linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned

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: <20080521011843.GH28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2008 02:18:43 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, mchehab@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] or51132.c: unaligned

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 05:55:38PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > +	return buf[0] | (buf[1] << 8);
> > > 
> > > return get_unaligned_le16(buf);
> > 
> > And the point of that would be?
> 
> Perhaps better code generation?

FWIW, I wonder how they really compare on misaligned and whether it would
make sense for gcc to try and generate a single load on targets that are
known to allow that...

Hell knows; I still find explicit variant more readable in this case and
AFAICS it's not a critical path...
--
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/