TL;DR summary: xor same, same is the best choice for all CPUs. No other method has any advantage over it, and it has at least some advantage over any other method. It's officially recommended by Intel and AMD, and what compilers do. In 64-bit mode, still use xor r32, r32 , because writing a 32-bit reg zeros the upper 32. xor r64, r64 is a waste of a byte, because it needs a REX prefix.

Even worse than that, Silvermont only recognizes xor r32,r32 as dep-breaking, not 64-bit operand-size. Thus even when a REX prefix is still required because you're zeroing r8..r15, use xor r10d,r10d , not xor r10,r10 .

GP-integer examples:

xor eax, eax ; RAX = 0. Including AL=0 etc. xor r10d, r10d ; R10 = 0 xor edx, edx ; RDX = 0 ; small code-size alternative: cdq ; zero RDX if EAX is already zero ; SUB-OPTIMAL xor rax,rax ; waste of a REX prefix, and extra slow on Silvermont xor r10,r10 ; bad on Silvermont (not dep breaking), same as r10d everywhere else because a REX prefix is still needed for r10d or r10. mov eax, 0 ; doesn't touch FLAGS, but not faster and takes more bytes and eax, 0 ; false dependency. (Microbenchmark experiments might want this) sub eax, eax ; same as xor on most but not all CPUs; bad on Silvermont for example. xor al, al ; false dep on some CPUs, not a zeroing idiom. Use xor eax,eax mov al, 0 ; only 2 bytes, and probably better than xor al,al *if* you need to leave the rest of EAX/RAX unmodified

Zeroing a vector register is usually best done with pxor xmm, xmm . That's typically what gcc does (even before use with FP instructions).

xorps xmm, xmm can make sense. It's one byte shorter than pxor , but xorps needs execution port 5 on Intel Nehalem, while pxor can run on any port (0/1/5). (Nehalem's 2c bypass delay latency between integer and FP is usually not relevant, because out-of-order execution can typically hide it at the start of a new dependency chain).

On SnB-family microarchitectures, neither flavour of xor-zeroing even needs an execution port. On AMD, and pre-Nehalem P6/Core2 Intel, xorps and pxor are handled the same way (as vector-integer instructions).

Using the AVX version of a 128b vector instruction zeros the upper part of the reg as well, so vpxor xmm, xmm, xmm is a good choice for zeroing YMM(AVX1/AVX2) or ZMM(AVX512), or any future vector extension. vpxor ymm, ymm, ymm doesn't take any extra bytes to encode, though, and runs the same on Intel, but slower on AMD before Zen2 (2 uops). The AVX512 ZMM zeroing would require extra bytes (for the EVEX prefix), so XMM or YMM zeroing should be preferred.

XMM/YMM/ZMM examples

# Good: xorps xmm0, xmm0 ; smallest code size (for non-AVX) pxor xmm0, xmm0 ; costs an extra byte, runs on any port on Nehalem. xorps xmm15, xmm15 ; Needs a REX prefix but that's unavoidable if you need to use high registers without AVX. Code-size is the only penalty. # Good with AVX: vpxor xmm0, xmm0, xmm0 ; zeros X/Y/ZMM0 vpxor xmm15, xmm0, xmm0 ; zeros X/Y/ZMM15, still only 2-byte VEX prefix #sub-optimal AVX vpxor xmm15, xmm15, xmm15 ; 3-byte VEX prefix because of high source reg vpxor ymm0, ymm0, ymm0 ; decodes to 2 uops on AMD before Zen2 # Good with AVX512 vpxor xmm15, xmm0, xmm0 ; zero ZMM15 using an AVX1-encoded instruction (2-byte VEX prefix). vpxord xmm30, xmm30, xmm30 ; EVEX is unavoidable when zeroing zmm16..31, but still prefer XMM or YMM for fewer uops on probable future AMD. May be worth using only high regs to avoid needing vzeroupper in short functions. # Good with AVX512 *without* AVX512VL (e.g. KNL / Xeon Phi) vpxord zmm30, zmm30, zmm30 ; Without AVX512VL you have to use a 512-bit instruction. # sub-optimal with AVX512 (even without AVX512VL) vpxord zmm0, zmm0, zmm0 ; EVEX prefix (4 bytes), and a 512-bit uop. Use AVX1 vpxor xmm0, xmm0, xmm0 even on KNL to save code size.

See Is vxorps-zeroing on AMD Jaguar/Bulldozer/Zen faster with xmm registers than ymm? and

What is the most efficient way to clear a single or a few ZMM registers on Knights Landing?

Semi-related: Fastest way to set __m256 value to all ONE bits and

Set all bits in CPU register to 1 efficiently also covers AVX512 k0..7 mask registers. SSE/AVX vpcmpeqd is dep-breaking on many (although still needs a uop to write the 1s), but AVX512 vpternlogd for ZMM regs isn't even dep-breaking. Inside a loop consider copying from another register instead of re-creating ones with an ALU uop, especially with AVX512.

But zeroing is cheap: xor-zeroing an xmm reg inside a loop is usually as good as copying, except on some AMD CPUs (Bulldozer and Zen) which have mov-elimination for vector regs but still need an ALU uop to write zeros for xor-zeroing.

What's special about zeroing idioms like xor on various uarches

Some CPUs recognize sub same,same as a zeroing idiom like xor , but all CPUs that recognize any zeroing idioms recognize xor . Just use xor so you don't have to worry about which CPU recognizes which zeroing idiom.

xor (being a recognized zeroing idiom, unlike mov reg, 0 ) has some obvious and some subtle advantages (summary list, then I'll expand on those):

smaller code-size than mov reg,0 . (All CPUs)

. (All CPUs) avoids partial-register penalties for later code. (Intel P6-family and SnB-family).

doesn't use an execution unit, saving power and freeing up execution resources. (Intel SnB-family)

smaller uop (no immediate data) leaves room in the uop cache-line for nearby instructions to borrow if needed. (Intel SnB-family).

doesn't use up entries in the physical register file. (Intel SnB-family (and P4) at least, possibly AMD as well since they use a similar PRF design instead of keeping register state in the ROB like Intel P6-family microarchitectures.)

Smaller machine-code size (2 bytes instead of 5) is always an advantage: Higher code density leads to fewer instruction-cache misses, and better instruction fetch and potentially decode bandwidth.

The benefit of not using an execution unit for xor on Intel SnB-family microarchitectures is minor, but saves power. It's more likely to matter on SnB or IvB, which only have 3 ALU execution ports. Haswell and later have 4 execution ports that can handle integer ALU instructions, including mov r32, imm32 , so with perfect decision-making by the scheduler (which doesn't always happen in practice), HSW could still sustain 4 uops per clock even when they all need ALU execution ports.

See my answer on another question about zeroing registers for some more details.

Bruce Dawson's blog post that Michael Petch linked (in a comment on the question) points out that xor is handled at the register-rename stage without needing an execution unit (zero uops in the unfused domain), but missed the fact that it's still one uop in the fused domain. Modern Intel CPUs can issue & retire 4 fused-domain uops per clock. That's where the 4 zeros per clock limit comes from. Increased complexity of the register renaming hardware is only one of the reasons for limiting the width of the design to 4. (Bruce has written some very excellent blog posts, like his series on FP math and x87 / SSE / rounding issues, which I do highly recommend).

On AMD Bulldozer-family CPUs, mov immediate runs on the same EX0/EX1 integer execution ports as xor . mov reg,reg can also run on AGU0/1, but that's only for register copying, not for setting from immediates. So AFAIK, on AMD the only advantage to xor over mov is the shorter encoding. It might also save physical register resources, but I haven't seen any tests.

Recognized zeroing idioms avoid partial-register penalties on Intel CPUs which rename partial registers separately from full registers (P6 & SnB families).

xor will tag the register as having the upper parts zeroed, so xor eax, eax / inc al / inc eax avoids the usual partial-register penalty that pre-IvB CPUs have. Even without xor , IvB only needs a merging uop when the high 8bits ( AH ) are modified and then the whole register is read, and Haswell even removes that.

From Agner Fog's microarch guide, pg 98 (Pentium M section, referenced by later sections including SnB):

The processor recognizes the XOR of a register with itself as setting it to zero. A special tag in the register remembers that the high part of the register is zero so that EAX = AL. This tag is remembered even in a loop: ; Example 7.9. Partial register problem avoided in loop xor eax, eax mov ecx, 100 LL: mov al, [esi] mov [edi], eax ; No extra uop inc esi add edi, 4 dec ecx jnz LL (from pg82): The processor remembers that the upper 24 bits of EAX are zero as long as you don't get an interrupt, misprediction, or other serializing event.

pg82 of that guide also confirms that mov reg, 0 is not recognized as a zeroing idiom, at least on early P6 designs like PIII or PM. I'd be very surprised if they spent transistors on detecting it on later CPUs.

xor sets flags, which means you have to be careful when testing conditions. Since setcc is unfortunately only available with an 8bit destination, you usually need to take care to avoid partial-register penalties.

It would have been nice if x86-64 repurposed one of the removed opcodes (like AAM) for a 16/32/64 bit setcc r/m , with the predicate encoded in the source-register 3-bit field of the r/m field (the way some other single-operand instructions use them as opcode bits). But they didn't do that, and that wouldn't help for x86-32 anyway.

Ideally, you should use xor / set flags / setcc / read full register:

... call some_func xor ecx,ecx ; zero *before* the test test eax,eax setnz cl ; cl = (some_func() != 0) add ebx, ecx ; no partial-register penalty here

This has optimal performance on all CPUs (no stalls, merging uops, or false dependencies).

Things are more complicated when you don't want to xor before a flag-setting instruction. e.g. you want to branch on one condition and then setcc on another condition from the same flags. e.g. cmp/jle , sete , and you either don't have a spare register, or you want to keep the xor out of the not-taken code path altogether.

There are no recognized zeroing idioms that don't affect flags, so the best choice depends on the target microarchitecture. On Core2, inserting a merging uop might cause a 2 or 3 cycle stall. It appears to be cheaper on SnB, but I didn't spend much time trying to measure. Using mov reg, 0 / setcc would have a significant penalty on older Intel CPUs, and still be somewhat worse on newer Intel.

Using setcc / movzx r32, r8 is probably the best alternative for Intel P6 & SnB families, if you can't xor-zero ahead of the flag-setting instruction. That should be better than repeating the test after an xor-zeroing. (Don't even consider sahf / lahf or pushf / popf ). IvB can eliminate movzx r32, r8 (i.e. handle it with register-renaming with no execution unit or latency, like xor-zeroing). Haswell and later only eliminate regular mov instructions, so movzx takes an execution unit and has non-zero latency, making test/ setcc / movzx worse than xor /test/ setcc , but still at least as good as test/ mov r,0 / setcc (and much better on older CPUs).

Using setcc / movzx with no zeroing first is bad on AMD/P4/Silvermont, because they don't track deps separately for sub-registers. There would be a false dep on the old value of the register. Using mov reg, 0 / setcc for zeroing / dependency-breaking is probably the best alternative when xor /test/ setcc isn't an option.

Of course, if you don't need setcc 's output to be wider than 8 bits, you don't need to zero anything. However, beware of false dependencies on CPUs other than P6 / SnB if you pick a register that was recently part of a long dependency chain. (And beware of causing a partial reg stall or extra uop if you call a function that might save/restore the register you're using part of.)

and with an immediate zero isn't special-cased as independent of the old value on any CPUs I'm aware of, so it doesn't break dependency chains. It has no advantages over xor and many disadvantages.

It's useful only for writing microbenchmarks when you want a dependency as part of a latency test, but want to create a known value by zeroing and adding.

See http://agner.org/optimize/ for microarch details, including which zeroing idioms are recognized as dependency breaking (e.g. sub same,same is on some but not all CPUs, while xor same,same is recognized on all.) mov does break the dependency chain on the old value of the register (regardless of the source value, zero or not, because that's how mov works). xor only breaks dependency chains in the special-case where src and dest are the same register, which is why mov is left out of the list of specially recognized dependency-breakers. (Also, because it's not recognized as a zeroing idiom, with the other benefits that carries.)

Interestingly, the oldest P6 design (PPro through Pentium III) didn't recognize xor -zeroing as a dependency-breaker, only as a zeroing idiom for the purposes of avoiding partial-register stalls, so in some cases it was worth using both mov and then xor -zeroing in that order to break the dep and then zero again + set the internal tag bit that the high bits are zero so EAX=AX=AL.

See Agner Fog's Example 6.17. in his microarch pdf. He says this also applies to P2, P3, and even (early?) PM. A comment on the linked blog post says it was only PPro that had this oversight, but I've tested on Katmai PIII, and @Fanael tested on a Pentium M, and we both found that it didn't break a dependency for a latency-bound imul chain. This confirms Agner Fog's results, unfortunately.

TL:DR:

If it really makes your code nicer or saves instructions, then sure, zero with mov to avoid touching the flags, as long as you don't introduce a performance problem other than code size. Avoiding clobbering flags is the only sensible reason for not using xor , but sometimes you can xor-zero ahead of the thing that sets flags if you have a spare register.