, though.

  • Yeah?

  • STUDENT: Intermediate results?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Intermediate results,

  • in a manner of speaking, yes.

  • There are more intermediate results

  • than meets the eye when it comes to assembly

  • or comparing it to C. But in particular,

  • by intermediate results, let's say, register state.

  • There are only so many registers on the machine.

  • And sometimes, that's not enough.

  • And so the function may want to squirrel away

  • some data that's in registers and stash it somewhere

  • in order to read it back later.

  • The stack is a very natural place to do it.

  • That's the dedicated place to do it.

  • So yeah, that's pretty much all the content

  • of what ends up on the call stack as the program executes.

  • Now, here's the thing.

  • There are a whole bunch of functions in the program.

  • Some of them may have been defined in the source file

  • that you're compiling right now.

  • Some of them might be defined in other source files.

  • Some of them might be defined in libraries

  • that were compiled by someone else,

  • possibly using a different compiler, with different flags,

  • under different parameters, presumably,

  • for this architecture-- at least, one hopes.

  • But those libraries are completely out of your control.

  • And now, we have this problem.

  • All those object files might define these functions.

  • And those functions want to call each other, regardless

  • of where those functions are necessarily defined.

  • And so somehow, we need to coordinate all those function

  • calls and make sure that if one function wants

  • to use these registers, and this other function

  • wants to use the same registers, those functions

  • aren't going to interfere with each other.

  • Or if they both want to read stack memory,

  • they're not going to clobber each other's stacks.

  • So how do we deal with this coordination problem?

  • At a high level, what's the high-level strategy

  • we're going to adopt to deal with this coordination problem?

  • STUDENT: Put the values of the registers on the stack

  • before you go into the function.

  • TAO SCHARDL: That will be part of it.

  • But for the higher level strategy--

  • so that's a component of this higher level strategy.

  • Yeah?

  • Go ahead.

  • STUDENT: Calling convention?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Calling convention.

  • You remembered the title of this section of the talk.

  • Great.

  • We're going to make sure that every single function,

  • regardless of where it's defined, they all abide

  • by the same calling convention.

  • So it's a standard that all the functions

  • will obey in order to make sure they all play nicely together.

  • So let's unpack the Linux x86-64 calling convention.

  • Well, not the whole thing, because it's actually

  • pretty complicated, but at least enough to understand

  • the basics of what's going on.

  • So a high level, this calling convention organizes the stack

  • segment into frames, such that each function instantiation--

  • each time you call a function--

  • that instantiation gets a single frame all to itself.

  • And to manage all those stack frames,

  • the calling convention is going to use these two pointers-- rbp

  • and rsp, which you should've seen last time.

  • rbp, the base pointer, will point to the top

  • of the current stack frame.

  • rsp will point to the bottom up the current stack frame.

  • And remember, the stack grows.

  • Now when the code executes call-and-return instructions,

  • those instructions are going to operate

  • on the stack, these various stock pointers, as well

  • as the instruction pointer, rip, in order

  • to manage the return address of each function.

  • In particular, when a call instruction gets executed,

  • in x86, that call instruction will

  • push the current value of rip onto the stack,

  • and that will be the return address.

  • And then the call instruction will jump to its operand.

  • It's operand being the address of some function in the program

  • memory, or, at least, one hopes.

  • Perhaps there was buffer overflow corruption

  • of some kind, and your program is in dire straits.

  • But presumably, it's the address of a function.

  • The return instruction complements the call,

  • and it's going to undo the operations of that call

  • instruction.

  • It'll pop the return address off the stack

  • and put that into rip.

  • And that will cause the execution

  • to return to the caller and resume execution

  • from the statement right after the original call.

  • So that's the high level of how the stack gets managed

  • as well as the return address.

  • How about, how do we maintain registers

  • across all those calls?

  • Well, there's a bit of a problem.

  • Because we might have two different functions

  • that want to use the same registers.

  • Some of this might be review, by the way, from 6004.

  • If you have questions, just let me know.

  • So we have this problem, where two different functions,

  • function A, which might call another function

  • B. Those two functions might want to use the same registers.

  • So who's responsible for making sure

  • that if function B operates on the same registers as A,

  • that when B is done, A doesn't end up

  • with corrupted state in its registers?

  • Well, they're two different strategies

  • that could be adopted.

  • One is to have the caller save off the register

  • state before invoking a call.

  • But that has some downsides.

  • The caller might waste work, saying, well,

  • I have to save all of this register state in case

  • the function I'm calling wants to use those registers.

  • If the calling function doesn't use those registers,

  • that was a bunch of wasted work.

  • So on the other side, you might say, well,

  • let's just have the callee save all that registered state.

  • But that could waste work if the callee

  • is going to save off register state that the caller wasn't

  • using.

  • So if the callee says, well, I want

  • to use all these registers.

  • I don't know what the calling function used,

  • so I'm just going to push everything on the stack, that

  • could be a lot of wasted work.

  • So what does the x86 calling convention

  • do, if you had to guess?

  • Yeah?

  • STUDENT: [INAUDIBLE]

  • TAO SCHARDL: That's exactly right.

  • It does a little bit of both.

  • It specifies some of the registers

  • as being callee-saved registers, and the rest of the registers

  • are caller-saved registers.

  • And so the caller will be responsible for saving

  • some stuff.

  • The callee will be responsible for saving other stuff.

  • And if either of those functions doesn't

  • need one of those registers, then it can avoid wasted work.

  • In x86-64, in this calling convention,

  • turns out that the rbx, rbp, and r12 through r15 registers

  • are all callee saved, and the rest of the registers

  • are caller saved.

  • In particular, the C linkage defined

  • by this calling convention for all the registers

  • looks something like this.

  • And that identifies lots of stuff.

  • It identifies a register for storing the return value,

  • registers for storing a bunch of the arguments,

  • caller-save registers, callee-saved registers,

  • a register just for linking.

  • I don't expect you to memorize this in 12 seconds.

  • And I think on any quiz-- well, I

  • won't say what the course app will do on quizzes this year.

  • STUDENT: [INAUDIBLE] everyone.

  • TAO SCHARDL: Yeah, OK, well, there you go.

  • So you'll have these slides later.

  • You can practice memorizing them.

  • Not sure on this slide.

  • There are a couple other registers

  • that are used for saving function arguments and return

  • values.

  • And, in particular, whenever you're passing floating point

  • stuff around, the xmm register 0 through 7

  • are used to deal with those floating point values.

  • Cool.

  • So we have strategies for maintaining the stack.

  • We have strategies for maintaining register states.

  • But we still have the situation where

  • functions may want to use overlapping

  • parts of stack memory.

  • And so we need to coordinate how all those functions are going

  • to use the stack memory itself.

  • This is a bit hard to describe.

  • The cleanest way I know describe it is just

  • to work through an example.

  • So here's the setup.

  • Let's imagine that we have some function A that

  • is called of function B. And we're

  • in the midst of executing function B,

  • and now, function B is about to call some other function C.

  • As we mentioned before, B has a frame all to itself.

  • And that frame contains a whole bunch of stuff.

  • It contains arguments that A passed to B.

  • It contains a return address.

  • It contains a base pointer.

  • It contains some local variables.

  • And because B is about to call C,

  • it's also going to contain some data for arguments

  • that B will pass to C.

  • So that's our setup.

  • We have one function ready to call another.

  • Let's take a look at how this stack memory

  • is organized first.

  • So at the top, we have what's called a linkage block.

  • And in this linkage block, this is the region

  • of stack memory, where function B will

  • access non-register arguments from its caller, function A.

  • It will access these by indexing off

  • of the base pointer, rbp, using positive offsets.

  • Again, the stack grows down.

  • B will also have a block of stack space

  • after the linkage block and return address and bass

  • pointer.

  • It will have a region of its frame for local variables,

  • and it can access those local variables

  • by indexing off of rbp in the negative direction.

  • Stack grows down.

  • If you don't have anything else, stack grows down.

  • Now B is about to call a function C,

  • and we want to see how all of this unfolds.

  • So before calling C, B is going to place non-register arguments

  • for C on to a reserved linkage block in its own stack memory

  • below its local variables.

  • And it will access those by indexing rbp

  • with negative offsets.

  • So those arguments from B to its callers

  • will specify those to be arguments from B to C. And then

  • what's going to happen?

  • Then B is going to call C. And as we saw before,

  • the call instruction saves off the return address

  • onto the stack, and then it branches

  • control to the entry point of function C.

  • When the function C starts, it's going

  • to execute what's called the function prologue.

  • And the function prologue consists of a couple of steps.

  • First, it's going to save off the base

  • pointer for B's stack frame.

  • So it'll just squirrel away the value of rbp onto the stack.

  • Then it's going to set rbp equal to rsp,

  • because we're now entering a brand new frame

  • for the invocation of C.

  • And then C can go ahead and allocate the space

  • that it needs on the stack.

  • This will be space that C needs for its own local variables,

  • as well as space that C will use for any linkage blocks

  • that it creates for the things that it calls.

  • Now there is one common optimization

  • that the compiler will attempt to perform.

  • If a function never needs to perform stack allocations,

  • except to handle these function calls--

  • in other words, if the difference between rbp and rsp

  • is a compile time constant, then the compiler

  • might go ahead and just get rid of rbp

  • and do all of the indexing based off the stack pointer rsp.

  • And the reason it'll do that is because, if it

  • could get one more general purpose register out

  • of our rbp, well, now, rpb is general purpose.

  • And it has one extra register to use

  • to do all of its calculations.

  • Reading from a register takes some time.

  • Reading from even L1 cache takes significantly more, I think,

  • four times that amount.

  • And so this is a common optimization

  • that the compiler will want to perform.

  • Now, turns out that there's a lot more

  • to the calling convention than just

  • what's shown on these slides.

  • We're not going to go through that today.

  • If you'd like to have more details,

  • there's a nice document-- the System V ABI--

  • that describes the whole calling convention.

  • Any questions so far?

  • All right, so let's wrap all this up with a final case

  • study, and let's take a look at how all these components fit

  • together.

  • When we're translating a simple C

  • function to compute Fibonacci numbers

  • all the way down to assembly.

  • And as you've been describing this whole time,

  • we're going to take this in two steps.

  • Let's describe our starting point, fib.c.

  • This should be basically no surprise to you at this point.

  • This is a C function fib, which computes the nth Fibonacci

  • number in one of the worst computational ways possible,

  • it turns out.

  • But it computes the nth Fibonacci number

  • f of n recursively using the formula f of n

  • is equal to n when n is either 0 or 1.

  • Or it computes f of n minus 1 and f of n minus 2

  • and takes their sum.

  • This is an exponential time algorithm

  • to compute Fibonacci numbers.

  • I would say, don't run this at home,

  • except, invariably, you'll run this at home.

  • There are much faster algorithms to compute Fibonacci numbers.

  • But this is good enough for a didactic example.

  • We're not really worried about how fast can we

  • compute fib today.

  • Now the C code fib.c is even simpler

  • than the recurrence implies.

  • We're not even going to bother checking that the input value

  • n is some non-negative value.

  • What we're going to do is say, look, if n is less than 2,

  • go ahead and return that value of n.

  • Otherwise, do the recursive thing.

  • We've already seen this go a couple of times.

  • Everyone good so far?

  • Any questions on these three lines?

  • Great.

  • All right, so let's translate fib.c into fib.ll.

  • We've seen a lot of these pieces in lectures so far.

  • And here, we've just rewritten fib.c a little bit

  • to make drawing all the lines a little bit simpler.

  • So here, we have the C code for fib.c.

  • The corresponding LLVM IR looks like this.

  • And as we could guess from looking at the code for fib.c,

  • we have this conditional and then

  • two different things that might occur based on

  • whether or not n is less than 2.

  • And so we end up with three basic blocks within the LLVM

  • IR.

  • The first basic block checks event is less than 2

  • and then branches based on that result.

  • And we've seen how all that works previously.

  • If n happens to be less than 2, then the consequent--

  • the true case of that branch--

  • ends up showing up at the end.

  • And all it does is it returns the input value,

  • which is stored in register 0.

  • Otherwise, it's going to do some straight line

  • code to compute fib of n minus 1 and fib of n minus 2.

  • It will take those return values, add them together,

  • return that result. That's the end Fibonacci number.

  • So that gets us from C code to LLVM IR.

  • Questions about that?

  • All right, fib n minus 1, fib n minus 2, add them, return it.

  • We're good.

  • OK, so one last step.

  • We want to compile LLVM IR all the way down to assembly.

