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: <200710260116.10904.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:16:10 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

On Friday 26 October 2007 01:14:41 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 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*.

No it can't (at least not on x86) as I have explained in the rest of the mail 
you conveniently snipped.

-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/