Virtual function and multiple inheritance

**matsp** · 02-07-2008

Originally Posted by George2

Thanks Elysia and Mats,

Do you know whether Microsoft provides online free manual for the assembly language guide with Visual Studio (i.e. how Visual Studio compiler's assembly language looks like, e.g. which register is used to hold this pointer or something, other than a general assembly language guide)?

regards,
George

The calling conventions for each of the supported language and processor type is documented in the respective language on MSDN, e.g: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...58(VS.71).aspx

For C/C++ 32-bit x86 it is roughly (I wrote that before looking at MSDN):
EAX - return value, otherwise scratch register.
EDX - upper 32-bits of 64-bit return value, otherwise scratch register.
ECX - this when using "thiscall", otherwise scratch.
EBX - preserved by callee.
EDI - preserved by callee.
ESI - preserved by callee.
EBP - preserved by callee.
ESP - stack pointer - varying between call form whether caller or callee cleans up arguments.

I think EAX, EDX and ECX are used for the three first args in "fastcall" calling convention - but I may be wrong on the exact registers.

--
Mats

**Mario F.** · 02-07-2008

Originally Posted by matsp

I think EAX, EDX and ECX are used for the three first args in "fastcall" calling convention - but I may be wrong on the exact registers.

That's gcc I believe. W32 passes them in ECX, EDX order.

**matsp** · 02-07-2008

Originally Posted by Mario F.

That's gcc I believe. W32 passes them in ECX, EDX order.

Quite right - clicking on the "fastcall" link in the page I posted a link to will show that.

--
Mats

**George2** · 02-08-2008

Thanks CornedBee,

1.

ABI is short for? :-)

2.

My assembly book is pretty old -- IBM 80x86 book. Could you recommend some assembly language book which conforms (more) to modern compiler and runtime, especially Win32/Win64? I would like to buy a new one after having discussion in this thread with you.

Originally Posted by CornedBee

The probably have an ABI guide somewhere, but they'd be pretty stupid to document anything beyond that.

regards,
George

**laserlight** · 02-08-2008

ABI is short for?

Application Binary Interface

**CornedBee** · 02-08-2008

In other words, the low-level conventions program code must follow in order to interoperate with other code.

No idea about assembly books. I never had one. All information I need I take directly from Intel's tech reference.

**matsp** · 02-08-2008

Originally Posted by CornedBee

In other words, the low-level conventions program code must follow in order to interoperate with other code.

No idea about assembly books. I never had one. All information I need I take directly from Intel's tech reference.

And if you don't want Intel manuals, AMD has a complete set of 5 books (in PDF unless you have GOOD contacts within AMD to get you the hardcopy version). Here for the soft copies.

--
Mats

**CornedBee** · 02-08-2008

And here's the Intel variant of pretty much the same thing.

**George2** · 02-08-2008

Thanks CornedBee,

Well. I think I have not made myself understood. I think there should be some assembly language manual provided by Microsoft other than by AMD/Intel, because I think to decide ECX should contain this pointer should be decided by Microsoft compiler, right?

What I want is general assembly language + specific things for Windows platform, like ECX for this.

Originally Posted by CornedBee

And here's the Intel variant of pretty much the same thing.

Thanks laserlight,

Originally Posted by laserlight

Application Binary Interface

Is there a book for that? On MSDN or?

regards,
George

**CornedBee** · 02-08-2008

I think there should be some assembly language manual provided by Microsoft

You're looking for the ABI description. This has very little to do with assembly language, so an assembly language manual by Microsoft doesn't make sense.

**matsp** · 02-08-2008

I'm not sure such a thing exists. Microsoft certainly wouldn't go round and write a book that contains all the info from AMD & Intel. On the other hand, AMD & Intel won't reproduce the ABI from Windows or Linux. I don't know if there is a proper documented ABI published by MS, but Linux certainly have a document that describes the ABI.

Searching Amazon.co.uk for "assembler Windows", it gives only two titles, and both are 15+ years old. "Intel Assembler" gives 43 titles, some of which are pretty recent, "AMD Assembler" gives one title in German. I doubt any of these books are particularly targetting Windows programming - once you know how to program assembler in general, using Windows calls is just a case of applying the ABI to function calls, after all.

In lack of such a document, the calling convention is reasonably well described on the page I linked to.

Edit: Note to self: Don't write so much, then CorneedBee won't get there first

--
Mats

**George2** · 02-08-2008

Hi Mats and CorneedBee,

Could this one be treated as ABI manual by Microsoft?

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...re/PECOFF.mspx

Originally Posted by matsp

I'm not sure such a thing exists. Microsoft certainly wouldn't go round and write a book that contains all the info from AMD & Intel. On the other hand, AMD & Intel won't reproduce the ABI from Windows or Linux. I don't know if there is a proper documented ABI published by MS, but Linux certainly have a document that describes the ABI.

Searching Amazon.co.uk for "assembler Windows", it gives only two titles, and both are 15+ years old. "Intel Assembler" gives 43 titles, some of which are pretty recent, "AMD Assembler" gives one title in German. I doubt any of these books are particularly targetting Windows programming - once you know how to program assembler in general, using Windows calls is just a case of applying the ABI to function calls, after all.

In lack of such a document, the calling convention is reasonably well described on the page I linked to.

Edit: Note to self: Don't write so much, then CorneedBee won't get there first

--
Mats

regards,
George

**CornedBee** · 02-08-2008

Possibly, but I don't think so. This describes the binary file formats, not the binary interfaces.

**matsp** · 02-08-2008

No, that describes the format of the executable file, not calling conventions etc.

Here's a link to one page that described calling conventions:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa235581.aspx

This link is one level above the previous one, and covers a whole host of further topics that may be interesting, such as inline assembler usage etc.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...8VS.60%29.aspx

--
Mats

**George2** · 02-08-2008

Hi Mats,

What do you think is the difference between the PE binary format and the binary guide for calling convetion.

1. Executable is consisting of functions, functions' binary format should be covered in PE (I think it should also cover the assembly code or binary format about the code to invoke a function);

2. Calling convention is about how internally (including the binary assembly code) a function is called.

So, in this way I do not think there is something you are mentioned which is not covered as a part of PE binary format Spec.

Maybe I have not clearly understood your points. What are your ideas?

Originally Posted by matsp

No, that describes the format of the executable file, not calling conventions etc.

Here's a link to one page that described calling conventions:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa235581.aspx

This link is one level above the previous one, and covers a whole host of further topics that may be interesting, such as inline assembler usage etc.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...8VS.60%29.aspx

--
Mats

regards,
George