linux-kernel - Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} _

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 02 May 2008 07:57:42 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
CC:	Alistair John Strachan <alistair@...zero.co.uk>,
	Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@...edump.us>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, trini@...nel.crashing.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: huge gcc 4.1.{0,1} __weak problem

Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> OK, can anyone confirm that this fails to build which a
> buggy gcc:
>
>
> void __attribute__((weak)) func(void)
> {
>     /* no code */
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>     func();
>     return 0;
> }
>   

I think the problem is that main() would have no call to func(), not 
that it wouldn't build.

Does making func noinline fix it?  I wonder if we should make __weak 
implicitly make the function noinline too.

    J
--
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/