linux-kernel - RE: About GCC4 Optimization

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKMEEGCIAC.davids@webmaster.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:05 -0700
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: About GCC4 Optimization

> So what gcc does may be technically legal, but it's still a horribly
> bad thing to do. Sadly, some gcc people seem to care more
> about "letter
> of the law" than "sanity and quality of implementation".

You know, it would be one thing if they were consistent. A policy that, by
default, you get all the optimizations the relevant standards allow wouldn't
be a problem. But they do this when they feel like it, and they disable
significant optimizations even where the standards allow them when they feel
like that.

See, for example:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20099

"You cannot create code that works with this option and doesn't work without
it except by violating the POSIX standard. So POSIX code should not have
this option enabled by default -- it's a pure pessimization." Yet the option
is on by default when -pthreads is specified.

DS

PS: Yes, I'm still pissed about this. ;)

-
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/