linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] X86-32: Let gcc decide whether to inline memcpy was Re: New x86 warning

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:44:19 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Joe Damato <ice799@...il.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] X86-32: Let gcc decide whether to inline memcpy was Re: New x86 warning

> gcc 4.2.4 - withOUT memset patch: 20
> gcc 4.2.4 - with memset patch: 365
> 
> gcc 3.4 - withOUT memset patch: 17
> gcc 3.4 - with memset patch: 349

Yes it sounds like 3.4 is worse on that than 3.2. Too bad.

> I'm guessing this is probably not acceptable, so I won't bother

It depends if the calls are in critical code. Or how big they
are (for a 1K memset it's totally fine to have it out of line).

For example for any memsets in __init functions we wouldn't
care. You could filter those out. And perhaps eyeball the code.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/