Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:20:26 +1000 From: Andrew Milton <akm@theinternet.com.au> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations Message-ID: <20100613162026.GQ40531@camelot.theinternet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20100613160035.GD87112@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <20100611162118.GR39829@acme.spoerlein.net> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+-------[ Bernd Walter ]---------------------- | On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 05:44:29PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: | > Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> writes: | > > Amazing - this is one of the things which can get nasty if you try some | > > kind of microtuning. | > | > Only if you break the rules. Bad code is always bad, even if it | > sometimes works by accident. | | To expect that function calls are replaced with other functions isn't a | very obvious rule. Don't turn on compiler optimisation then. You're explicitly telling the compiler to make your code better/faster/smaller. Optimisation flags always come with the caveat that your code may not work exactly the same... -- Andrew Milton akm@theinternet.com.au
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100613162026.GQ40531>