Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:12:12 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> Cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>, ticso@cicely.de, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations Message-ID: <20100613081212.GX87112@cicely7.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20100613001750.GA30380@muon.cran.org.uk> 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> <20100613001750.GA30380@muon.cran.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:17:50AM +0000, Bruce Cran wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:52:16AM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote: > > I'm at least sure that the compiler can't if it is linked from another > > object file. > > Is that still true if LTO is enabled? Good question - I wasn't aware of LTO. My precondition was that the function doesn't see what is done with the result and LTO invalidates this. -- B.Walter <bernd@bwct.de> http://www.bwct.de Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100613081212.GX87112>