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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:47:01 +0700 From: Minh Bùi Quang <minhquangbui99@...il.com> To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Corentin Labbe <clabbe@...libre.com>, Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: dummy-hcd: Fix uninitialized array use in init() Vào Th 6, 4 thg 12, 2020 vào lúc 23:12 Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> đã viết: > Does this initialization end up using less memory than an explicit > memset() call? You mean speed? In my opinion, there is no difference in speed between 2 ways. When I compile this array initialization using gcc 5.4.0, this initialization becomes mov instructions when MAX_NUM_UDC=2 and becomes rep stos when MAX_NUM_UDC=32. I think it makes no difference when comparing with memset() Thanks, Quang Minh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists