linux-kernel - Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

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: <200710251416.19606.ak@novell.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:16:19 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ell.com>
To:	"linux-os (Dick Johnson)" <linux-os@...logic.com>
Cc:	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

On Thursday 25 October 2007 13:58:56 linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 25 October 2007 05:24, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >> Basically, what the gcc developers are saying is that gcc is
> >> free to load and store to any memory location, so long as it
> >> behaves as if the instructions were executed in sequence.
> >
> > This case is clearly a bug, a very likely code pessimization.
> > I guess it wasn't intentional, just an optimization that is useful
> > for local register values doing too much.
> 
> 
> I don't think it is a BUG,

Bug as in an optimization that makes the code slower than it was
before. That is clearly a bug in a compiler.

-Andi
-
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/