Why does the Mac ABI require 16-byte stack alignme

Question

I can understand this requirement for the old PPC RISC systems and even for x86-64, but for the old tried-and-true x86? In this case, the stack needs to be aligned on 4 byte boundaries only. Yes, some of the MMX/SSE instructions require 16byte alignments, but if that is a requirement of the callee, then it should ensure the alignments are correct. Why burden every caller with this extra requirement? This can actually cause some drops in performance because every call-site must manage this requirement. Am I missing something?

Update: After some more investigation into this and some consultation with some internal colleagues, I have some theories about this:

1. Consistency between the PPC, x86, and x64 version of the OS
2. It seems that the GCC codegen now consistently does a sub esp,xxx and then "mov"s the data onto the stack rather than simply doing a "push" instruction. This could actually be faster on some hardware.
3. While this does complicate the call sites a little, there is very little extra overhead when using the default "cdecl" convention where the caller cleans up the stack.

The issue I have with the last item, is that for calling conventions that rely on the callee cleaning the stack, the above requirements really "uglifies" the codegen. For instance, what some compiler decided to implement a faster register-based calling style for its own internal use (ie any code that isn't intended to be called from other languages or sources)? This stack-alignment thing could negate some of the performance gains achieved by passing some parameters in registers.

Update: So far the only real answers have been consistency, but to me that's a bit too easy of an answer. I have well over 20 years experience with the x86 architecture and if consistency, not performance, or something else concrete, is really the reason then I respectfully suggest that is a bit naive for the developers to require it. They're ignoring nearly three decades of tools and support. Especially if they're expecting tools vendors to quickly and easily adapt their tools for their platform (maybe not... it is Apple...) without having to jump through several seemingly unnecessary hoops.

I'll give this topic another day or so then close it...

Related

• It’s my stack frame, I don’t care about your stack frame!

Answer 1

From "Intel®64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual", section 4.4.2:

"For best performance, the Streaming SIMD Extensions and Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 require their memory operands to be aligned to 16-byte boundaries. Unaligned data can cause significant performance penalties compared to aligned data."

From Appendix D:

"It is important to ensure that the stack frame is aligned to a 16-byte boundary upon function entry to keep local __m128 data, parameters, and XMM register spill locations aligned throughout a function invocation."

http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/248966.pdf

Answer 2

Not sure why no one has considered the possibility of easy portability from legacy PowerPC-based platform?

Read this:

http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/LowLevelABI/100-32-bit_PowerPC_Function_Calling_Conventions/32bitPowerPC.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002438-SW20

And then zoomed into "32-bit PowerPC Function Calling Conventions" and finally this:

"These are the embedding alignment modes available in the 32-bit PowerPC environment:

Power alignment mode is derived from the alignment rules used by the IBM XLC compiler for the AIX operating system. It is the default alignment mode for the PowerPC-architecture version of GCC used on AIX and Mac OS X. Because this mode is most likely to be compatible between PowerPC-architecture compilers from different vendors, it’s typically used with data structures that are shared between different programs."

In view of the legacy PowerPC-based background of OSX, portability is a major consideration - it dictates following the convention all the way back to AIX's XLC compiler. When you think in terms of the need to make sure all the tools and applications will work together with minimal rework, I think it is important to stick to the same legacy ABI as far as possible.

That gives the philosophy, and reading further is the rule explicitly mentioned ("Prolog and Epilog"):

The called function is responsible for allocating its own stack frame, making sure to preserve 16-byte alignment in the stack. This operation is accomplished by a section of code called the prolog, which the compiler places before the body of the subroutine. After the body of the subroutine, the compiler places an epilog to restore the processor to the state it was prior to the subroutine call.

Answer 3

I believe it's to keep it inline with the x86-64 ABI.

Answer 4

While I cannot really answer your question of WHY, you may find the manuals at the following site useful:

http://www.agner.org/optimize/

Regarding the ABI, have a look especially at:

http://www.agner.org/optimize/calling_conventions.pdf

Hope that's useful.