When do we create base pointer in a function - before or after local variables? - function

Question

I am reading the Programming From Ground Up book. I see two different examples of how the base pointer %ebp is created from the current stack position %esp.
In one case, it is done before the local variables.
_start:
# INITIALIZE PROGRAM
subl $ST_SIZE_RESERVE, %esp # Allocate space for pointers on the
# stack (file descriptors in this
# case)
movl %esp, %ebp
The _start however is not like other functions, it is the entry point of the program.
In another case it is done after.
power:
pushl %ebp # Save old base pointer
movl %esp, %ebp # Make stack pointer the base pointer
subl $4, %esp # Get room for our local storage
So my question is, do we first reserve space for local variables in the stack and create the base pointer or first create the base pointer and then reserve space for local variables?
Wouldn't both just work even if I mix them up in different functions of a program? One function does it before, the other does it after etc. Does C have a specific convention when it creates the machine code?
My reasoning is that all the code in a function would be relative to the base pointer, so as long as that function follows the convention according to which it created a reference of the stack, it just works?
Few related links for those are interested:
Function Prologue

Answer 1

In your first case you don't care about preservation - this is the entry point. You are trashing %ebp when you exit the program - who cares about the state of the registers? It doesn't matter any more as your application has ended. But in a function, when you return from that function the caller certainly doesn't want %ebp trashed. Now can you modify %esp first then save %ebp then use %ebp? Sure, so long as you unwind the same way on the other end of the function, you may not need to have a frame pointer at all, often that is just a personal choice.
You just need a relative picture of the world. A frame pointer is usually just there to make the compiler author's job easier, actually it is usually there just to waste a register for many instruction sets. Perhaps because some teacher or textbook taught it that way, and nobody asked why.
For coding sanity, the compiler author's sanity etc, it is desirable if you need to use the stack to have a base address from which to offset into your portion of the stack, FOR THE DURATION of the function. Or at least after the setup and before the cleanup. This can be the stack pointer(sp) itself or it can be a frame pointer, sometimes it is obvious from the instruction set. Some have a stack that grows down (in address space toward zero) and the stack pointer can only have positive offsets in sp based address (sane) or some negative only (insane) (unlikely but lets say its there). So you may want a general purpose register. Maybe there are some you cant use the sp in addressing at all and you have to use a general purpose register.
Bottom line, for sanity you want a reference point to offset items in the stack, the more painful way but uses less memory would be to add and remove things as you go:
x is at sp+4
push a
push b
do stuff
x is at sp+12
pop b
x is at sp+8
call something
pop a
x is at sp+4
do stuff
More work but can make a program (compiler) that keeps track and is less error prone than a human by hand, but when debugging the compiler output (a human) it is harder to follow and keep track. So generally we burn the stack space and have one reference point. A frame pointer can be used to separate the incoming parameters and the local variables using base pointer(bp) for example as a static base address within the function and sp as the base address for local variables (athough sp could be used for everything if the instruction set provides that much of an offset). So by pushing bp then modifying sp you are creating this two base address situation, sp can move around perhaps for local stuff (although not usually sane) and bp can be used as a static place to grab parameters if this is a calling convention that dictates all parameters are on the stack (generally when you dont have a lot of general purpose registers) sometimes you see the parameters are copied to local allocation on the stack for later use, but if you have enough registers you may see that instead a register is saved on the stack and used in the function instead of needing to access the stack using a base address and offset.
unsigned int more_fun ( unsigned int x );
unsigned int fun ( unsigned int x )
{
unsigned int y;
y = x;
return(more_fun(x+1)+y);
}
00000000 <fun>:
0: e92d4010 push {r4, lr}
4: e1a04000 mov r4, r0
8: e2800001 add r0, r0, #1
c: ebfffffe bl 0 <more_fun>
10: e0800004 add r0, r0, r4
14: e8bd4010 pop {r4, lr}
18: e12fff1e bx lr
Do not take what you see in a text book, white board (or on answers in StackOverflow) as gospel. Think through the problem, and through alternatives.
Are the alternatives functionally broken?
Are they functionally correct?
Are there disadvantages like readability?
Performance?
Is the performance hit universal or does it depend on just how
slow/fast the memory is?
Do the alternatives generate more code which is a performance hit but
maybe that code is pipelined vs random memory accesses?
If I don't use a frame pointer does the architecture let me regain
that register for general purpose use?
In the first example bp is being trashed, that is bad in general but this is the entry point to the program, there is no need to preserve bp (unless the operating system dictates).
In a function though, based on the calling convention one assumes that bpis used by the caller and must be preserved, so you have to save it on the stack to use it. In this case it appears to want to be used to access parameters passed in by the caller on the stack, then sp is moved to make room for (and possibly access but not necessarily required if bp can be used) local variables.
If you were to modify sp first then push bp, you would basically have two pointers one push width away from each other, does that make much sense? Does it make sense to have two frame pointers anyway and if so does it make sense to have them almost the same address?
By pushing bp first and if the calling convention pushes the first paramemter last then as a compiler author you can make bp+N always or ideally always point at the first parameter for a fixed value N likewise bp+M always points at the second. A bit lazy to me, but if the register is there to be burned then burn it...

