←back to thread

73 points ingve | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
wyldfire ◴[] No.42477388[source]
> Because it’s so treacherous, the first rule is to avoid it if at all possible. Modern compilers are loaded with intrinsics and built-ins that replace nearly all the old inline assembly use cases.

If you take away anything from this article, it should be at least this. Intrinsics/builtins should be your first approach. Only use inline assembly if you can't express what you need using intrinsics.

replies(2): >>42479044 #>>42481487 #
bjackman ◴[] No.42479044[source]
I have a fun exception to this!

When writing BPF programs, sometimes it's tricky to get the compiler to generate code that passes the verifier. This can lead you down a path of writing bizarre C in order to try and produce the right order of checks and register allocations.

So, use inline asm!

It's not portable any more... But it's a BPF program! There's nothing to port it to.

It's less readable... Wait no, it's _more_ readable because BPF asm has good syntax and you can avoid the bizarre C backflips to satisfy the verifier.

It's unsafe... Wait no, it's checked for safety at load time!

replies(2): >>42479912 #>>42479933 #
1. ◴[] No.42479912[source]