>>> So you are actually saying outright that we should sacrifice *actual* >>portability in favor of *theoretical* portability? What kind of >>twilight zone did we just step into?! >> >>I'm not sure what you mean. It will be well defined on all platforms. >>Clang may not recognize the pattern, which means they could run >>slower. GCC and ICC will be fine. >> >>Slower but correct code is what you have to live with until the Clang >>dev's fix their compiler. >> >>Its kind of like what Dr. Jon Bentley said: "If it doesn't have to be >>correct, I can make it as fast as you'd like it to be". > > The current code works on all compilers we care about. The code you propose > does not; it doesn't work on anything but very recent versions of our > flagship target compiler, and pretty your own admission might even cause > security hazards in the kernel if compiled on clang.
I'm not sure how you're arriving at the conclusion the code does not work. > That qualifies as insane in my book. OK, thanks. I see the kernel is providing IPSec, SSL/TLS, etc. You can make SSL/TLS run faster by using aNULL and eNULL. Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
