linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 20 May 2009 02:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
	jiayingz@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, fche@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracepoints: delay argument evaluation

> But I think we should be asking GCC to get fixed. Since inline functions
> don't act like a compiler barrier anyway, they might as well not force
> argument evaluation either.

I quite agree.  I'm all for better compilation.  However, usual practice
in the kernel has been to complain about introducing C code sequences
that add a few instructions when compiled by compilers over 5 years old,
let alone the very latest one.  I think it was the expectation of that
sort of sensitive reaction to the hot-path impact of unused tracepoints
that motivated Jason's attempt at microoptimization.

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/