As @ped7g points out, you're doing several things wrong: using the int 0x80 32-bit ABI in 64-bit code, and passing character values instead of pointers to the write() system call.
Here's how to print an integer in x8-64 Linux, the simple and somewhat-efficient1 way, using the same repeated division / modulo by 10.
System calls are expensive (probably thousands of cycles for write(1, buf, 1)), and doing a syscall inside the loop steps on registers so it's inconvenient and clunky as well as inefficient. We should write the characters into a small buffer, in printing order (most-significant digit at the lowest address), and make a single write() system call on that.
But then we need a buffer. The maximum length of a 64-bit integer is only 20 decimal digits, so we can just use some stack space. In x86-64 Linux, we can use stack space below RSP (up to 128B) without "reserving" it by modifying RSP. This is called the red-zone. If you wanted to pass the buffer to another function instead of a syscall, you would have to reserve space with sub $24, %rsp or something.
Instead of hard-coding system-call numbers, using GAS makes it easy to use the constants defined in .h files. Note the mov $__NR_write, %eax near the end of the function. The x86-64 SystemV ABI passes system-call arguments in similar registers to the function-calling convention. (So it's totally different from the 32-bit int 0x80 ABI, which you shouldn't use in 64-bit code.)
// building with gcc foo.S will use CPP before GAS so we can use headers
#include <asm/unistd.h> // This is a standard Linux / glibc header file
// includes unistd_64.h or unistd_32.h depending on current mode
// Contains only #define constants (no C prototypes) so we can include it from asm without syntax errors.
.p2align 4
.globl print_integer #void print_uint64(uint64_t value)
print_uint64:
lea -1(%rsp), %rsi # We use the 128B red-zone as a buffer to hold the string
# a 64-bit integer is at most 20 digits long in base 10, so it fits.
movb $'\n', (%rsi) # store the trailing newline byte. (Right below the return address).
# If you need a null-terminated string, leave an extra byte of room and store '\n\0'. Or push $'\n'
mov $10, %ecx # same as mov $10, %rcx but 2 bytes shorter
# note that newline (\n) has ASCII code 10, so we could actually have stored the newline with movb %cl, (%rsi) to save code size.
mov %rdi, %rax # function arg arrives in RDI; we need it in RAX for div
.Ltoascii_digit: # do{
xor %edx, %edx
div %rcx # rax = rdx:rax / 10. rdx = remainder
# store digits in MSD-first printing order, working backwards from the end of the string
add $'0', %edx # integer to ASCII. %dl would work, too, since we know this is 0-9
dec %rsi
mov %dl, (%rsi) # *--p = (value%10) + '0';
test %rax, %rax
jnz .Ltoascii_digit # } while(value != 0)
# If we used a loop-counter to print a fixed number of digits, we would get leading zeros
# The do{}while() loop structure means the loop runs at least once, so we get "0\n" for input=0
# Then print the whole string with one system call
mov $__NR_write, %eax # call number from asm/unistd_64.h
mov $1, %edi # fd=1
# %rsi = start of the buffer
mov %rsp, %rdx
sub %rsi, %rdx # length = one_past_end - start
syscall # write(fd=1 /*rdi*/, buf /*rsi*/, length /*rdx*/); 64-bit ABI
# rax = return value (or -errno)
# rcx and r11 = garbage (destroyed by syscall/sysret)
# all other registers = unmodified (saved/restored by the kernel)
# we don't need to restore any registers, and we didn't modify RSP.
ret
To test this function, I put this in the same file to call it and exit:
.p2align 4
.globl _start
_start:
mov $10120123425329922, %rdi
# mov $0, %edi # Yes, it does work with input = 0
call print_uint64
xor %edi, %edi
mov $__NR_exit, %eax
syscall # sys_exit(0)
I built this into a static binary (with no libc):
$ gcc -Wall -static -nostdlib print-integer.S && ./a.out
10120123425329922
$ strace ./a.out > /dev/null
execve("./a.out", ["./a.out"], 0x7fffcb097340 /* 51 vars */) = 0
write(1, "10120123425329922\n", 18) = 18
exit(0) = ?
+++ exited with 0 +++
$ file ./a.out
./a.out: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, BuildID[sha1]=69b865d1e535d5b174004ce08736e78fade37d84, not stripped
Footnote 1: See Why does GCC use multiplication by a strange number in implementing integer division? for avoiding div r64 for division by 10, because that's very slow (21 to 83 cycles on Intel Skylake). A multiplicative inverse would make this function actually efficient, not just "somewhat". (But of course there'd still be room for optimizations...)
Related: Linux x86-32 extended-precision loop that prints 9 decimal digits from each 32-bit "limb": see .toascii_digit: in my Extreme Fibonacci code-golf answer. It's optimized for code-size (even at the expense of speed), but well-commented.
It uses div like you do, because that's smaller than using a fast multiplicative inverse). It uses loop for the outer loop (over multiple integer for extended precision), again for code-size at the cost of speed.
It uses the 32-bit int 0x80 ABI, and prints into a buffer that was holding the "old" Fibonacci value, not the current.
Another way to get efficient asm is from a C compiler. For just the loop over digits, look at what gcc or clang produce for this C source (which is basically what the asm is doing). The Godbolt Compiler explorer makes it easy to try with different options and different compiler versions.
See gcc7.2 -O3 asm output which is nearly a drop-in replacement for the loop in print_uint64 (because I chose the args to go in the same registers):
void itoa_end(unsigned long val, char *p_end) {
const unsigned base = 10;
do {
*--p_end = (val % base) + '0';
val /= base;
} while(val);
// write(1, p_end, orig-current);
}
I tested performance on a Skylake i7-6700k by commenting out the syscall instruction and putting a repeat loop around the function call. The version with mul %rcx / shr $3, %rdx is about 5 times faster than the version with div %rcx for storing a long number-string (10120123425329922) into a buffer. The div version ran at 0.25 instructions per clock, while the mul version ran at 2.65 instructions per clock (although requiring many more instructions).
It might be worth unrolling by 2, and doing a divide by 100 and splitting up the remainder of that into 2 digits. That would give a lot better instruction-level parallelism, in case the simpler version bottlenecks on mul + shr latency. The chain of multiply/shift operations that brings val to zero would be half as long, with more work in each short independent dependency chain to handle a 0-99 remainder.
Related:
