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]

Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:45:46 +0200
From:	Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...eee.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> The gcc lists seem to often get to the point where people quote the 
> standard, and that's that. In that environment, the paper standard (that 
> hass *nothing* to do with reality) trumps any other argument. "What we do 
> is _allowed_ by the standard" seems to be a good argument, even if it 
> breaks real code and there is no sane way to avoid doing it.

So we have the great opportunity to change the standard, then
gcc will change ;-)

C is in pre-review phase, and it is taking proposal and correction for the C1x
(so in few kernel release ;-) )

ciao
	cate
-
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/