On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 10:44 PM, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> >Em 26-11-2013 17:27, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> >>On 11/26/2013 01:00 AM, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> >>>Compile-tested on x86_64.
> >>
> >>Actually with yet another version,
On 11/26/2013 10:44 PM, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
Em 26-11-2013 17:27, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
On 11/26/2013 01:00 AM, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
Compile-tested on x86_64.
Actually with yet another version, I hoped that the "compile-tested"-only
statement would eventually disappear, ohh
Em 26-11-2013 17:27, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
On 11/26/2013 01:00 AM, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
Compile-tested on x86_64.
Actually with yet another version, I hoped that the "compile-tested"-only
statement would eventually disappear, ohh well. ;)
I did compile test each version ;-) includ
On 11/26/2013 01:00 AM, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
Disabling compiler optimizations can be fragile, since a new
optimization could be added to -O0 or -Os that breaks the assumptions
the code is making.
Instead of disabling compiler optimizations, use a dummy inline assembly
(based on RELOC_HIDE
Disabling compiler optimizations can be fragile, since a new
optimization could be added to -O0 or -Os that breaks the assumptions
the code is making.
Instead of disabling compiler optimizations, use a dummy inline assembly
(based on RELOC_HIDE) to block the problematic kinds of optimization,
whil