  • As I alluded to before, roughly speaking,

  • the structure of the LLVM IR resembles the structure

  • of the assembly code.

  • There's just extra stuff in the assembly code.

  • And so we're going to translate the LLVM IR, more or less,

  • line by line into the assembly code

  • and see where that extra stuff shows up.

  • So at the beginning, we have a function.

  • We were defining a function fib.

  • And in the assembly code, we make

  • sure that fib is a globally accessible function using

  • some assembler directives, the globlfib directive.

  • We do an alignment to make sure that function

  • lies in a nice location in the instruction memory,

  • and then we declare the symbol fib, which just defines where

  • this function lives in memory.

  • All right, let's take a look at this assembly.

  • The next thing that we see here are

  • these two instructions-- a push queue or rbp

  • and a movq of rsp, rbp.

  • Who can tell me what these do?

  • Yes?

  • STUDENT: Push the base [INAUDIBLE] on the stack,

  • then [INAUDIBLE].

  • TAO SCHARDL: Cool.

  • Does that sound like a familiar thing we described earlier

  • in this lecture?

  • STUDENT: the calling convention?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Yep, it's part of the calling convention.

  • This is part of the function prologue.

  • Save off rpb, and then set rbp equal to rsp.

  • So we already have a couple extra instructions

  • that weren't in the LLVM IR, but must be in the assembly

  • in order to coordinate everyone.

  • OK, so now, we have these two instructions.

  • We're now going to push a couple more registers onto the stack.

  • So why does the assembly do this?

  • Any guesses?

  • Yeah?

  • STUDENT: Callee-saved registers?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Callee-saved registers--

  • yes, callee-saved registers.

  • The fib routing, we're guessing, will

  • want to use r14 rbx during this calculation.

  • And so if there are interesting values in those registers,

  • save them off onto the stack.

  • Presumably, we'll restore them later.

  • Then we have this move instruction for rdi into rbx.

  • This requires a little bit more arcane knowledge,

  • but any guesses as to what this is for?

  • STUDENT: rdi is probably the argument to the function.

  • TAO SCHARDL: rdi is the argument to the function.

  • Exactly.

  • That's the arcane knowledge.

  • So this is implicit from the assembly, which

  • is why you either have to memorize that huge chart of GPR

  • C linkage nonsense.

  • But all this operation does is it takes whatever

  • that argument was, and it's squirrels it away into the rbx

  • register for some purpose that we'll find out about soon.

  • Then we have this instruction, and this corresponds

  • to the highlighted instruction on the left,

  • in case that gives any hints.

  • What does this instruction do?

  • STUDENT: [INAUDIBLE].

  • TAO SCHARDL: Sorry.

  • STUDENT: It calculates whether n is small [INAUDIBLE]..

  • TAO SCHARDL: Correct.

  • It evaluates the predicate.

  • It's just going to do a comparison

  • between the value of n and the literal value of 2,

  • comparing against 2.

  • So based on the result of that comparison, if you recall,

  • last lecture, the results of a comparison

  • will set some bits in this implicit EFLAGS flags register,

  • or RFLAGS register.

  • And based on the setting of those bits,

  • the various conditional jumps that occur next in the code

  • will have varying behavior.

  • So in case the comparison results to false-- if n is,

  • in fact, greater than or equal to 2--

  • then the next instruction is jge, will jump to the label

  • LBB0 underscore 1.

  • You can tell already that reading assembly is super-fun.

  • Now that's a conditional jump.

  • And it's possible that the setting of bits in RFLAGS

  • doesn't evaluate true for that condition code.

  • And so it's possible that the code will just fall through

  • pass this jge instruction and, instead, execute

  • these operations.

  • And these operations correspond to the true side of the LLVM IR

  • branch operation.

  • When n is less than 2, this will move n into rax,

  • and then jumped to the label LBB03.

  • Any guesses as to why it moves n into our rax?

  • Yeah?

  • STUDENT: That's the return value.

  • TAO SCHARDL: That's a return value-- exactly.

  • If it can return a value through registers,

  • it will return it through rax.

  • Very good.

  • So now, we see this label LBBO1.

  • That's the label, as we saw before,

  • for the false side of the LLVM branch.

  • And the first thing in that label is this operation--

  • leaq minus 1 of rbx rdi.

