Understanding the assembly language for if-else in following code [duplicate] - c++

Question

What happens if i say 'call ' instead of jump? Since there is no return statement written, does control just pass over to the next line below, or is it still returned to the line after the call?
start:
mov $0, %eax
jmp two
one:
mov $1, %eax
two:
cmp %eax, $1
call one
mov $10, %eax

Answer 1

The CPU always executes the next instruction in memory, unless a branch instruction sends execution somewhere else.
Labels don't have a width, or any effect on execution. They just allow you to make reference to this address from other places. Execution simply falls through labels, even off the end of your code if you don't avoid that.
If you're familiar with C or other languages that have goto (example), the labels you use to mark places you can goto to work exactly the same as asm labels, and jmp / jcc work exactly like goto or if(EFLAGS_condition) goto. But asm doesn't have special syntax for functions; you have to implement that high-level concept yourself.
If you leave out the ret at the end of a block of code, execution keeps doing and decodes whatever comes next as instructions. (Maybe What would happen if a system executes a part of the file that is zero-padded? if that was the last function in an asm source file, or maybe execution falls into some CRT startup function that eventually returns.)
(In which case you could say that the block you're talking about isn't a function, just part of one, unless it's a bug and a ret or jmp was intended.)
You can (and maybe should) try this yourself in a debugger. Single-step through that code and watch RSP and RIP change. The nice thing about asm is that the total state of the CPU (excluding memory contents) is not very big, so it's possible to watch the entire architectural state in a debugger window. (Well, at least the interesting part that's relevant for user-space integer code, so excluding model-specific registers that the only the OS can tweak, and excluding the FPU and vector registers.)
call and ret aren't "special" (i.e. the CPU doesn't "remember" that it's inside a "function").
They just do exactly what the manual says they do, and it's up to you to use them correctly to implement function calls and returns. (e.g. make sure the stack pointer is pointing at a return address when ret runs.) It's also up to you to get the calling convention correct, and all that stuff. (See the x86 tag wiki.)
There's also nothing special about a label that you jmp to vs. a label that you call. An assembler just assembles bytes into the output file, and remembers where you put label markers. It doesn't truly "know" about functions the way a C compiler does. You can put labels wherever you want, and it doesn't affect the machine code bytes.
Using the .globl one directive would tell the assembler to put an entry in the symbol table so the linker could see it. That would let you define a label that's usable from other files, or even callable from C. But that's just meta-data in the object file and still doesn't put anything between instructions.
Labels are just part of the machinery that you can use in asm to implement the high-level concept of a "function", aka procedure or subroutine: A label for callers to call to, and code that will eventually jump back to a return address the caller passed, one way or another. But not every label is the start of a function. Some are just the tops of loops, or other targets of conditional branches within a function.
Your code would run exactly the same way if you emulated call with an equivalent push of the return address and then a jmp.
one:
mov $1, %eax
# missing ret so we fall through
two:
cmp %eax, $1
# call one # emulate it instead with push+jmp
pushl $.Lreturn_address
jmp one
.Lreturn_address:
mov $10, %eax
# fall off into whatever comes next, if it ever reaches here.
Note that this sequence only works in non-PIC code, because the absolute return address is encoded into the push imm32 instruction. In 64-bit code with a spare register available, you can use a RIP-relative lea to get the return address into a register and push that before jumping.
Also note that while architecturally the CPU doesn't "remember" past CALL instructions, real implementations run faster by assuming that call/ret pairs will be matched, and use a return-address predictor to avoid mispredicts on the ret.
Why is RET hard to predict? Because it's an indirect jump to an address stored in memory! It's equivalent to pop %internal_tmp / jmp *%internal_tmp, so you can emulate it that way if you have a spare register to clobber (e.g. rcx is not call-preserved in most calling conventions, and not used for return values). Or if you have a red-zone so values below the stack-pointer are still safe from being asynchronously clobbered (by signal handlers or whatever), you could add $8, %rsp / jmp *-8(%rsp).
Obviously for real use you should just use ret, because it's the most efficient way to do that. I just wanted to point out what it does using multiple simpler instructions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Note that functions can end with a tail-call instead of a ret:
(see this on Godbolt)
int ext_func(int a); // something that the optimizer can't inline
int foo(int a) {
return ext_func(a+a);
}
# asm output from clang:
foo:
add edi, edi
jmp ext_func # TAILCALL
The ret at the end of ext_func will return to foo's caller. foo can use this optimization because it doesn't need to make any modifications to the return value or do any other cleanup.
In the SystemV x86-64 calling convention, the first integer arg is in edi. So this function replaces that with a+a, then jumps to the start of ext_func. On entry to ext_func, everything is in the correct state just like it would be if something had run call ext_func. The stack pointer is pointing to the return address, and the args are where they're supposed to be.
Tail-call optimizations can be done more often in a register-args calling convention than in a 32-bit calling convention that passes args on the stack. You often run into situations where you have a problem because the function you want to tail-call takes more args than the current function, so there isn't room to rewrite our own args into args for the function. (And compilers don't tend to create code that modifies its own args, even though the ABI is very clear that functions own the stack space holding their args and can clobber it if they want.)
In a calling convention where the callee cleans the stack (with ret 8 or something to pop another 8 bytes after the return address), you can only tail-call a function that takes exactly the same number of arg bytes.

Answer 2

Your intuition is correct: the control just passes to the next line below after the function returns.
In your case, after call one, your function will jump to mov $1, %eax and then continue down to cmp %eax, $1 and end up in an infinite loop as you will call one again.
Beyond just an infinite loop, your function will eventually go beyond its memory constraints since a call command writes the current rip (instruction pointer) to the stack. Eventually, you'll overflow the stack.