gcc
and g++
are compiler-drivers of the GNU Compiler Collection (which was once upon a time just the GNU C Compiler).
Even though they automatically determine which backends (cc1
cc1plus
...) to call depending on the file-type, unless overridden with -x language
, they have some differences.
The probably most important difference in their defaults is which libraries they link against automatically.
According to GCC's online documentation link options and how g++ is invoked, g++
is equivalent to gcc -xc++ -lstdc++ -shared-libgcc
(the 1st is a compiler option, the 2nd two are linker options). This can be checked by running both with the -v
option (it displays the backend toolchain commands being run).
If you compile with debug symbols (add -g
to your GCC command line, even if you're also using -O3
1),
you can use objdump -S
to produce a more readable disassembly interleaved with C source.
>objdump --help
[...]
-S, --source Intermix source code with disassembly
-l, --line-numbers Include line numbers and filenames in output
objdump -drwC -Mintel
is nice:
-r
shows symbol names on relocations (so you'd see puts
in the call
instruction below)
-R
shows dynamic-linking relocations / symbol names (useful on shared libraries)
-C
demangles C++ symbol names
-w
is "wide" mode: it doesn't line-wrap the machine-code bytes
-Mintel
: use GAS/binutils MASM-like .intel_syntax noprefix
syntax instead of AT&T
-S
: interleave source lines with disassembly.
You could put something like alias disas="objdump -drwCS -Mintel"
in your ~/.bashrc
. If not on x86, or if you like AT&T syntax, omit -Mintel
.
Example:
> gcc -g -c test.c
> objdump -d -M intel -S test.o
test.o: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <main>:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
0: 55 push ebp
1: 89 e5 mov ebp,esp
3: 83 e4 f0 and esp,0xfffffff0
6: 83 ec 10 sub esp,0x10
puts("test");
9: c7 04 24 00 00 00 00 mov DWORD PTR [esp],0x0
10: e8 fc ff ff ff call 11 <main+0x11>
return 0;
15: b8 00 00 00 00 mov eax,0x0
}
1a: c9 leave
1b: c3 ret
Note that this isn't using -r
so the call rel32=-4
isn't annotated with the puts
symbol name. And looks like a broken call
that jumps into the middle of the call instruction in main. Remember that the rel32
displacement in the call encoding is just a placeholder until the linker fills in a real offset (to a PLT stub in this case, unless you statically link libc).
Footnote 1: Interleaving source can be messy and not very helpful in optimized builds; for that, consider https://godbolt.org/ or other ways of visualizing which instructions go with which source lines. In optimized code there's not always a single source line that accounts for an instruction but the debug info will pick one source line for each asm instruction.
Best Answer
The benefit of inline assembly is to have the assembly code, inlined (wait wait, don't kill me). By doing this, you don't have to worry about calling conventions, and you have much more control of the final object file (meaning you can decide where each variable goes- to which register or if it's memory stored), because that code won't be optimized (assuming you use the volatile keyword).
Regarding your second question, yes, it's possible. What you can do is write simple C programs, and then translate them to assembly, using
With this, and the architecture manuals (MIPS, Intel, etc) as well as the GCC manual, you can go a long way.
There's some material online.
http://www.ibiblio.org/gferg/ldp/GCC-Inline-Assembly-HOWTO.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.4.2/gcc/
The downside of inline assembly, is that usually your code will not be portable between different compilers.
Hope it helps.