  • Any guesses as to what that's for?

  • The corresponding LLVM IR is highlighted on the left,

  • by the way.

  • The lea instruction means load-effective address.

  • All lea does is an address calculation.

  • But something that compilers really like to do

  • is exploit the lea instruction to do simple integer arithmetic

  • as long as that integer arithmetic fits with the things

  • that lea can actually compute.

  • And so all this instruction is doing

  • is adding negative 1 to rbx.

  • And rbx, as we recall, stored the input value of n.

  • And it will store the result into rdi.

  • That's all that this instruction does.

  • So it computes the negative 1, stores it into rbi.

  • How about this instruction?

  • This one should be easier.

  • STUDENT: For the previous one, how did you get [INAUDIBLE]??

  • I'm familiar with [INAUDIBLE] because [INAUDIBLE]..

  • But is there no add immediate instruction in x86?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Is there no add immediate instruction?

  • So you can do an add instruction in x86

  • and specify an immediate value.

  • The advantage of this instruction

  • is that you can specify a different destination operand.

  • That's why compilers like to use it.

  • More arcane knowledge.

  • I don't blame you if this kind of thing

  • turns you off from reading x86.

  • It certainly turns me off from reading x86.

  • So this instruction should be a little bit easier.

  • Guess as to why it does?

  • Feel free to shout it out, because we're

  • running a little short on time.

  • STUDENT: Calls a function.

  • TAO SCHARDL: Calls a function.

  • What function?

  • STUDENT: Call fib.

  • TAO SCHARDL: Call fib, exactly.

  • Great.

  • Then we have this move operation,

  • which moves rax into r14.

  • Any guess as to why we do this?

  • Say it.

  • STUDENT: Get the result of the call.

  • TAO SCHARDL: Get the result of the call.

  • So rax is going to store the return value of that call.

  • And we're just going to squirrel it away into r14.

  • Question?

  • STUDENT: [INAUDIBLE]

  • TAO SCHARDL: Sorry.

  • STUDENT: It stores [INAUDIBLE]?

  • TAO SCHARDL: It'll actually store the whole return value

  • from the previous call.

  • STUDENT: [INAUDIBLE]

  • TAO SCHARDL: It's part of that result. This

  • will be a component in computing the return

  • value for this call of fib.

  • You're exactly right.

  • But we need to save off this result,

  • because we're going to do, as we see, another call to fib.

  • And that's going to clobber rax.

  • Make sense?

  • Cool.

  • So rax stores the result of the function.

  • Save it into r14.

  • Great.

  • Since we're running short of time,

  • anyone want to tell me really quickly what

  • these instructions do?

  • Just a wild guess if you had to.

  • STUDENT: N minus 2

  • TAO SCHARDL: n minus 2.

  • Compute n minus 2 by this addition operation.

  • Stash it into rdi.

  • And then you call fib on n minus 2.

  • And that will return the results into rax, as we saw before.

  • So now, we do this operation.

  • Add r14 into rax.

  • And this does what?

  • STUDENT: Ends our last function return to what

  • was going off this one.

  • TAO SCHARDL: Exactly.

  • So rax stores the result of the last function return.

  • Add it into r14, which is where we stashed

  • the result of fib of n minus 1.

  • Cool.

  • Then we have a label for the true side of the branch.

  • This is the last pop quiz question I'll ask.

  • Pop quiz-- God, I didn't even intend that one.

  • Why do we do these pop operations?

  • In the front.

  • STUDENT: To restore the register before exiting the stack frame?

  • TAO SCHARDL: Restore the registers

  • before exiting the stack frame-- exactly.

  • In calling convention terms, that's

  • called the function epilogue.

  • And then finally, we return.

  • So that is how we get from C to assembly.

  • This is just a summary slide of everything we covered today.

  • We took the trip from C to assembly via LLVM IR.

  • And we saw how we can represent things in a control flow graph

  • as basic blocks connected by control flow edges.

  • And then there's additional complexity

  • when you get to the actual assembly, mostly to deal

  • with this calling invention.

  • That's all I have for you today.

  • Thanks for your time.

The following content is provided under a Creative

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

5.Cからアセンブリへ (5. C to Assembly)

  • 1 0
    林宜悉 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語