From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 13 22:05:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26D4106566C for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:05:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from raven.bwct.de (raven.bwct.de [85.159.14.73]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA6D8FC1B for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.cicely.de ([10.1.1.37]) by raven.bwct.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o5DM5lut023504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:05:47 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from cicely7.cicely.de (cicely7.cicely.de [10.1.1.9]) by mail.cicely.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5DM5icj075021 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:05:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from cicely7.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely7.cicely.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o5DM5ids004331; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:05:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely7.cicely.de (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id o5DM5iSh004330; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:05:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:05:44 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= Message-ID: <20100613220543.GH87112@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <867hm5tl6u.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100612153526.GA3632@acme.spoerlein.net> <20100612163208.GS87112@cicely7.cicely.de> <864oh86tnl.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100612225216.GT87112@cicely7.cicely.de> <86k4q33pk2.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100613160035.GD87112@cicely7.cicely.de> <86fx0q52r0.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100613162841.GE87112@cicely7.cicely.de> <86bpbe4nm8.fsf@ds4.des.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <86bpbe4nm8.fsf@ds4.des.no> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely7.cicely.de 7.0-STABLE i386 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on spamd.cicely.de Cc: ticso@cicely.de, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:05:51 -0000 On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:41:03PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Bernd Walter writes: > > Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: > > > The only way you can tell that gcc did it is if you break the rules, > > > such as by defining your own version of printf() or puts(). > > Our loader stages do this for good reasons. And in microcontroller > > programming (surely out of FreeBSD scope) it is done very regulary. > > Those are freestanding environments, where printf() and puts() don't > exist as far as the C standard is concerned. Most controller environments have some kind of libc. We even have devel/avr-libc and devel/msp430-libc in ports. Anyway - printf=>puts isn't scarying as such, it is more that this might happen in other cases as well. -- B.Walter http://www.bwct.de Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm.