Doc fix request: C/C++ extended asm empty input constraint

Doc fix request: C/C++ extended asm empty input constraint

[Neven Sajko]

Hello all,

There is a long-standing, but undocumented GCC inline assembly feature
that's part of the extended asm GCC extension to C and C++: extended
asm empty input constraints.

As far as I understand the semantics, this is a feature that
effectively creates a "fake" load and a "fake" ordering dependency.
The distinguishing feature of the empty constraint is that it's
possible for the compiler to optimize it (and this seems to work fine
with gcc -O3) so that no unnecessary additional code generation
happens. Thus this feature is something that is useful for testing
C/C++ code, or benchmarking it, or fuzzing it, etc. Note that this
feature would then almost always be used without actual assembly
instructions in the asm declaration/statement.

The feature was luckily mentioned on the GCC mailing lists in the
past, here's a quote from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2015-June/124410.html by David
Brown.

> But the extra "asm volatile" here with a fake input tells the compiler
> that "val" is an input to the (empty) assembly, and must therefore be
> calculated before the statement is executed.  The empty input constraint
> (no "r" or "m") gives the compiler complete freedom about where it wants
> to put this fake input - all we are saying is that the value "val" must
> be calculated before executing
>                 asm volatile("" :: "" (val))
> Generating assembly from this (using gcc-4.5.1, which is the latest
> avr-gcc I have installed at the moment) shows the division being done
> before the cli() - the code is optimal and correct, with no unnecessary
> memory operations (as you would need by making "val" volatile).

There is also a Stack Overflow question where somebody is confused
with the lack of documentation:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63305223/gcc-asm-with-empty-input-operand-constraint

This is why I am asking for this feature to be documented. It seems
like this would be the most appropriate place:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#InputOperands

I would have tried to contribute a doc fix myself, but I couldn't find
the sources for the online docs in the GCC Git repository.

Lastly, in case it's helpful, here's a short C++ program which
demonstrates the behavior in more concrete terms:

> #include <vector>
>
> int
> main() {
>       // Greater than or equal to zero.
>       constexpr int asmV = ASM_V;
>
>       std::vector<char> v{7, 6, 9, 3, 2, 0};
>       for (int i{0}; i < (1 << 28); i++) {
>               for (int j{0}; j < 6; j++) {
>                       v[j]++;
>
>                       if constexpr (1 <= asmV) {
>                               asm volatile ("" :: ""(v.size()));
>                               for (auto x: v) {
>                                       asm volatile ("" :: ""(x));
>                               }
>                       }
>                       if constexpr (2 <= asmV) {
>                               asm volatile ("" :: ""(v.size()));
>                               for (auto x: v) {
>                                       asm volatile ("" :: ""(x));
>                               }
>                       }
>                       if constexpr (3 <= asmV) {
>                               asm volatile ("" :: ""(v.size()));
>                               for (auto x: v) {
>                                       asm volatile ("" :: ""(x));
>                               }
>                       }
>               }
>       }
>
>       return 0;
> }

So compile it with, e.g.
g++ -std=c++20 -O3 -flto -march=native -D ASM_V=XXX -o XXX asm.cc

Where XXX will be 0, 1, 2 and 3.

For ASM_V=0 the loop gets optimized out, while for greater values the
loop stays. For ASM_V=1, ASM_V=2 and ASM_V=3 the generated code is
exactly the same.

Thanks,
Neven Sajko

Re: Doc fix request: C/C++ extended asm empty input constraint

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021, 00:48 Neven Sajko via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

>
> This is why I am asking for this feature to be documented. It seems
> like this would be the most appropriate place:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#InputOperands
>
> I would have tried to contribute a doc fix myself, but I couldn't find
> the sources for the online docs in the GCC Git repository.
>


git grep is your friend. The relevant section is:

https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/doc/extend.texi;h=e110cb010617bfb78e740433c3aa30a7399b504e;hb=HEAD#l10344

Re: Doc fix request: C/C++ extended asm empty input constraint

[Neven Sajko]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 08:11, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021, 00:48 Neven Sajko via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is why I am asking for this feature to be documented. It seems
>> like this would be the most appropriate place:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#InputOperands
>>
>> I would have tried to contribute a doc fix myself, but I couldn't find
>> the sources for the online docs in the GCC Git repository.
>
>
>
> git grep is your friend. The relevant section is:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/doc/extend.texi;h=e110cb010617bfb78e740433c3aa30a7399b504e;hb=HEAD#l10344

I posted a patch back then (a week ago) to gcc-patches, but there was
no response. I'm not complaining, but I wonder if I should maybe ping
a developer interested in the extended asm extension specifically? Who
might that be?

This is the patch in the archive:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565339.html

Thanks,
Neven

Re: Doc fix request: C/C++ extended asm empty input constraint

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 02:17, Neven Sajko <nsajko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 08:11, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021, 00:48 Neven Sajko via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> This is why I am asking for this feature to be documented. It seems
> >> like this would be the most appropriate place:
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#InputOperands
> >>
> >> I would have tried to contribute a doc fix myself, but I couldn't find
> >> the sources for the online docs in the GCC Git repository.
> >
> >
> >
> > git grep is your friend. The relevant section is:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/doc/extend.texi;h=e110cb010617bfb78e740433c3aa30a7399b504e;hb=HEAD#l10344
>
> I posted a patch back then (a week ago) to gcc-patches, but there was
> no response. I'm not complaining, but I wonder if I should maybe ping
> a developer interested in the extended asm extension specifically? Who
> might that be?

I don't think there is a maintainer for asm statements, but a docs
maintainer might be relevant for this patch. You can also just ping
the patch by replying to it on the list, without CCing anybody
particular.

> This is the patch in the archive:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/565339.html

I replied to the mail.