My question is very specific, i want force compiler to take the code of a funtion and copy it inside a another one, like inline or __forceinline keywords can do, but i want pass the function i want to copy in the other funtion, as an argument. Here is a simple example.
using pFunc = void(*)();
void func_1() { /*some code*/ }
void func_2(pFunc function) { /*some code*/ } //after compile i want this funtion takes no argument and copy the func_1 inside this.
int main()
{
func_2(func_1);
}
so with this example the compiler will pass the pointer of func_1 as argunent to func_2, as expected. I tried add inline keyword for func_1 and also tried to pass the argument of func_2 as reference, but compiler didn't copied the func_1 inside func_2. Any idea how can i do that?
I use the compiler of visual studio(msvc) with toolset 2017(v141). My project platform is x64.
CodePudding user response:
You can use a noinline template function to get the asm you want
So you want the compiler to do constant-propagation into a clone of void func_2(pFunc f){ f(); }
? Like what GCC might do with __attribute__((noinline))
but not noclone
?
For example,
using pFunc = void(*)();
int sink, sink2;
#ifdef _MSC_VER
#define NOINLINE _declspec(noinline)
#else
#define NOINLINE __attribute__((noinline)) // noclone and/or noipa
#endif
__attribute__((always_inline)) // without this, gcc chooses to clone .constprop.0 with just a jmp func_2
void func_1() { sink = 1; sink2 = 2; }
NOINLINE static void func_2(pFunc function) { function(); }
int main()
{
func_2(func_1);
}
produces, with GCC11.3 -O2 or higher, or -O1 -fipa-cp
, on Godbolt. (Clang is similar):
# GCC11 -O3 with C name demangling
func_1():
mov DWORD PTR sink[rip], 1
mov DWORD PTR sink2[rip], 2
ret
func_2(void (*)()) [clone .constprop.0]:
mov DWORD PTR sink[rip], 1
mov DWORD PTR sink2[rip], 2
ret
main:
# note no arg passed, calling a special version of the function
# specialized for function = func_1
call func_2(void (*)()) [clone .constprop.0]
xor eax, eax
ret
Of course if we hadn't disabled inlining of func_2, main would just call func_1
. Or inline that body of func_1
into main and not do any calls.
MSVC might not be willing to do that "optimization", instead preferring to just inline func_2
into main
as call func_1
.
If you want to force it to make clunky asm that duplicates func_1
unnecessarily, you could use a template to do the same thing as constprop, taking the function pointer as a template arg, so you can instantiate func_2<func1>
as a stand-alone non-inline function if you really want. (Perhaps with _declspec(noinline)
).
Your func_2
can accept func_1
as an unused argument if you want.
using pFunc = void(*)();
int sink, sink2;
#ifdef _MSC_VER
#define NOINLINE _declspec(noinline)
#define ALWAYS_INLINE /* */
#else
#define NOINLINE __attribute__((noinline)) // not noclone or noipa, we *want* those to happen
#define ALWAYS_INLINE __attribute__((always_inline))
#endif
//ALWAYS_INLINE // Seems not needed for this case, with the template version
void func_1() { sink = 1; sink2 = 2; }
template <pFunc f>
NOINLINE void func_2() { f(); }
int main()
{
func_2<func_1>();
}
Compiles as desired with MSVC -O2 (Godbolt), and GCC/clang
int sink DD 01H DUP (?) ; sink
int sink2 DD 01H DUP (?) ; sink2
void func_2<&void func_1(void)>(void) PROC ; func_2<&func_1>, COMDAT
mov DWORD PTR int sink, 1 ; sink
mov DWORD PTR int sink2, 2 ; sink2
ret 0
void func_2<&void func_1(void)>(void) ENDP ; func_2<&func_1>
void func_1(void) PROC ; func_1, COMDAT
mov DWORD PTR int sink, 1 ; sink
mov DWORD PTR int sink2, 2 ; sink2
ret 0
void func_1(void) ENDP ; func_1
main PROC ; COMDAT
$LN4:
sub rsp, 40 ; 00000028H
call void func_2<&void func_1(void)>(void) ; func_2<&func_1>
xor eax, eax
add rsp, 40 ; 00000028H
ret 0
main ENDP
Note the duplicated bodies of func_1 and func_2.
You should check (with a disassembler) that the linker doesn't do identical code folding and just attach the both symbol names to one block of machine code.
I don't think this looks like much of an obfuscation technique; IDK why having a 2nd copy of a function with identical machine code would be a problem to reverse engineer. I guess it would maybe create more overall work, and people wouldn't notice that two calls to different functions are actually doing the same thing.
I mostly answered as an exercise in making a compiler spit out the asm I wanted it to, whether or not that has value to anyone else.
Obviously it only works for compile-time-constant function pointers; commenters have been discussing self-modifying code and scripting languages. If you wanted this for non-const function pointer args to func_1
, you're completely out of luck in a language like C that's designed for strictly ahead-of-time compilation.