[英]Convert C-code to ARM Cortex M3 Assembler Code
i have got the following c-function 我有以下C函数
int main_compare (int nbytes, char *pmem1, char *pmem2){
for(nbytes--; nbytes>=0; nbytes--) {
if(*(pmem1+nbytes) - *(pmem2+nbytes) != 0) {
return 0;
}
}
return 1;
}
and i want to convert it into an ARM - Cortex M3 - assembler code. 我想将其转换为ARM-Cortex M3-汇编代码。 I'm not really good at this, and i don't have a suitable compiler to test if i do it right. 我不是很擅长此事,而且我没有合适的编译器来测试我是否做对了。 But here comes what i have so far 但是我到目前为止所拥有的
byte_cmp_loop PROC
; assuming: r0 = nbytes, r1=pmem1, r2 = pmem2
SUB R0, R0, #1 ; nBytes - 1 as maximal value for loop counter
_for_loop:
ADD R3, R1, R0 ;
ADD R4, R2, R0 ; calculate pmem + n
LDRB R3, [R3] ;
LDRB R4, [R4] ; look at this address
CMP R3, R4 ; if cmp = 0, then jump over return
BE _next ; if statement by "branch"-cmd
MOV R0, #0 ; return value is zero
BX LR ; always return 0 here
_next:
sub R0, R0, #1 ; loop counting
BLPL _for_loop ; pl = if positive or zero
MOV R0, #1 ;
BX LR ; always return 1 here
ENDP
but i'm really not sure, if this is right, but i have no idea how to check it.... 但是我真的不确定这是否正确,但是我不知道如何检查...。
I see just 3 fairly simple problems there: 我在那里仅看到3个相当简单的问题:
BE _next ; if statement by "branch"-cmd
...
sub R0, R0, #1 ; loop counting
BLPL _for_loop ; pl = if positive or zero
BEQ
, not BE
- condition codes are always 2 letters. BEQ
而非BE
条件代码始终为2个字母。 SUB
alone won't update the flags - you need the suffix to say so ie SUBS
. SUB
本身不会更新标志-您需要使用后缀来表示SUBS
。 BLPL
would branch and link, thus overwriting your return address - you want BPL
. BLPL
将分支和链接,从而覆盖您的BLPL
地址-您需要BPL
。 Actually, BLPL
wouldn't assemble here anyway, since in Thumb a conditional BL
would need an IT
to set it up (unless of course your assembler is clever enough to insert one automatically). 实际上, BLPL
不会在这里进行汇编,因为在Thumb中,有条件的BL
需要IT
来设置(除非您的汇编器足够聪明,可以自动插入一个)。 Edit: there's also of course a more general issue with the use of R4
in both the original code and my examples below - if you're interfacing with C code the original value must be preserved across the function call and restored afterwards ( R0
- R3
are designated argument/scratch registers and can be freely modified). 编辑:在原始代码和下面的示例中, R4
的使用当然也存在更普遍的问题-如果与C代码接口,则必须在函数调用中保留原始值,然后R0
还原( R0
- R3
是指定的参数/临时寄存器,可以自由修改)。 If you're in pure assembly however you don't necessarily need to follow a standard calling convention so can be more flexible. 如果您使用的是纯汇编语言,则不必遵循标准的调用约定,因此可以更加灵活。
Now, that's a very literal representation of the C code, and doesn't make best use of the instruction set - in particular the indexed addressing modes. 现在,这是C代码的非常直观的表示,并且没有充分利用指令集-尤其是索引寻址模式。 One of the attractions of assembly programming is having complete control of the instructions, so how can we make it worth our while? 汇编编程的吸引力之一就是可以完全控制指令,那么如何使它值得我们花点时间呢?
First, let's make the C code look a little more like the assembly we want: 首先,让我们使C代码看起来更像我们想要的程序集:
int main_compare (int nbytes, char *pmem1, char *pmem2){
while(nbytes-- > 0) {
if(*pmem1++ != *pmem2++) {
return 0;
}
}
return 1;
}
Now that that shows our intent more clearly, let's play compiler: 现在,这更清楚地显示了我们的意图,让我们玩一下编译器:
byte_cmp_loop PROC
; assuming: r0 = nbytes, r1=pmem1, r2 = pmem2
_loop:
SUBS R0, R0, #1 ; Decrement nbytes and set flags based on the result
BMI _finished ; If nbytes is now negative, it was 0, so we're done
LDRB R3, [R1], #1 ; Load from the address in R1, then add 1 to R1
LDRB R4, [R2], #1 ; ditto for R2
CMP R3, R4 ; If they match...
BEQ _loop ; then continue round the loop
MOV R0, #0 ; else give up and return zero
BX LR
_finished:
MOV R0, #1 ; Success!
BX LR
ENDP
And that's nearly 25% fewer instructions! 指令减少了将近25%! Now if we pull in another instruction set feature - conditional execution - and relax the requirements slightly, without breaking C semantics, it gets smaller still: 现在,如果我们引入另一个指令集功能-条件执行-并在不破坏C语义的情况下稍微放宽了要求,则它会变得更小:
byte_cmp_loop PROC
; assuming: r0 = nbytes, r1=pmem1, r2 = pmem2
_loop:
SUBS R0, R0, #1 ; In C zero is false and any nonzero value is true, so
; when R0 becomes -1 to trigger this branch, we can just
; return that to indicate success
IT MI ; Make the following instruction conditional on 'minus'
BXMI LR
LDRB R3, [R1], #1
LDRB R4, [R2], #1
CMP R3, R4
BEQ _loop
MOVS R0, #0 ; Using MOVS rather than MOV to get a 16-bit encoding,
; since updating the flags won't matter at this point
BX LR
ENDP
assembling to a meagre 22 bytes, that's nearly 40% less code than we started with :D 组装成微薄的22个字节,比我们从:D开始的代码少40%
Well, here is some compiler generated code 好吧,这是一些编译器生成的代码
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O2 -mthumb -c test.c -o test.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -D test.o
00000000 <main_compare>:
0: b510 push {r4, lr}
2: 3801 subs r0, #1
4: d502 bpl.n c <main_compare+0xc>
6: e007 b.n 18 <main_compare+0x18>
8: 3801 subs r0, #1
a: d305 bcc.n 18 <main_compare+0x18>
c: 5c0c ldrb r4, [r1, r0]
e: 5c13 ldrb r3, [r2, r0]
10: 429c cmp r4, r3
12: d0f9 beq.n 8 <main_compare+0x8>
14: 2000 movs r0, #0
16: e000 b.n 1a <main_compare+0x1a>
18: 2001 movs r0, #1
1a: bc10 pop {r4}
1c: bc02 pop {r1}
1e: 4708 bx r1
arm-none-eabi-gcc -O2 -mthumb -mcpu=cortex-m3 -c test.c -o test.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -D test.o
00000000 <main_compare>:
0: 3801 subs r0, #1
2: b410 push {r4}
4: d503 bpl.n e <main_compare+0xe>
6: e00a b.n 1e <main_compare+0x1e>
8: f110 30ff adds.w r0, r0, #4294967295 ; 0xffffffff
c: d307 bcc.n 1e <main_compare+0x1e>
e: 5c0c ldrb r4, [r1, r0]
10: 5c13 ldrb r3, [r2, r0]
12: 429c cmp r4, r3
14: d0f8 beq.n 8 <main_compare+0x8>
16: 2000 movs r0, #0
18: f85d 4b04 ldr.w r4, [sp], #4
1c: 4770 bx lr
1e: 2001 movs r0, #1
20: f85d 4b04 ldr.w r4, [sp], #4
24: 4770 bx lr
26: bf00 nop
It is funny that the thumb2 extensions dont really seem to make this better, possibly worse. 有趣的是thumb2扩展确实并没有使它变得更好,甚至可能更糟。
If you dont have a compiler does that mean you dont have an assembler and linker either? 如果您没有编译器,是否意味着您也没有汇编器和链接器? I without an assembler and linker it is going to be a lot of work hand compiling and assembling to machine code. 如果没有汇编器和链接器,我将需要大量工作来手工编译和汇编机器代码。 Then how are you going to load this into a processor, etc? 然后,如何将其加载到处理器等中?
if you dont have a cross compiler for arm do you have a compiler at all? 如果您没有arm的交叉编译器,那么您根本没有编译器吗? You need to tell us more about what you do and dont have. 您需要告诉我们有关您做什么和不做什么的更多信息。 If you have a web browser that you used to find stackoverflow and post questions you can probably download the code sourcery tools or https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded tools and have a compiler, assembler and linker (and dont have to hand convert from c to asm). 如果您拥有用于查找堆栈溢出并发布问题的Web浏览器,则可能可以下载代码源工具或https://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded工具,并具有编译器,汇编器和链接器(并且没有将c转换为asm)。
As far as your code goes the subtract of 1 is correct for the nbytes--, but you failed to compare that nbytes value with zero to see if you dont have to do anything at all. 就您的代码而言,对nbytes减去1是正确的,但是您无法将该nbytes值与零进行比较,以查看是否根本不需要执行任何操作。
in pseudo code 用伪代码
if nbytes >= 0 return 1
nbytes--;
add pmem1+nbytes
load [pmem1+nbytes]
add pmem2+nbytes
load [pmem2+nbytes]
subtract
compare with zero
and so on
you went straight to the nbytes-- without doing the if nbytes>=0; 您直接进入了nbytes -而不是if nbytes> = 0; comparison. 比较。
The assembly for branch if equal is BEQ not BE and BPL instead of BLPL. 如果等于的分支程序集是BEQ而不是BE和BPL而不是BLPL。 So fix those, at the very beginning do an unconditional branch to _next and I think that is it you have it coded. 因此,请解决这些问题,一开始就对_next进行无条件分支,我想就是对它进行了编码。
byte_cmp_loop PROC
; assuming: r0 = nbytes, r1=pmem1, r2 = pmem2
B _next
_for_loop:
ADD R3, R1, R0 ;
ADD R4, R2, R0 ; calculate pmem + n
LDRB R3, [R3] ;
LDRB R4, [R4] ; look at this address
CMP R3, R4 ; if cmp = 0, then jump over return
BEQ _next ; if statement by "branch"-cmd
MOV R0, #0 ; return value is zero
BX LR ; always return 0 here
_next:
sub R0, R0, #1 ; loop counting
BPL _for_loop ; pl = if positive or zero
MOV R0, #1 ;
BX LR ; always return 1 here
ENDP
声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.