RKSimon added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/immintrin.h:301
+ unsigned long long tmp;
+ if (__builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step((unsigned int *)&tmp) &
+ __builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step(((unsigned int *)&tmp) + 1)) {
----------------
yubing wrote:
> RKSimon wrote:
> > RKSimon wrote:
> > > craig.topper wrote:
> > > > craig.topper wrote:
> > > > > Should `&` be `&&`?
> > > > Can we avoid the pointer cast here? Use two unsigned ints and manually
> > > > concatenate them to a 64-bit value.
> > > +1
> > > ```
> > > unsigned int lo, hi;
> > > if (__builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step(&lo) &&
> > > __builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step(&hi)) {
> > > *p = ((unsigned long)hi << 32) | lo;
> > > return 1;
> > > }
> > > ```
> > Are there any sideeffects that we might encounter by not always performing
> > both __builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step calls?
> > ```
> > unsigned int __lo, __hi;
> > int __res_lo = __builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step(&__lo);
> > int __res_hi = __builtin_ia32_rdrand32_step(&__hi);
> > if (__res_lo && __res_hi) {
> > *__p = ((unsigned long long)__hi << 32) | (unsigned long long)__lo;
> > return 1;
> > } else {
> > *__p = 0;
> > return 0;
> > }
> > ```
> however, if the first rdrand32 failed, then we don't need to execute the
> second one.
I understand that - but given randomizers are often used for sensitive
applications (crypto) - my question was whether not always calling this twice
was going to affect things.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132141/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132141
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
