linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for May 21 (objtool warnings)

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]

Message-ID: <20200526140113.ppjywpx7uir3vrlj@treble>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 09:01:13 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 21 (objtool warnings)

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:07:27PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > I'll try to find out which optimization does this, because it is a 
> > slightly different scenario than hiding __noreturn from the callees. 
> > Probably -fno-ipa-pure-const again.
> 
> And it is indeed -fno-ipa-pure-const again.

It still seems odd to me that GCC's dead end detection seems to break
with -fno-ipa-pure-const.  Do you know if these issues can be fixed on
the GCC side?

-- 
Josh