了解汇编程序的原因之一是,有时可以使用汇编程序来编写比用高级语言(特别是C语言)编写的代码性能更好的代码。然而,我也听人说过很多次,尽管这并非完全错误,但实际上可以使用汇编程序来生成性能更好的代码的情况极其罕见,并且需要汇编方面的专业知识和经验。

这个问题甚至没有涉及到这样一个事实,即汇编程序指令将是特定于机器的、不可移植的,或者汇编程序的任何其他方面。当然,除了这一点之外,了解汇编还有很多很好的理由,但这是一个需要示例和数据的具体问题,而不是关于汇编程序与高级语言的扩展论述。

谁能提供一些具体的例子,说明使用现代编译器汇编代码比编写良好的C代码更快,并且您能否用分析证据支持这一说法?我相信这些案例确实存在,但我真的很想知道这些案例到底有多深奥,因为这似乎是一个有争议的问题。


当前回答

我已经阅读了所有的答案(超过30个),并没有找到一个简单的原因:如果你读过并练习过Intel®64和IA-32架构优化参考手册,汇编程序比C更快,所以汇编程序可能更慢的原因是编写这种慢汇编程序的人没有阅读优化手册。

In the good old days of Intel 80286, each instruction was executed at a fixed count of CPU cycles. Still, since Pentium Pro, released in 1995, Intel processors became superscalar, utilizing Complex Pipelining: Out-of-Order Execution & Register Renaming. Before that, on Pentium, produced in 1993, there were U and V pipelines. Therefore, Pentium introduced dual pipelines that could execute two simple instructions at one clock cycle if they didn't depend on one another. However, this was nothing compared with the Out-of-Order Execution & Register Renaming that appeared in Pentium Pro. This approach introduced in Pentium Pro is practically the same nowadays on most recent Intel processors.

Let me explain the Out-of-Order Execution in a few words. The fastest code is where instructions do not depend on previous results, e.g., you should always clear whole registers (by movzx) to remove dependency from previous values of the registers you are working with, so they may be renamed internally by the CPU to allow instruction execute in parallel or in a different order. Or, on some processors, false dependency may exist that may also slow things down, like false dependency on Pentium 4 for inc/dec, so you may wish to use add eax, 1 instead or inc eax to remove dependency on the previous state of the flags.

如果时间允许,您可以阅读更多无序执行和注册重命名。因特网上有大量的信息。

There are also many other essential issues like branch prediction, number of load and store units, number of gates that execute micro-ops, memory cache coherence protocols, etc., but the crucial thing to consider is the Out-of-Order Execution. Most people are simply not aware of the Out-of-Order Execution. Therefore, they write their assembly programs like for 80286, expecting their instructions will take a fixed time to execute regardless of the context. At the same time, C compilers are aware of the Out-of-Order Execution and generate the code correctly. That's why the code of such uninformed people is slower, but if you become knowledgeable, your code will be faster.

除了乱序执行之外,还有很多优化技巧和技巧。请阅读上面提到的优化手册:-)

However, assembly language has its own drawbacks when it comes to optimization. According to Peter Cordes (see the comment below), some of the optimizations compilers do would be unmaintainable for large code-bases in hand-written assembly. For example, suppose you write in assembly. In that case, you need to completely change an inline function (an assembly macro) when it inlines into a function that calls it with some arguments being constants. At the same time, a C compiler makes its job a lot simpler—and inlining the same code in different ways into different call sites. There is a limit to what you can do with assembly macros. So to get the same benefit, you'd have to manually optimize the same logic in each place to match the constants and available registers you have.

其他回答

在历史上插话。

当我还年轻的时候(20世纪70年代),根据我的经验,汇编是很重要的,更重要的是代码的大小,而不是代码的速度。

如果一个高级语言的模块是1300字节的代码,但该模块的汇编版本是300字节,那么当您试图将应用程序装入16K或32K的内存时,这1K字节就非常重要。

那时候编译器还不是很好。

在老式的Fortran中

X = (Y - Z)
IF (X .LT. 0) THEN
 ... do something
ENDIF

当时的编译器在X上执行了一个SUBTRACT指令,然后是一个TEST指令。 在汇编程序中,您只需在减法之后检查条件代码(LT零,零,GT零)。

对于现代系统和编译器来说,这些都不是问题。

我认为理解编译器在做什么仍然很重要。 当您使用高级语言编写代码时,您应该了解什么允许或阻止编译器执行循环展开。

当编译器执行“类似分支”的操作时,使用管道内衬和包含条件的前瞻计算。

当执行高级语言不允许的事情时,仍然需要汇编程序,比如读取或写入处理器特定的寄存器。

但在很大程度上,普通程序员不再需要它,除非对代码如何编译和执行有基本的了解。

我很惊讶居然没人这么说。如果用汇编编写strlen()函数,速度会快得多!在C中,你能做的最好的事情就是

int c;
for(c = 0; str[c] != '\0'; c++) {}

在组装过程中,你可以大大加快速度:

mov esi, offset string
mov edi, esi
xor ecx, ecx

lp:
mov ax, byte ptr [esi]
cmp al, cl
je  end_1
cmp ah, cl
je end_2
mov bx, byte ptr [esi + 2]
cmp bl, cl
je end_3
cmp bh, cl
je end_4
add esi, 4
jmp lp

end_4:
inc esi

end_3:
inc esi

end_2:
inc esi

end_1:
inc esi

mov ecx, esi
sub ecx, edi

长度单位是ecx。这一次比较4个字符,所以速度快4倍。并且考虑使用eax和ebx的高阶词,它将比之前的C例程快8倍!

