在我的工作中，有三个原因让我了解和使用组装。按重要性排序:

Debugging - I often get library code that has bugs or incomplete documentation. I figure out what it's doing by stepping in at the assembly level. I have to do this about once a week. I also use it as a tool to debug problems in which my eyes don't spot the idiomatic error in C/C++/C#. Looking at the assembly gets past that. Optimizing - the compiler does fairly well in optimizing, but I play in a different ballpark than most. I write image processing code that usually starts with code that looks like this: for (int y=0; y < imageHeight; y++) { for (int x=0; x < imageWidth; x++) { // do something } } the "do something part" typically happens on the order of several million times (ie, between 3 and 30). By scraping cycles in that "do something" phase, the performance gains are hugely magnified. I don't usually start there - I usually start by writing the code to work first, then do my best to refactor the C to be naturally better (better algorithm, less load in the loop etc). I usually need to read assembly to see what's going on and rarely need to write it. I do this maybe every two or three months. doing something the language won't let me. These include - getting the processor architecture and specific processor features, accessing flags not in the CPU (man, I really wish C gave you access to the carry flag), etc. I do this maybe once a year or two years.

我需要对192位或256位的每次中断进行移位操作，每50微秒发生一次。

它通过一个固定的映射(硬件限制)实现。使用C语言，制作它只需要大约10微秒。当我把它翻译到Assembler时，考虑到这个映射的特定特性，特定的寄存器缓存，并使用面向位的操作;它只花了不到3.5微秒的时间。

http://cr.yp.to/qhasm.html有很多例子。

，问了这个问题，并给出了使用汇编的利弊。

如今，考虑到像英特尔c++这样的编译器对C代码进行了极大的优化，它很难与编译器的输出竞争。

我已经阅读了所有的答案(超过30个)，并没有找到一个简单的原因:如果你读过并练习过Intel®64和IA-32架构优化参考手册，汇编程序比C更快，所以汇编程序可能更慢的原因是编写这种慢汇编程序的人没有阅读优化手册。

In the good old days of Intel 80286, each instruction was executed at a fixed count of CPU cycles. Still, since Pentium Pro, released in 1995, Intel processors became superscalar, utilizing Complex Pipelining: Out-of-Order Execution & Register Renaming. Before that, on Pentium, produced in 1993, there were U and V pipelines. Therefore, Pentium introduced dual pipelines that could execute two simple instructions at one clock cycle if they didn't depend on one another. However, this was nothing compared with the Out-of-Order Execution & Register Renaming that appeared in Pentium Pro. This approach introduced in Pentium Pro is practically the same nowadays on most recent Intel processors.

Let me explain the Out-of-Order Execution in a few words. The fastest code is where instructions do not depend on previous results, e.g., you should always clear whole registers (by movzx) to remove dependency from previous values of the registers you are working with, so they may be renamed internally by the CPU to allow instruction execute in parallel or in a different order. Or, on some processors, false dependency may exist that may also slow things down, like false dependency on Pentium 4 for inc/dec, so you may wish to use add eax, 1 instead or inc eax to remove dependency on the previous state of the flags.

如果时间允许，您可以阅读更多无序执行和注册重命名。因特网上有大量的信息。

There are also many other essential issues like branch prediction, number of load and store units, number of gates that execute micro-ops, memory cache coherence protocols, etc., but the crucial thing to consider is the Out-of-Order Execution. Most people are simply not aware of the Out-of-Order Execution. Therefore, they write their assembly programs like for 80286, expecting their instructions will take a fixed time to execute regardless of the context. At the same time, C compilers are aware of the Out-of-Order Execution and generate the code correctly. That's why the code of such uninformed people is slower, but if you become knowledgeable, your code will be faster.

除了乱序执行之外，还有很多优化技巧和技巧。请阅读上面提到的优化手册:-)

However, assembly language has its own drawbacks when it comes to optimization. According to Peter Cordes (see the comment below), some of the optimizations compilers do would be unmaintainable for large code-bases in hand-written assembly. For example, suppose you write in assembly. In that case, you need to completely change an inline function (an assembly macro) when it inlines into a function that calls it with some arguments being constants. At the same time, a C compiler makes its job a lot simpler—and inlining the same code in different ways into different call sites. There is a limit to what you can do with assembly macros. So to get the same benefit, you'd have to manually optimize the same logic in each place to match the constants and available registers you have.