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: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0710251613090.30120@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ell.com>
cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?



On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > Marking volatile I think is out of the question. To start with,
> > volatile creates really poor code (and most of the time we actually
> > do want the code in critical sections to be as tight as possible).
> 
> Poor code is better than broken code I would say.

No. A *working*compiler* is better than broken code.

There's no way to use volatile for these things, since it can hit 
*anything*. When the compiler generates buggy code, it's buggy code. We 
can't add volatiles to every single data structure. We'd be better off 
having a million monkeys on crack try to hand-assemble the thing, than 
having a totally buggy compiler do it for us.

		Linus
-
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/