linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.4.34-pre1

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:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 02:41:46 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc:	Andreas Steinmetz <ast@...dv.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.34-pre1

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:35:49AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 06:45:33AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >...
> > Sometimes it will be compilers, but not by that much. Gcc3.[34] generally
> > produce bigger code than 2.95 at -O2, but I don't think that people in the
> > embedded world still use 2.95 much.
> 
> Comparing code size different gcc versions produce with -O2 is a bit 
> unfair, the size of -Os code is more important in this case.

Yes, but the code produced by gcc-3.[34] -Os is so unoptimized that it's
practically unusable for anything oocasionnaly using the CPU. I use it
mainly for bootloaders and tools like this. On the opposite, gcc-2.95 -Os
was still relatively well optimized, which often resulted in faster execution
due to smaller cache footprint. And for many programs, I have relied on this
combination.

> 
> > Cheers,
> > Willy
> 
> cu
> Adrian

Cheers,
Willy

-
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/