I am working on a very low level part of the application in which performance is critical.
While investigating the generated assembly, I noticed the following instruction:
lea eax,[edx*8+8]
I am used to seeing additions when using memory references (e.g. [edx+4]), but this is the first time I see a multiplication.
- Does this mean that the x86 processor can perform simple multiplications in the lea instruction?
- Does this multiplication have an impact on the number of cycles needed to execute the instruction?
- Is the multiplication limited to powers of 2 (I would assume this is the case)?
Thanks in advance.
To expand on your last question:
Note that you get the result of
base + scale * index
, so whilescale
has to be 1, 2, 4 or 8 (the size of x86 integer datatypes), you can get the equivalent of a multiplication by some different constants by using the same register asbase
andindex
, e.g.:This is used by the compiler to do strength reduction, e.g: for a multiplication by 100, depending on compiler options (target CPU model, optimization options), you may get:
To expand on my comment and to answer the rest of the question...
Yes, it's limited to powers of two. (2, 4, and 8 specifically) So no multiplier is needed since it's just a shift. The point of it is to quickly generate an address from an index variable and a pointer - where the datatype is a simple 2, 4, or 8 byte word. (Though it's often abused for other uses as well.)
As for the number of cycles that are needed: According to Agner Fog's tables it looks like the
lea
instruction is constant on some machines and variable on others.On Sandy Bridge there's a 2-cycle penalty if it's "complex or rip relative". But it doesn't say what "complex" means... So we can only guess unless you do a benchmark.
Actually, this is not something specific to the
lea
instruction.This type of addressing is called
Scaled Addressing Mode
. The multiplication is achieved by a bit shift, which is trivial:You could do 'scaled addressing' with a
mov
too, for example (note that this is not the same operation, the only similarity is the fact thatebx*4
represents an address multiplication):(source: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs216/guides/x86.html#memory)
For a more complete listing, see this Intel document. Table 2-3 shows that a scaling of 2, 4, or 8 is allowed. Nothing else.
Latency (in terms of number of cycles): I don't think this should be affected at all. A shift is a matter of connections, and selecting between three possible shifts is the matter of 1 multiplexer worth of delay.