On 01/21/16 10:34, Borislav Petkov wrote: > From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> > > I can simply quote hpa from the mail: > > "Get rid of the non-asm goto variant and just fall back to dynamic if > asm goto is unavailable. It doesn't make any sense, really, if it is > supposed to be safe, and by now the asm goto-capable gcc is in more wide > use. (Originally the gcc 3.x fallback to pure dynamic didn't exist, > either.)" > > Booy, am I lazy. >
Laughed-at-by: H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> ;) -hpa
