linux-kernel - Re: [tip:core/locking] locking, x86: Slightly shorten __ticket_spin

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:	Wed, 2 Dec 2009 08:56:34 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, npiggin@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] locking, x86: Slightly shorten 
 __ticket_spin_trylock()

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
> This just can't be the case: In order for two compilers to be
> interoperable, the processor specific ABI has to define the handling of
> bool, just like it has to for any other data type.

You are full of crap.

The fact is, compilers are _not_ interoperable in general, and ABI's are 
often compiler-specific. Look at MSVC vs gcc on x86 for just a really 
obvious and trivial example. The fact is, on x86-unix we simply don't 
have any real ABI at all, and gcc picks whatever randon choices it has. 

So stop making excuses. Just admit that 'bool' was wrong, and you made a 
fundamental mistake in choosing it. The fact is, the compiler can do 
whatever the hell it does, which is not necessarily sensible with any 
other type. 'bool' really is special.

			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/