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: Fri, 11 May 2007 22:32:24 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: pradeep singh <p.singh.rautela@...il.com> CC: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi>, Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 2 pradeep singh wrote: > > Sorry, for my misunderstanding but i hope Jonathan actually means > volatile harmful only in C and not while using extended asm with gcc? Or > does you all consider volatile while using extended asm as harmful too? > Incidentally i came to know that using volatile in such cases may be > still be optimized by the gcc. And the correct way is to fake a side > effect to the gcc, which can be done using "memory" clobbering directive > in the correct place and not "m" or "+m". > > Does this means to exclude volatile from extended asm also, while using > them in kernel? > We were talking about "register", not "volatile". -hpa - 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