linux-kernel - RE: [patch 2.6.19-rc6] Stop gcc 4.1.0 optimizing wait_hpet

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]

Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKKEMLABAC.davids@webmaster.com>
Date:	Sat, 2 Dec 2006 20:29:28 -0800
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	<schwab@...e.de>
Subject: RE: [patch 2.6.19-rc6] Stop gcc 4.1.0 optimizing wait_hpet_tick away

> > It comes down to just what those guarantees GCC provides actually are.

> This is the first correct statement in your email.  In any case the
> documented GCC guarantees have always been much stronger than you
> have been trying to persuade us they should be.  I would argue that
> the C standard somewhat indirectly specifies those guarantees but I
> really don't have the heart for any more language-lawyering so I'm
> going to leave it at that.

I have tried to find any documentation of the guarantees gcc actually
provides and have been unable to do so. Where are these "documented GCC
guarantees" documented?

DS

-
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/