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: 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists