6.8 KiB
Local variables
DX |
First 8-bit variable declared if no other function is called Second 16-bit variable declared if no other function is called |
[bp-1] |
First 8-bit variable declared otherwise |
SI |
First 16-bit variable declared |
DI |
Second 16-bit variable declared if other functions are called |
Example:
ASM | Declaration sequence in C |
---|---|
SI |
int near *var_1; |
[bp-1] |
char var_2; |
[bp-2] |
char var_3; |
Grouping
Any structures or classes that contain more than a single scalar-type member are grouped according to their declaration order, and placed after (that is, further away from BP) than all scalar-type variables. This means that it's not possible to bundle a set of variables with the same meaning into a structure (e.g. pointers to all 4 VRAM planes) if a scalar-type variable is placed inbetween two of these structure instances on the stack: Those structure instances would be grouped and always placed next to each other, no matter where the scalar-type variable is declared in relation to them.
Signedness
MOV al, var MOV ah, 0 |
var is unsigned char |
MOV al, var CBW |
var is char, AX is int |
Arithmetic
ADD [m8], imm8 |
Only achievable through a C++ method operating on a member? |
MOV AL, [m8] ADD AL, imm8 MOV [m8], AL |
Opposite; not an inlined function |
CWD SUB AX, DX SAR AX, 1 |
AX / 2 , AX is int |
Arithmetic on a register after assigning it to a variable?
Assigment is part of the C expression. If it's a comparison, that comparison
must be spelled out to silence the Possibly incorrect assignment
warning.
CALL somefunc MOV ??, AX OR AX, AX JNZ ↑ |
while(( ?? = somefunc() ) != NULL) |
SUB ??, imm
vs. ADD ??, -imm
SUB
means that ??
is unsigned. Might require suffixing imm
with u
in
case it's part of an arithmetic expression that was promoted to int
.
switch
statements
- Sequence of the individual cases is identical in both C and ASM
- Multiple cases with the same offset in the table, to code that doesn't
return? Code was compiled with
-O
Function calls
NOP
insertion
Happens for every far
call to outside of the current translation unit, even
if both the caller and callee end up being linked into the same code segment.
Certainty: Seems like there might be a way around that, apart from temporarily spelling out these calls in ASM until both functions are compiled as part of the same translation unit. Found nothing so far, though.
Pushing byte arguments to functions
Borland C++ just pushes the entire word. Will cause IDA to mis-identify
certain local variables as word
s when they aren't.
Flags
-O
(Optimize jumps)
Also merges multiple ADD SP, imm8
stack-clearing instructions after
__cdecl
function calls into a single one with their combined parameter size.
Inhibited by:
-
identical variable declarations within more than one scope – the optimizer will only merge the code after the last ASM reference to that declared variable. Yes, even though the emitted ASM would be identical:
if(a) { int v = set_v(); do_something_else(); use(v); } else if(underline) { // Second declaration of [v]. Even though it's assigned to the same stack // offset, the second `PUSH w` call will still be emitted separately. // Thus, jump optimization only reuses the `CALL use` instruction. // Move the `int v;` declaraion to the beginning of the function to avoid // this. int v = set_v(); use(v); }
-
distinct instances of assignments of local variables in registers to itself
-
inlined calls to empty functions
Inlining
Always worth a try to get rid of a potential macro. Some edge cases don't inline optimally though:
- Assignments to a pointer in
SI
– that pointer is moved toDI
, clobbering that register. Try a class method instead.
Initialization
Any initialization of a variable with static storage duration (even a const
one) that involves function calls (even those that would regularly inline)
will emit a #pragma startup
function to perform that initialization at
runtime.
This extends to C++ constructors, making macros the only way to initialize
such variables with arithmetic expressions at compile time.
#define FOO(x) (x << 1)
inline char foo(const char x) {
return FOO(x);
}
const char static_storage[3] = { FOO(1), foo(2), FOO(3) };
Resulting ASM (abbreviated):
.data
static_storage db 2, 0, 6
.code
@_STCON_$qv proc near
push bp
mov bp, sp
mov static_storage[1], 4
pop bp
ret
@_STCON_$qv endp
C++
Class methods inline to their ideal representation if all of these are true:
- returns
void
|| (returns*this
&& is at the first nesting level of inlining) - takes no parameters || takes only built-in, scalar-type parameters
Examples:
-
A class method (first nesting level) calling an overloaded operator (second nesting level) returning
*this
will generate (needless) instructions equivalent toMOV AX, *this
. Thus, any overloaded=
,+=
,-=
, etc. operator should always returnvoid
.Certainty: See the examples in
9d121c7
. This is what allows us to use custom types with overloaded assignment operators, with the resulting code generation being indistinguishable from equivalent C preprocessor macros. -
Returning anything else but
void
or*this
will first store that result inAX
, leading any branches at the call site to then refer toAX
.Certainty: Maybe Borland (not Turbo) C++ has an optimization option against it?
Limits of decompilability
MOV BX, SP
-style functions, or others with no standard stack frame
These almost certainly weren't compiled from C. By disabling stack frames
using #pragma option -k-
, it might be possible to still get the exact same
code out of Turbo C++ – even though it will most certainly look horrible, and
barely more readable than assembly (or even less so), with tons of inline ASM
and register pseudovariables. However, it's futile to even try if the function
contains one of the following:
-
A reference to the
DI
register. In that case, Turbo C++ always inserts aPUSH DI
at the beginning (before theMOV BX, SP
), and aPOP DI
before returning.Certainty: Confirmed through reverse-engineering
TCC.EXE
, no way around it.