From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 13 16:20:35 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 C7C2C1065675 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:20:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from akm@theinternet.com.au) Received: from mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454158FC1C for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:20:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from camelot.theinternet.com.au (d110-32-224-17.bla800.nsw.optusnet.com.au [110.32.224.17]) by mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o5DGKRHa028087; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:20:27 +1000 Received: by camelot.theinternet.com.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C05CC17022; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:20:26 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:20:26 +1000 From: Andrew Milton To: ticso@cicely.de Message-ID: <20100613162026.GQ40531@camelot.theinternet.com.au> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20100613160035.GD87112@cicely7.cicely.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: 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 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 16:20:35 -0000 +-------[ Bernd Walter ]---------------------- | On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 05:44:29PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: | > Bernd Walter 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