Inline Assembler Macros?

Printable View

07-14-2003
Aidman

Inline Assembler Macros?

Hi, all :)

I am trying to write a high performance library by using inline assembler but I have encountered a irritating problem. It seems that VC++ refuses to accept multi-instructions within the inline asm section for the macro. For example, I can write a inline assembler macro with the single instruction “mov eax, 0” but that’s it, VC++ refuses to accept anymore instructions. The following code might give a better understanding:

Code:

#define TestMacro1(x) _asm{ mov eax, 0 } // This works #define TestMacro2(x) _asm{ mov eax, 0; mov ebx, 0 } // This doesn’t

So what I am trying to do here is to add more then one instruction into the macro, but I don’t know how. Any ideas on how to solve this are highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
07-14-2003
JaWiB

hm i thought you didnt need the semi-colon for asm (?)
anyways im sure a simple board search could find some examples
07-14-2003
Aidman

Quote:

hm i thought you didnt need the semi-colon for asm (?)

Yes the semi-colon is unnecessary, but I used it because the macro had to be in a single line.

Quote:

anyways im sure a simple board search could find some examples

I searched the board before posting, but I didn't find any examples on inline assembler macros. I also tried google but I didn't find anything there either. If you could find any examples on inline assembler macro, I would be grateful :)
07-14-2003
JaWiB

but did you try eliminating the semicolon all together?
07-14-2003
Zach L.

I believe ';' s a comment in asm. ;)

Just break the statements onto new lines:

Code:

#define TestMacro2(x) \ _asm{ \ mov eax, 0; \ mov ebx, 0 \ }
07-14-2003
JaWiB

Right...of course I knew that....then inline asm has never worked for me...anyone else have this problem (asm doesn't work) with Dev C++?
07-14-2003
Zach L.

I've had it work in the past. What problems are you having with it?
07-14-2003
JaWiB

If I use _asm i get "_asm undeclared" with __asm or just asm (and then { //some asm } ) i get "parse error before '{' "
07-14-2003
golfinguy4

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...gref___asm.asp
07-14-2003
JaWiB

Thanks golfingguy, but that didn't help me (tried everything there) and I have dev-c++, I assume it has something to do with the compiler
07-15-2003
Fordy

If you want to get some assemler into a #define, take a look at this - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...s_c_macros.asp

The point made about inline asm working against the compilers optimisations is a good one.......if you are totally sure that you can get that extra boost with assembler, then your best course of action is to build an asm procedure in MASM.....assemble it and link the resulting .obj file into your vc++ project
07-15-2003
Aidman

Quote:

but did you try eliminating the semicolon all together?

Yes, but that also didn't work

Quote:

I believe ';' s a comment in asm. ;)

Yes, but not in inline asm for VC++. There you use the normal "//", "*/" and "/*". :)

Code:

#define TestMacro2(x) \ _asm{ \ mov eax, 0; \ mov ebx, 0 \ }

I can't seem to compile this in VC++, I get the following error "inline assembler syntax error in 'opcode'; found 'constant'".

Quote:

If you want to get some assemler into a #define, take a look at this - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...as_c_macros.asp

Thanks alot, that worked :)

As for the optimizations issues, I still belive that hand optimized asm code is the best. And the reason for using macros and not a precompiled library is becouse I wanto gain the extra performance, by not calling procedures.

Anyways thanks for all your replys :)
07-15-2003
Aidman

Quote:

Originally posted by golfinguy4
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...gref___asm.asp

Thanks that also worked :)
07-15-2003
Fordy

Quote:

Originally posted by Aidman
As for the optimizations issues, I still belive that hand optimized asm code is the best. And the reason for using macros and not a precompiled library is becouse I wanto gain the extra performance, by not calling procedures.

Anyways thanks for all your replys :)

Youd be suprised at how good modern compilers are at optimising.....quite often you can put all your efforts into optimising and the compiler will still kick your butt....

And as to the macro vs call dilemma, I dont agree with you......as stated, the appearence of inlined code will often stop the compiler optimising within a block (even if you forced it not to do this, you would probably have to play safe and save the states of the registers you use as well as the eflags register).......one problem often associated with a call is that the compiler builds a new stack frame for the procedure....if you are writing the procedure in asm, you might be able to forego this overhead - you still empty the prefetch queue with a call instruction, but if your asm code restrictes the amount of calls and jumps when you have entered it then it might not be much of a problem....
07-15-2003
Aidman

After the many replies on optimization, I decided to verify my own statement. I couldn’t just let go of the idea that “hand optimized assembler is the best” without a fight ;). So I wrote several performance tests on loops, calculations and memory readings. After many builds I realized the compiler was complete superior in optimization, sometimes up to 10 times. I must say, this is a real wake up call. I had heard that modern compilers where better at optimization, but I refused to believe that it was true, hopping that my assembler knowledge still was in handy. I am still a bit unhappy :( about the situation, I want my assembler knowledge to be a huge performance benefit, but it seems that high level programming is becoming complete superior. I would hate to see the day when VB or C# compilers would kick C++. Anyway thanks for pointing out my blinded mind, else I would have spent useful time writing code that was a complete performance disadvantage. Peace out :)