Lecture 7: Checking for errors and calling functions
1 Checking for errors:   Calling functions
1.1 Caller- and callee-save registers
1.2 The base pointer
2 Upgrading to 64-bit calling conventions
2.1 Step 1:   passing some arguments via registers
2.2 Step 2:   Saving the caller-save registers
2.3 Putting the pieces together
2.4 Stack frame sizes
3 What calling convention to use?
4 Testing

Lecture 7: Checking for errors and calling functions

Where we left off last time, we could work with both numbers and booleans in our program. Unfortunately, we had no way of ensuring that we only worked with them consistently, as opposed to, say, applying an arithmetic operation to boolean values. Let’s remedy that. Our plan is to introduce a simplified calling convention (essentially the 32-bit cdecl calling convention), and then fix up the details to match the actual calling convention we’ll use (the 64-bit “System V AMD64” calling convention).

1 Checking for errors: Calling functions

Error handling is going to be a pervasive feature in our compiled output: we need to check the arguments and returned values of every operation are valid. That sequenece of checking instructions will appear at every location in the program that it’s needed. But the error handling itself is identical everywhere: we want to show some kind of message that describes the error that occured. So for example, we might want to check if a value is a number as follows:

  ... ;; get RAX to have the value we need
  test RAX, 0x0000000000000001 ;; check only the tag bit of the value
  jnz error_not_number         ;; if the bit is set, go to some centralized error handler


(The test instruction performs a bitwise-and of its two arguments and discards the result, but sets the zero and signedness flags to be used with conditional jumps.1test is to and the same way cmp is to sub: they perform the same logical operation, but throw away the results and keep only the flags. It’s convenient in this case, though for more complex tag checks, we might need a cleverer sequence of assembly instructions, possibly involving a second register as a temporary value.)

1.1 Caller- and callee-save registers

What code should we have at the error_not_number label? We’d like to be able to be able to print some kind of error message when the arguments to an operation are invalid. But our language doesn’t have any notion of strings yet, so we have no way of representing a message, let alone actually printing it. Fortunately, we have stub.rs available to us, and Rust does have strings and printing. Our goal should then be to define a new function in stub.rs and somehow call it from our compiled output.

(Note that this does not necessarily mean that we can call arbitrary functions from our source language, though it certainly does set the stage for us to do so later!)

To understand how to call a Rust function, we need to understand a bit about the C calling convention. The calling convention describes an agreement between the callers of functions and the callee functions on where to place arguments and return values so the other function can find them, and on which function is responsible for saving any temporary values in registers.

We’ve already encountered one part of the calling convention: “the answer goes in RAX.” This simple statement asserts that the callee places its answer in RAX, and the caller should expect to look for the answer there...which means that the caller should expect the value of RAX to change as a result of the call. If the caller needs to keep the old value of RAX, it is responsible for saving that value before performing the call: we say this is a caller-save register. On the other hand, functions are allowed to manipulate the RSP register to allocate variables on the stack. When the function returns, though, RSP must be restored to its value prior to the function invocation, or else the caller will be hopelessly confused. We say that RSP is a callee-save register. In general, the calling convention specifies which registers are caller-save, and which are callee-save, and we must encode those rules into our compilation as appropriate.

So far, our compilation has only ever dealt with local variables; we haven’t considered what it means to accept any parameters as inputs. Where should they go? Our current reference point for finding local variables is RSP, and our variables are found at consecutive offsets just smaller than it, which implies our parameters probably ought to go in the other direction, at consecutive offsets after it. Since we’re counting “outwards” from this reference point, we should wind up with a picture that looks vaguely like this:


This suggests that we can call a function using the 32-bit calling convention by pushing its arguments onto the stack in reverse order, and then simply calling it. The push instruction decrements RSP by one slot, and then moves its argument into the memory location now pointed to by the new RSP value. Pictorially,



push 42


push 65






The call instruction is slightly more complicated, mostly because it needs to handle the bookkeeping for what should happen when the call returns: where should execution resume? Every instruction exists at some address in memory, and the currently executing instruction’s address is stored in RIP, the instruction pointer. Our assembly code should never modify this register directly. Instead, the call instruction first pushes a return address describing the location of the next instruction to run — i.e. the value of RIP just after the call instruction itself — and then jumps to the specified label.

