What is the best way to set a register to zero in

Question

All the following instructions do the same thing: set %eax to zero. Which way is optimal (requiring fewest machine cycles)?

xorl   %eax, %eax
mov    $0, %eax
andl   $0, %eax

Answer 1

TL;DR summary: xor same, same is the best choice for all CPUs. No other method has any advantage over it, and it has at least some advantage over any other method. It's officially recommended by Intel and AMD. In 64bit mode, still use xor r32, r32, because writing a 32-bit reg zeros the upper 32. xor r64, r64 is a waste of a byte, because it needs a REX prefix.

Even worse than that, Silvermont only recognizes xor r32,r32 as dep-breaking, not 64-bit operand-size. Thus even when a REX prefix is still required because you're zeroing r8..r15, use xor r10d,r10d, not xor r10,r10.

Zeroing a vector register is usually best done with pxor xmm, xmm. That's typically what gcc does (even before use with FP instructions).

xorps xmm, xmm can make sense. It's one byte shorter than pxor, but xorps needs execution port 5 on Intel Nehalem, while pxor can run on any port (0/1/5). (Nehalem's 2c bypass delay latency between integer and FP is usually not relevant, because out-of-order execution can typically hide it at the start of a new dependency chain).

On SnB-family microarchitectures, neither flavour of xor-zeroing even needs an execution port. On AMD, and pre-Nehalem P6/Core2 Intel, xorps and pxor are handled the same way (as vector-integer instructions).

Using the AVX version of a 128b vector instruction zeros the upper part of the reg as well, so vpxor xmm, xmm, xmm is a good choice for zeroing YMM(AVX1/AVX2) or ZMM(AVX512), or any future vector extension. vpxor ymm, ymm, ymm doesn't take any extra bytes to encode, though, and runs the same. The AVX512 ZMM zeroing would require extra bytes (for the EVEX prefix), so XMM or YMM zeroing should be preferred.

---

Some CPUs recognize sub same,same as a zeroing idiom like xor, but all CPUs that recognize any zeroing idioms recognize xor. Just use xor so you don't have to worry about which CPU recognizes which zeroing idiom.

xor (being a recognized zeroing idiom, unlike mov reg, 0) has some obvious and some subtle advantages (summary list, then I'll expand on those):

• smaller code-size than mov reg,0. (All CPUs)
• avoids partial-register penalties for later code. (Intel P6-family and SnB-family).
• doesn't use an execution unit, saving power and freeing up execution resources. (Intel SnB-family)
• smaller uop (no immediate data) leaves room in the uop cache-line for nearby instructions to borrow if needed. (Intel SnB-family).
• doesn't use up entries in the physical register file. (Intel SnB-family (and P4) at least, possibly AMD as well since they use a similar PRF design instead of keeping register state in the ROB like Intel P6-family microarchitectures.)

---

Smaller machine-code size (2 bytes instead of 5) is always an advantage: Higher code density leads to fewer instruction-cache misses, and better instruction fetch and potentially decode bandwidth.

---

The benefit of not using an execution unit for xor on Intel SnB-family microarchitectures is minor, but saves power. It's more likely to matter on SnB or IvB, which only have 3 ALU execution ports. Haswell and later have 4 execution ports that can handle integer ALU instructions, including mov r32, imm32, so with perfect decision-making by the scheduler (which doesn't happen in practice), HSW could still sustain 4 uops per clock even when they all need execution ports.

See my answer on another question about zeroing registers for some more details.

Bruce Dawson's blog post that Michael Petch linked (in a comment on the question) points out that xor is handled at the register-rename stage without needing an execution unit (zero uops in the unfused domain), but missed the fact that it's still one uop in the fused domain. Modern Intel CPUs can issue & retire 4 fused-domain uops per clock. That's where the 4 zeros per clock limit comes from. Increased complexity of the register renaming hardware is only one of the reasons for limiting the width of the design to 4. (Bruce has written some very excellent blog posts, like his series on FP math and x87 / SSE / rounding issues, which I do highly recommend).

---

On AMD Bulldozer-family CPUs, mov immediate runs on the same EX0/EX1 integer execution ports as xor. mov reg,reg can also run on AGU0/1, but that's only for register copying, not for setting from immediates. So AFAIK, on AMD the only advantage to xor over mov is the shorter encoding. It might also save physical register resources, but I haven't seen any tests.

---

Recognized zeroing idioms avoid partial-register penalties on Intel CPUs which rename partial registers separately from full registers (P6 & SnB families).

xor will tag the register as having the upper parts zeroed, so xor eax, eax / inc al / inc eax avoids the usual partial-register penalty that pre-IvB CPUs have. Even without xor, IvB only needs a merging uop when the high 8bits (AH) are modified and then the whole register is read, and Haswell even removes that.

