[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2007/01/29]
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 14:15 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > gcc -S try.cpp -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer > > cat try.s > # tons of labels and such deleted > _Z1gv: > pushl %esi > pushl %ebx > subl $32, %esp > leal 12(%esp), %esi > pushl %esi > call _ZN1CC1Ev > addl $16, %esp > call _Z1fv > subl $12, %esp > pushl %esi > call _ZN1CD1Ev > addl $36, %esp > popl %ebx > popl %esi > ret > > > gcc -S try.cpp -O6 -o try2.s -fno-exceptions -fomit-frame-pointer > > cat try2.s > # same shit without pushl/popl %esi: > _Z1gv: > pushl %ebx > subl $36, %esp > leal 12(%esp), %ebx > pushl %ebx > call _ZN1CC1Ev > addl $16, %esp > call _Z1fv > subl $12, %esp > pushl %ebx > call _ZN1CD1Ev > addl $40, %esp > popl %ebx > ret Sorry, can't help you here. I'm happy to report I (intentionally) know absolutely no x86 assembler at all. I could probably guess some of it but I wouldn't want to. I suppose the instructions are obvious enough, but I vaguely remember from z80 that the registers are all wierd so I wouldn't understand the context anyway. (The fact that the processor has a register called 'ESP' makes me wonder if that explains the sometimes weird behaviour of PCs over the years.) Find me an example in ARM, SPARC, even 68k and I'll try and help you out. Heck, there's quite a lot of wasted brain cells on TI 32 series DSP, PIC microprocessor, 6502 and other rubbish, but I don't think gcc compiles to any of those. Cheers, Martin.There's stuff above here
Generated at 23:01 on 06 Feb 2007 by mariachi 0.52