Putting these two instructions together, if we were using the 32-bit calling convention, we would implement error_not_number as follows.

First we need to declare at the beginning of our generated assembly that we expect our rust code to define a symbol ‘snake_error‘

section .text
global start_here
extern snake_error

Then we define a block that calls the snake_error function.

  push RAX   ;; Arg 2: push the badly behaved value
  push 1     ;; Arg 1: a constant describing which error-code occurred
  call snake_error ;; our error handler

And finally in stub.rs we implement the error handler, with annotations that tell the Rust compiler to make it available to compiled_code.s:

type ErrorCode = u64;
static ADD1_ERROR: ErrorCode = 0;
static ADD_ERROR: ErrorCode  = 1;

#[export_name = "\x01snake_error"]
extern "C" fn snake_error(err_code: u64, v: SnakeVal) {
    if err_code == ADD1_ERROR {
        eprintln!("add1 expected a number but got a boolean {}", sprint_snake_val(v));
    } else if err_code == ADD_ERROR {
        eprintln!("+ expected a number but got a boolean {}", sprint_snake_val(v));
    } else {
        eprintln!("I apologize to you, dear user. I made a bug. Here's a snake value: {}", sprint_snake_val(v));

1.2 The base pointer

If we compiled this code against Rust with the 32-bit calling convention, it would crash. We are not yet quite respecting the calling convention completely. Notice that we refer to it as the “call stack”, and yet we only are pushing onto our stack: we’re never popping anything back off! Moreover, all this pushing and (eventually) popping keeps changing our RSP value, which means anything we try to do to access our local variables will break at runtime.

Instead of basing our local variables off this constantly-shifting stack pointer, the calling convention stipulates that we save the stack pointer as it was at the beginning of our function. Provided we never modify that register during the execution of our function, it will remain a constant against which our local-variables’ offsets can be based. This register, RBP, is accordingly known as the base pointer.

Do Now!

Should RBP be a caller-save or callee-save register?

Since the mere act of using a call instruction changes RSP, we can’t know what the correct value should be until inside the callee. Therefore, if the callee sets the value, it must be responsible for restoring the old value. To do that, we must push the old value of RBP onto the stack, and restore it on our way out. We can now revise our original sketch of a 32-bit C-compatible stack:


Between the parameters and the locals we have two additional slots, for storing the return address and the old value of RBP. The stack obeys the invariant that

(In this diagram, the color of the cells does not quite align with the labeling of stack regions as “caller” or “callee”: the labels describe what values a function puts on to the stack, while the color marks which values a function uses during its computation.)

To preserve this invariant, we have to add some setup and teardown code to the beginnings and ends of functions. In particular, we need to add this code to our_code_starts_here, because our code really just is a function that participates in the C stack. We also need to add code surrounding every function call.

In the callee:

In the Caller:

Do Now!

Draw the sequence of stacks that results from our error-handling code, using this more precise understanding of what belongs on the stack.

2 Upgrading to 64-bit calling conventions

2.1 Step 1: passing some arguments via registers

All this messing about with the stack pointer is expensive, since in general most functions don’t have many arguments, and on 64-bit architectures we have enough registers available that most functions can get away without using the stack at all. Accordingly, the 64-bit calling convention in use on Linux and Mac systems doesn’t put all the arguments on the stack. Instead, the first six arguments go in registers RDI, RSI, RDX, RCX, R8, and R9 in that order, and the seventh and subsequent arguments go on the stack. So our caller code for a function with \(M \geq 7\) arguments should look like:

push arg_M
push arg_7
mov R9, arg_6
mov R8, arg_5
mov RCX, arg_4
mov RDX, arg_3
mov RSI, arg_2
mov RDI, arg_1
call target
add RSP, 8*(M - 6)

For six or fewer arguments, we might be able to elide some or all of that machinery, and in particular avoid manipulating RSP.

