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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 10:02:39 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> To: David Schwartz <davids@...master.com> cc: mrmacman_g4@....com, "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [patch 2.6.19-rc6] Stop gcc 4.1.0 optimizing wait_hpet_tick away >> Next you stick a my_other_func declaration in a header and use >> my_other_func instead of my_func() in the main function. Now the >> result is that the compiler has no damn clue what my_other_func() >> contains so it can't optimize it out of the loop with either >> version. You cannot treat "volatile" the way you are saying it is >> treated without severely violating both the C99 spec *and* common sense. > >The compiler *happens* to have no damn clue because such inter-module >optimizations don't exist. That doesn't make the code correct, just not >likely to demonstrate its brokenness. GCC has inter-module optimization, it's just not used everyday. I think I have seen a discussion on this. Right there it is -> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/24/212 -`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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists