| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5479DD48.6030508@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:50:48 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> To: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp> CC: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, trivial@...nel.org, Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr> Subject: Re: fs-fat: Less function calls in fat_fill_super() after error detection > More labels are more chances of bug (and we don't care micro optimize > on this error path), isn't it? I would prefer that a few jump targets can be redirected so that unnecessary function calls (and corresponding checks) can be avoided. > Increasing the chance of bugs and bothers developers for analyzer sounds > like strange. There are different opinions around source code clarity. > (And we are initializing those for avoiding to be bothered by choosing > correct label. Pointer initialisation is convenient and safe in some use cases, isn't it? > If we really care micro optimize, initialization of those should not > be required and should not be touched on other paths, and gcc can warn > its usage.) I imagine that a software optimiser can eventually perform better job if unneeded statements could be omitted, couldn't it? Regards, Markus -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists