linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fastboot: Introduce an asynchronous function call mechanism

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:	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:55:15 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fastboot: Introduce an asynchronous function call mechanism

 > > I was actually "?"ing at the "= 0".  I thought that would be obvious
 > > but it's whizzed past two people so far :(
 > 
 > Is there evidence that some gccs will not add such variable to .bss?
 > 
 > Because "= 0;" is more readable.

From: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.3/changes.html

  GCC 3.3.1 automatically places zero-initialized variables in the .bss
  section on some operating systems. Versions of GNU Emacs up to (and
  including) 21.3 will not work correctly when using this optimization;
  you can use -fno-zero-initialized-in-bss to disable it.

so presumably gcc 3.2 (which we still support, right?) does not do this
(and puts such variables in .data).

 - R.
--
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/