netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH] new byteorder primitives

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: <20171213015125.GC21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:51:25 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] new byteorder primitives - ..._{replace,get}_bits()

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 05:35:28PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> It used to be __always_inline, but apparently LLVM/clang doesn't
> propagate constants :(  
> 
> 4e59532541c8 ("nfp: don't depend on compiler constant propagation")

Doesn't propagate constants or doesn't have exact same set of
rules for __builtin_constant_p()?  IOW, if you dropped that
BUILD_BUG_ON(), what would be left after optimizations?