linux-kernel - Re: ASM flags in general

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:	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:14:21 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
CC:	Uros Bizjak <uros_bizjak1@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: ASM flags in general

On 07/27/2015 01:01 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 9:04 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if using "set" would be a performance regression over "sbb" for
>> the existing bitops, in which case it would slot quite nicely into this
>> scheme.
> 
> As far as I have looked into the compiled code, following sequence was
> produced when the value was directly used as bool
> 
  [...]
> 
> vs. new sequence:
> 

You misunderstood me: I was referring to *old* versions of gcc (≤ 5); in
order words: can we use the macros I proposed instead of #ifdef?  For
gcc 6+ we obviously want to use the flags output.

	-hpa

--
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/