From Agner Fog's microarch guide, pg 98 (Pentium M section, referenced by later sections including SnB):

The processor recognizes the XOR of a register with itself as setting it to zero. A special tag in the register remembers that the high part of the register is zero so that EAX = AL. This tag is remembered even in a loop:

    ; Example    7.9. Partial register problem avoided in loop
    xor    eax, eax
    mov    ecx, 100
LL:
    mov    al, [esi]
    mov    [edi], eax    ; No extra uop
    inc    esi
    add    edi, 4
    dec    ecx
    jnz    LL

(from pg82): The processor remembers that the upper 24 bits of EAX are zero as long as you don't get an interrupt, misprediction, or other serializing event.

pg82 of that guide also confirms that mov reg, 0 is not recognized as a zeroing idiom, at least on early P6 designs like PIII or PM. I'd be very surprised if they spent transistors on detecting it on later CPUs.

---

xor sets flags, which means you have to be careful when testing conditions. Since setcc is unfortunately only available with an 8bit destination, you usually need to take care to avoid partial-register penalties.

It would have been nice if x86-64 repurposed one of the removed opcodes (like AAM) for a 16/32/64 bit setcc r/m, with the predicate encoded in the source-register 3-bit field of the r/m field (the way some other single-operand instructions use them as opcode bits). But they didn't do that, and that wouldn't help for x86-32 anyway.

Ideally, you should use xor / set flags / setcc / read full register:

...
call  some_func
xor     ecx,ecx    ; zero *before* the test
test    eax,eax
setnz   cl         ; cl = (some_func() != 0)
add     ebx, ecx   ; no partial-register penalty here

This has optimal performance on all CPUs (no stalls, merging uops, or false dependencies).

Things are more complicated when you don't want to xor before a flag-setting instruction. e.g. you want to branch on one condition and then setcc on another condition from the same flags. e.g. cmp/jle, sete, and you either don't have a spare register, or you want to keep the xor out of the not-taken code path altogether.

There are no recognized zeroing idioms that don't affect flags, so the best choice depends on the target microarchitecture. On Core2, inserting a merging uop might cause a 2 or 3 cycle stall. It appears to be cheaper on SnB, but I didn't spend much time trying to measure. Using mov reg, 0 / setcc would have a significant penalty on older Intel CPUs, and still be somewhat worse on newer Intel.

Using setcc / movzx r32, r8 is probably the best alternative for Intel P6 & SnB families, if you can't xor-zero ahead of the flag-setting instruction. That should be better than repeating the test after an xor-zeroing. (Don't even consider sahf / lahf or pushf / popf). IvB can eliminate movzx r32, r8 (i.e. handle it with register-renaming with no execution unit or latency, like xor-zeroing). Haswell and later only eliminate regular mov instructions, so movzx takes an execution unit and has non-zero latency, making test/setcc/movzx worse than xor/test/setcc, but still at least as good as test/mov r,0/setcc (and much better on older CPUs).

Using setcc / movzx with no zeroing first is bad on AMD/P4/Silvermont, because they don't track deps separately for sub-registers. There would be a false dep on the old value of the register. Using mov reg, 0/setcc for zeroing / dependency-breaking is probably the best alternative when xor/test/setcc isn't an option.

Of course, if you don't need setcc's output to be wider than 8 bits, you don't need to zero anything. However, beware of false dependencies on CPUs other than P6 / SnB if you pick a register that was recently part of a long dependency chain. (And beware of causing a partial reg stall or extra uop if you call a function that might save/restore the register you're using part of.)

---

and with an immediate zero isn't special-cased as independent of the old value on any CPUs I'm aware of, so it doesn't break dependency chains. It has no advantages over xor, and many disadvantages.

See http://agner.org/optimize/ for microarch documentation, including which zeroing idioms are recognized as dependency breaking (e.g. sub same,same is on some but not all CPUs, while xor same,same is recognized on all.) mov does break the dependency chain on the old value of the register (regardless of the source value, zero or not, because that's how mov works). xor only breaks dependency chains in the special-case where src and dest are the same register, which is why mov is left out of the list of specially recognized dependency-breakers. (Also, because it's not recognized as a zeroing idiom, with the other benefits that carries.)

Interestingly, the oldest P6 design (PPro through Pentium III) didn't recognize xor-zeroing as a dependency-breaker, only as a zeroing idiom for the purposes of avoiding partial-register stalls, so in some cases it was worth using both. (See Agner Fog's Example 6.17. in his microarch pdf. He says this also applies to P2, P3, and even (early?) PM. A comment on the linked blog post says it was only PPro that had this oversight, but I've tested on Katmai PIII, and @Fanael tested on a Pentium M, and we both found that it didn't break a dependency for a latency-bound imul chain.)

---

If it really makes your code nicer or saves instructions, then sure, zero with mov to avoid touching the flags, as long as you don't introduce a performance problem other than code size. Avoiding clobbering flags is the only sensible reason for not using xor, though.