Answer 2

In one case, it is done before the local variables.
_start is not a function. It's your entry point. There's no return address, and no caller's value of %ebp to save.
The i386 System V ABI doc suggests (in section 2.3.1 Initial Stack and Register State) that you might want to zero %ebp to mark the deepest stack frame. (i.e. before your first call instruction, so the linked list of saved ebp values has a NULL terminator when that first function pushes the zeroed ebp. See below).
Does C have a specific convention when it creates the machine code?
No, unlike in some other x86 systems, the i386 System V ABI doesn't require much about your stack-frame layout. (Linux uses the System V ABI / calling convention, and the book you're using (PGU) is for Linux.)
In some calling conventions, setting up ebp is not optional, and the function entry sequence has to push ebp just below the return address. This creates a linked list of stack frames which allows an exception handler (or debugger) to backtrace up the stack. (How to generate the backtrace by looking at the stack values?). I think this is required in 32-bit Windows code for SEH (structured exception handling), at least in some cases, but IDK the details.
The i386 SysV ABI defines an alternate mechanism for stack unwinding which makes frame pointers optional, using metadata in another section (.eh_frame and .eh_frame_hdr which contains metadata created by .cfi_... assembler directives, which in theory you could write yourself if you wanted stack-unwinding through your function to work. i.e. if you were calling any C++ code which expected throw to work.)
If you want to use the traditional frame-walking in current gdb, you have to actually do it yourself by defining a GDB function like gdb backtrace by walking frame pointers or Force GDB to use frame-pointer based unwinding. Or apparently if your executable has no .eh_frame section at all, gdb will use the EBP-based stack-walking method.
If you compile with gcc -fno-omit-frame-pointer, your call stack will have this linked-list property, because when C compilers do make proper stack frames, they push ebp first.
IIRC, perf has a mode for using the frame-pointer chain to get backtraces while profiling, and apparently this can be more reliable than the default .eh_frame stuff for correctly accounting which functions are responsible for using the most CPU time. (Or causing the most cache misses, branch mispredicts, or whatever else you're counting with performance counters.)
Wouldn't both just work even if I mix them up in different functions of a program? One function does it before, the other does it after etc.
Yes, it would work fine. In fact setting up ebp at all is optional, but when writing by hand it's easier to have a fixed base (unlike esp which moves around when you push/pop).
For the same reason, it's easier to stick to the convention of mov %esp, %ebp after one push (of the old %ebp), so the first function arg is always at ebp+8. See What is stack frame in assembly? for the usual convention.
But you could maybe save code size by having ebp point in the middle of some space you reserved, so all the memory addressable with an ebp + disp8 addressing mode is usable. (disp8 is a signed 8-bit displacement: -128 to +124 if we're limiting to 4-byte aligned locations). This saves code bytes vs. needing a disp32 to reach farther. So you might do
bigfunc:
push %ebp
lea -112(%esp), %ebp # first arg at ebp+8+112 = 120(%ebp)
sub $236, %esp # locals from -124(%ebp) ... 108(%ebp)
# saved EBP at 112(%ebp), ret addr at 116(%ebp)
# 236 was chosen to leave %esp 16-byte aligned.
Or delay saving any registers until after reserving space for locals, so we aren't using up any of the locations (other than the ret addr) with saved values we never want to address.
bigfunc2: # first arg at 4(%esp)
sub $252, %esp # first arg at 252+4(%esp)
push %ebp # first arg at 252+4+4(%esp)
lea 140(%esp), %ebp # first arg at 260-140 = 120(%ebp)
push %edi # save the other call-preserved regs
push %esi
push %ebx
# %esp is 16-byte aligned after these pushes, in case that matters
(Remember to be careful how you restore registers and clean up. You can't use leave because esp = ebp isn't right. With the "normal" stack frame sequence, you might restore other pushed registers (from near the saved EBP) with mov, then use leave. Or restore esp to point at the last push (with add), and use pop instructions.)
But if you're going to do this, there's no advantage to using ebp instead of ebx or something. In fact, there's a disadvantage to using ebp: the 0(%ebp) addressing mode requires a disp8 of 0, instead of no displacement, but %ebx wouldn't. So use %ebp for a non-pointer scratch register. Or at least one that you don't dereference without a displacement. (This quirk is irrelevant with a real frame pointer: (%ebp) is the saved EBP value. And BTW, the encoding that would mean (%ebp) with no displacement is how the ModRM byte encodes a disp32 with no base register, like (12345) or my_label)
These example are pretty artifical; you usually don't need that much space for locals unless it's an array, and then you'd use indexed addressing modes or pointers, not just a disp8 relative to ebp. But maybe you need space for a few 32-byte AVX vectors. In 32-bit code with only 8 vector registers, that's plausible.
AVX512 compressed disp8 mostly defeats this argument for 64-byte AVX512 vectors, though. (But AVX512 in 32-bit mode can still only use 8 vector registers, zmm0-zmm7, so you could easily need to spill some. You only get x/ymm8-15 and zmm8-31 in 64-bit mode.)