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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87si3rbz6p.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:	Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:53:50 +0100
From:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: no-op delay loops

Hi,

It seems that gcc happily compiles

for (i = 0; i < 1000000000; ++i) ;

into simply

i = 1000000000;

(which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least at -O2, and
when i is not declared volatile. So it would seem that the loops at

arch/mips/pci/pci-rt2880.c:235
arch/mips/pmcs-msp71xx/msp_setup.c:80
arch/mips/sni/reset.c:35

actually don't do anything. (In the middle one, i is 'register', but
that doesn't change anything.) Is mips compiled with some special flags
that would make gcc actually emit code for the above?

Rasmus
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