，问了这个问题，并给出了使用汇编的利弊。

以下是我个人经历中的几个例子:

Access to instructions that are not accessible from C. For instance, many architectures (like x86-64, IA-64, DEC Alpha, and 64-bit MIPS or PowerPC) support a 64 bit by 64 bit multiplication producing a 128 bit result. GCC recently added an extension providing access to such instructions, but before that assembly was required. And access to this instruction can make a huge difference on 64-bit CPUs when implementing something like RSA - sometimes as much as a factor of 4 improvement in performance. Access to CPU-specific flags. The one that has bitten me a lot is the carry flag; when doing a multiple-precision addition, if you don't have access to the CPU carry bit one must instead compare the result to see if it overflowed, which takes 3-5 more instructions per limb; and worse, which are quite serial in terms of data accesses, which kills performance on modern superscalar processors. When processing thousands of such integers in a row, being able to use addc is a huge win (there are superscalar issues with contention on the carry bit as well, but modern CPUs deal pretty well with it). SIMD. Even autovectorizing compilers can only do relatively simple cases, so if you want good SIMD performance it's unfortunately often necessary to write the code directly. Of course you can use intrinsics instead of assembly but once you're at the intrinsics level you're basically writing assembly anyway, just using the compiler as a register allocator and (nominally) instruction scheduler. (I tend to use intrinsics for SIMD simply because the compiler can generate the function prologues and whatnot for me so I can use the same code on Linux, OS X, and Windows without having to deal with ABI issues like function calling conventions, but other than that the SSE intrinsics really aren't very nice - the Altivec ones seem better though I don't have much experience with them). As examples of things a (current day) vectorizing compiler can't figure out, read about bitslicing AES or SIMD error correction - one could imagine a compiler that could analyze algorithms and generate such code, but it feels to me like such a smart compiler is at least 30 years away from existing (at best).

On the other hand, multicore machines and distributed systems have shifted many of the biggest performance wins in the other direction - get an extra 20% speedup writing your inner loops in assembly, or 300% by running them across multiple cores, or 10000% by running them across a cluster of machines. And of course high level optimizations (things like futures, memoization, etc) are often much easier to do in a higher level language like ML or Scala than C or asm, and often can provide a much bigger performance win. So, as always, there are tradeoffs to be made.

只要有合适的程序员，汇编程序总是可以比C程序快(至少稍微快一点)。如果不能从汇编器中取出至少一条指令，则很难创建一个C程序。

只有在使用编译器不支持的特殊用途指令集时。

为了最大限度地利用具有多个管道和预测分支的现代CPU的计算能力，您需要以这样一种方式来构造汇编程序:a)人类几乎不可能编写b)甚至更不可能维护。

此外，更好的算法、数据结构和内存管理将为您提供至少一个数量级的性能，而不是在汇编中进行的微观优化。

使用SIMD指令的矩阵操作可能比编译器生成的代码更快。

在Amiga上，CPU和图形/音频芯片会为了访问特定区域的RAM(具体来说是前2MB的RAM)而争斗。因此，当你只有2MB RAM(或更少)时，显示复杂的图形加上播放声音会杀死CPU的性能。

在汇编程序中，你可以巧妙地交错你的代码，使CPU只在图形/音频芯片内部繁忙时(即当总线空闲时)才尝试访问RAM。因此，通过重新排序指令，巧妙地使用CPU缓存，总线定时，你可以实现一些使用任何高级语言都不可能实现的效果，因为你必须为每个命令定时，甚至在这里或那里插入nop，以使不同的芯片不受彼此的雷达影响。

这也是为什么CPU的NOP (No Operation -什么都不做)指令实际上可以让你的整个应用程序运行得更快的另一个原因。

当然，这种技术取决于特定的硬件设置。这就是为什么许多Amiga游戏无法适应更快的cpu的主要原因:指令的计时错误。