• State Accepted Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 350 subscribers
  • Views 19847 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

ARM7TDMI: SUBS vs SUB + CMP

Greger Greger
Note: This was originally posted on 2nd April 2009 at http://forums.arm.com

Hi,

I have a question regarding the SUBS instruction and how it compares to SUB and CMP (due to unexpected behavior in a C-program).

The original C-code goes like this (all variables are 32 bit signed integers):

    t = a*b - c*c;
    if (t > 0) d = t;

In a particular case (a = 0x80, b = 0x106DCD9, c = 0x4E352501) I get an overflow in a*b as well as in the subtraction. What is puzzling to me is that there's a difference between the the following two assembler versions in a certain simulated environment - and I'm trying to figure out if this is expected or a bug in the simulator:

MUL temp1, c, c
MUL temp2, a, b
SUBS t, temp2, temp1
MOVGT d, t

and

MUL temp1, c, c
MUL temp2, a, b
SUB t, temp2, temp1
CMP t, #0
MOVGT d, t

(These are genereated depending on different compiler settings.)

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Greger
Parents
  • 0
    Note: This was originally posted on 3rd April 2009 at http://forums.arm.com

    Thank you for your answers!

    I realize I gave the wrong numbers. The calculation in question (indeed, the root cause is poor algorithm design) is

    t = 0x80 * 0x106DCD9 - 0x8D7F * 0x8D7F

    => t = 0x836E6C80 - 0x4E352501 (=0x3539477F)

    (a = 0x80, b = 0x106DCD9, c = 0x8DF, a*b = 0x836E6C80, c*c = 0x4E352501)

    So, if I understand you right we should have

    MUL temp1, c, c => no overflow flag, no negative flag (this is in bounds)
    MUL temp2, a, b => negative flag, no overflow flag (but shouldn't overflow be set since it's a signed multiply?)
    SUBS t, temp2, temp1 => no negative flag, overflow flag (underflow)
    MOVGT d, t => MOV is not executed

    and

    MUL temp1, c, c => no overflow flag, no negative flag (this is in bounds)
    MUL temp2, a, b => negative flag, no overflow flag (but shouldn't overflow be set since it's a signed multiply?)
    SUB t, temp2, temp1
    CMP t, #0  => 0x3539477F  - 0 => no negative flag, no overflow overflow flag
    MOVGT d, t => MOV is executed

    OK. Then it is really not a problem with the simulator but that the optimizer takes a legal short cut due to a poorly designed algorithm (which overflows). "Good."

    Just a follow-up question here, shouldn't the negative flag be set in the SUBS? I mean we do subtract a positive number from a negative number.

    Thanks again!

    Greger
Reply
  • 0
    Note: This was originally posted on 3rd April 2009 at http://forums.arm.com

    Thank you for your answers!

    I realize I gave the wrong numbers. The calculation in question (indeed, the root cause is poor algorithm design) is

    t = 0x80 * 0x106DCD9 - 0x8D7F * 0x8D7F

    => t = 0x836E6C80 - 0x4E352501 (=0x3539477F)

    (a = 0x80, b = 0x106DCD9, c = 0x8DF, a*b = 0x836E6C80, c*c = 0x4E352501)

    So, if I understand you right we should have

    MUL temp1, c, c => no overflow flag, no negative flag (this is in bounds)
    MUL temp2, a, b => negative flag, no overflow flag (but shouldn't overflow be set since it's a signed multiply?)
    SUBS t, temp2, temp1 => no negative flag, overflow flag (underflow)
    MOVGT d, t => MOV is not executed

    and

    MUL temp1, c, c => no overflow flag, no negative flag (this is in bounds)
    MUL temp2, a, b => negative flag, no overflow flag (but shouldn't overflow be set since it's a signed multiply?)
    SUB t, temp2, temp1
    CMP t, #0  => 0x3539477F  - 0 => no negative flag, no overflow overflow flag
    MOVGT d, t => MOV is executed

    OK. Then it is really not a problem with the simulator but that the optimizer takes a legal short cut due to a poorly designed algorithm (which overflows). "Good."

    Just a follow-up question here, shouldn't the negative flag be set in the SUBS? I mean we do subtract a positive number from a negative number.

    Thanks again!

    Greger
Children
No data