Actually you can build large scale programs in a large model mode segaments may be restricted to 64kb code but you can write many segaments, people give the argument against ASM as it is an old language and we don't need to preserve memory anymore, If that were the case why would we be packing our PC's with memory, the only Flaw I can find with ASM is that it is more or less Processor based so most programs written for the intel architecture Most likely would not run on An AMD Architecture. As for C being faster than ASM there is no language faster than ASM and ASM can do many thing's C and other HLL's can not do at processor level. ASM is a difficult language to learn but once you learn it no HLL can translate it better than you. If you could only see some of the things HLL's Do to you code, and understand what it is doing, you would wonder why More people don't use ASM and why assembers are no longer being updated ( For general public use anyway). So no C is not faster than ASM. Even experiences C++ programmers still use and write code Chunks in ASM added to there C++ code for speed. Other Languages Also that some people think are obsolete or possibly no good is a myth at times for instance Photoshop is written in Pascal/ASM 1st release of souce has been submitted to the technical history museum, and paintshop pro is written still written in Python,TCL and ASM ... a common denominator of these to "Fast and Great image processors is ASM, although photoshop may have Upgraded to delphi now it is still pascal. and any speed problems are comming from pascal but this is because we like the way programs look and not what they do now days. I would like to make a Photoshop Clone in pure ASM which I have been working on and its comming along rather well. not code,interpret,arange,rewwrite,etc.... Just code and go process complete.

我需要对192位或256位的每次中断进行移位操作,每50微秒发生一次。

它通过一个固定的映射(硬件限制)实现。使用C语言,制作它只需要大约10微秒。当我把它翻译到Assembler时,考虑到这个映射的特定特性,特定的寄存器缓存,并使用面向位的操作;它只花了不到3.5微秒的时间。

简短的回答吗?有时。

从技术上讲,每一个抽象都有成本,而编程语言是CPU如何工作的抽象。然而C非常接近。几年前,我记得当我登录UNIX帐户并收到以下财富信息时(当时这种东西很流行),我笑出声来:

C程序设计语言——A 语言结合了 汇编语言的灵活性 汇编语言的强大。

这很有趣,因为这是真的:C就像可移植的汇编语言。

值得注意的是,汇编语言无论如何编写都可以运行。然而,在C语言和它生成的汇编语言之间有一个编译器,这是非常重要的,因为你的C代码有多快与你的编译器有多好有很大关系。

当gcc出现时,它如此受欢迎的原因之一是它通常比许多商业UNIX版本附带的C编译器要好得多。它不仅是ANSI C(没有任何K&R C的垃圾),更健壮,通常能产生更好(更快)的代码。不是总是,而是经常。

我告诉你这一切是因为没有关于C和汇编器速度的统一规则,因为C没有客观的标准。

同样地,汇编程序也会根据你正在运行的处理器、你的系统规格、你正在使用的指令集等而有很大的不同。历史上有两个CPU体系结构家族:CISC和RISC。CISC中最大的玩家过去是,现在仍然是Intel x86架构(和指令集)。RISC主宰了UNIX世界(MIPS6000、Alpha、Sparc等等)。CISC赢得了民心之战。

不管怎样,当我还是一个年轻的开发人员时,流行的观点是,手写的x86通常比C快得多,因为架构的工作方式,它的复杂性受益于人类的操作。另一方面,RISC似乎是为编译器设计的,所以没有人(我知道)写Sparc汇编器。我相信这样的人确实存在,但毫无疑问,他们现在都疯了,被送进了精神病院。

指令集是一个重要的点,即使在同一家族的处理器。某些英特尔处理器具有SSE到SSE4等扩展。AMD有他们自己的SIMD指令。像C这样的编程语言的好处是,人们可以编写他们的库,以便对您运行的任何处理器进行优化。这在汇编程序中是一项艰苦的工作。

你仍然可以在汇编程序中做一些编译器无法做的优化,一个编写良好的汇编程序算法将会和它的C等效程序一样快或更快。更大的问题是:这样做值得吗?

Ultimately though assembler was a product of its time and was more popular at a time when CPU cycles were expensive. Nowadays a CPU that costs $5-10 to manufacture (Intel Atom) can do pretty much anything anyone could want. The only real reason to write assembler these days is for low level things like some parts of an operating system (even so the vast majority of the Linux kernel is written in C), device drivers, possibly embedded devices (although C tends to dominate there too) and so on. Or just for kicks (which is somewhat masochistic).