However, there is one more remaining caveat. Upon entry to a function RSP must be a multiple of 16, i.e. it must look like 0xWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW0. Depending on the current value of RSP, we might need to push an extra slot of padding onto the stack to ensure the required alignment before calling the target function; on return from the function, we might need to pop that slot back off by adding one extra slot in our cleanup step.

2.2 Step 2: Saving the caller-save registers

As part of the function-call process, we overwrite the values of the six argument registers. Unfortunately, we might have been using those registers ourselves. If there’s more code later in our function that needs those values, we need to have saved them somewhere: these six argument registers are definitely caller-save registers. We could do this in a few different ways:

2.3 Putting the pieces together

Our compiler should now insert type checks, akin to the test instruction with which we started this lecture, everywhere that we need to assert the type of some value. We then need to add a label at the end of our compiled output for each kind of error scenario that we face. The code at those labels should move the offending value (likely in RAX) into RDI, followed by the error code into RSI, and then call the snake_error function in stub.rs. That function must be elaborated with a case for each kind of error we face.

We must change the prologue and epilogue of our_code_starts_here to include the callee’s responsibilities of saving and restoring RBP and RSP. Also, we must change our compilation of local variables! In particular, we need to stop referring directly to RSP, and instead use RBPwhich we are now carefully maintaining according to the calling convention.

With all these changes in place, our code should now properly test for erroneous operands and complain rather than produce bogus output. Unfortunately, it’s still slightly broken.

2.4 Stack frame sizes

We have one last problem to manage. Since the code sequence for a function call uses push to push arguments onto the stack, we need to ensure that RSP is above all our local variables. We need to “preallocate” space for them in our stack frame. To do that, we need to know how much space we’ll need, which in turn means we need to know how many local variables we’ll need. Sadly, computing the exact answer here is undecidable. But we can overapproximate:

Can we do better? Consider how the environment grows and shrinks as we manipulate an expression: its maximum size occurs at the deepest number of nested let-bindings. Surely we’ll never need more locals than that, since we’ll never have more names in scope at once than that!


Construct a function count_vars that computes this quantity. Work by cases over the AST in sequential form.

Once we’ve computed this quantity, we use it to decrement RSP at the start of our_code_starts_here, and now at last our compiled output works correctly.

3 What calling convention to use?

The initial calling convention presented above was straightforward: all the arguments go on the stack: they’re pushed in reverse order by the caller, used by the callee, and then popped off again by the caller.

The 64-bit calling convention is much less uniform, with the first six arguments being passed in registers. It has some performance advantages in some circumstances (and with more sophisticated compiler passes that we don’t yet have, to take advantage of it), but its primary selling point is simply that it is what C uses, and therefore it’s what our runtime uses, and therefore it’s what we need to use to interact with our runtime.

But that does not mean we necessarily need to use that calling convention ourselves, for functions in our source language (as we’ll do soon) that call other functions from the source language. In some ways, we can think of our simpler stack-only calling convention as a subset of the 64-bit one: every one of our functions takes six extra “junk” arguments in the six argument registers, and then arguments 7 and up are all passed on the stack. As a result, we’ll stick with the simpler stack convention in this course, and we can revisit this decision later if necessary.

4 Testing

Our programs can now produce observable output! Granted, it is only complaints about type mismatches, so far, but even this is useful.


Construct a test program that demonstrates that your type testing works properly. Construct a second test program that demonstrates that your if expressions work properly, too. Hint: sometimes, “no news is good news.”


Enhance your compiler with a new unary primitive, print, that accepts a single argument, prints it to the console, and returns its value.

1test is to and the same way cmp is to sub: they perform the same logical operation, but throw away the results and keep only the flags.