| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.99.0705081510370.25865@chino.kir.corp.google.com> Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil On Tue, 8 May 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > You're point about reordering "asm volatile" constructs differs depending > > on -mvolatile-asm-stop or -mno-volatile-asm-stop, however. > > > > Erm, that seems to be ia64 specific, and I have no idea what adding a > "stop bit" implies. Can you set even or odd parity too? > It is analogous with a sequence point for ia64. But, as you mentioned, it is ia64 specific so your comment about "asm volatile" constructs not being reordered is always appropriate outside of ia64 specific code but may not apply to ia64 if we ever compiled with -mvolatile-asm-stop. If we do not compile with that option, the behavior is unspecified. I don't think we'll be adding -mvolatile-asm-stop support any time soon so your warning certainly is appropriate for all code at this time. David - 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