linux-kernel - RE: [RFC] net: bpf_jit: Two pass JIT and other changes

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]

Message-ID: <5f98ccc12c7887af855ff44700b528af.squirrel@webmail.greenhost.nl>
Date:	Mon, 2 Apr 2012 22:03:12 +1000
From:	"Indan Zupancic" <indan@....nu>
To:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:	"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC] net: bpf_jit: Two pass JIT and other changes

On Mon, April 2, 2012 19:28, David Laight wrote:
>
>> 1) Sadly, gcc isn't always smart enough to inline emit_code().
>>    So turn it into a macro to force gcc to inline it. This saves
>>    about 500 bytes. Tested with gcc 4.6.0. An alternative to the
>>    macro would be to create inline emit_code1(), emit_code2() etc.
>
> Does giving it the __attribute__((always_inline)) help?
> I had to mark a load of small static functions that way
> after a minor change (possibly to the overall size)
> stopped gcc inlining everything.

I did try that first, but it didn't work for some reason. Perhaps
the kernel uses some flag that overrides it when optimising for size.
Maybe plain -Os does that already, I don't know.

Greetings,

Indan


--
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/