| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:05 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> To: "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: About GCC4 Optimization > So what gcc does may be technically legal, but it's still a horribly > bad thing to do. Sadly, some gcc people seem to care more > about "letter > of the law" than "sanity and quality of implementation". You know, it would be one thing if they were consistent. A policy that, by default, you get all the optimizations the relevant standards allow wouldn't be a problem. But they do this when they feel like it, and they disable significant optimizations even where the standards allow them when they feel like that. See, for example: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20099 "You cannot create code that works with this option and doesn't work without it except by violating the POSIX standard. So POSIX code should not have this option enabled by default -- it's a pure pessimization." Yet the option is on by default when -pthreads is specified. DS PS: Yes, I'm still pissed about this. ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists