这个问题有点毫无意义，因为无论如何c都是编译到汇编程序的。 但是，通过优化编译器生成的汇编程序几乎是完全优化的，所以除非你在优化特定的汇编程序方面做了20个博士学位，否则你无法打败编译器。

这很难具体地回答，因为这个问题非常不具体:到底什么是“现代编译器”?

理论上，几乎任何手动的汇编器优化都可以由编译器来完成——实际上它是否已经完成，不能笼统地说，只能说特定编译器的特定版本。许多可能需要花费大量的精力来确定它们是否可以在特定的上下文中应用而不产生副作用，以至于编译器编写者不会为它们烦恼。

一个更著名的组装片段来自Michael Abrash的纹理映射循环(在这里详细解释):

add edx,[DeltaVFrac] ; add in dVFrac
sbb ebp,ebp ; store carry
mov [edi],al ; write pixel n
mov al,[esi] ; fetch pixel n+1
add ecx,ebx ; add in dUFrac
adc esi,[4*ebp + UVStepVCarry]; add in steps

现在，大多数编译器将高级CPU特定指令表示为intrinsic，即编译为实际指令的函数。MS Visual c++支持MMX、SSE、SSE2、SSE3和SSE4的intrinsic，因此您不必太过担心使用特定于平台的指令来进行汇编。Visual c++还可以通过适当的/ARCH设置来利用您所针对的实际体系结构。

The question is a bit misleading. The answer is there in your post itself. It is always possible to write assembly solution for a particular problem which executes faster than any generated by a compiler. The thing is you need to be an expert in assembly to overcome the limitations of a compiler. An experienced assembly programmer can write programs in any HLL which performs faster than one written by an inexperienced. The truth is you can always write assembly programs executing faster than one generated by a compiler.

长波克，只有一个限制时间。当你没有足够的资源来优化每一个代码的变化，并花时间分配寄存器，优化一些溢出和诸如此类的事情时，编译器每次都会赢。对代码进行修改、重新编译和度量。如有必要重复。

此外，你可以在高水平方面做很多事情。此外，检查生成的程序集可能会给人一种代码是垃圾的印象，但实际上它的运行速度比您想象的要快。例子:

Int y = data[i]; //在这里做一些事情。 call_function (y,…);

编译器将读取数据，将其推入堆栈(溢出)，然后从堆栈读取并作为参数传递。听起来屎?它实际上可能是非常有效的延迟补偿，并导致更快的运行时。

//优化版本 call_function(数据[我],…);//毕竟不是那么优化。

优化版本的想法是，我们降低了寄存器压力，避免溢出。但事实上，“垃圾”版本更快!

看看汇编代码，只看指令，然后得出结论:指令越多，速度越慢，这将是一个错误的判断。

这里需要注意的是:许多组装专家认为他们知道很多，但知道的很少。规则也会随着架构的变化而变化。例如，x86代码并不存在总是最快的银弹。如今，最好还是按照经验法则行事:

记忆很慢 缓存速度快 尽量更好地使用缓存 你多久会错过一次?你有延迟补偿策略吗? 对于一个cache miss，你可以执行10-100个ALU/FPU/SSE指令 应用程序架构很重要。 . .但是当问题不在架构上时，它就没有帮助了

此外，过于相信编译器会神奇地将考虑不周到的C/ c++代码转换为“理论上最优”的代码是一厢情愿的想法。如果你关心这个低级别的“性能”，你必须知道你使用的编译器和工具链。

C/ c++中的编译器通常不太擅长重新排序子表达式，因为对于初学者来说，函数有副作用。函数式语言没有受到这个警告的影响，但它不太适合当前的生态系统。有一些编译器选项可以允许宽松的精确规则，允许编译器/链接器/代码生成器改变操作的顺序。

这个话题有点死路一条;对于大多数人来说，这是无关紧要的，而剩下的人，他们已经知道自己在做什么了。

这一切都归结为:“理解你在做什么”，这与知道你在做什么有点不同。

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.