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, 8 Jun 2016 02:12:05 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] x86, asm: use bool for bitops and other assembly
 outputs

On 06/08/16 02:01, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> That's a divergence with an underlying reason - but not harmonizing the return 
> code is an unforced error AFAICS and can be fixed.
>

Perhaps.  It is also no real question that "bool" is the right return
type for a single bit.  Changing that in all architectures at one time
is a major undertaking, however, and it seems to me that it would be
better to leave that to the respective architecture maintainers.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd really like to avoid the upcasting to "int"
which isn't needed, because in my testing I find that it definitely
encourages gcc to generate poor code.

	-hpa


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