From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 20 15:04:01 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FE816A400 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 15:04:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988E013C455 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 15:04:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22DB12084; Sun, 20 May 2007 17:03:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: 0.0/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on tim.des.no Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA0C2083; Sun, 20 May 2007 17:03:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DA08A5070; Sun, 20 May 2007 17:03:57 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Alexander Kabaev References: <20070520023127.5101cc4a@kan.dnsalias.net> Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 17:03:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20070520023127.5101cc4a@kan.dnsalias.net> (Alexander Kabaev's message of "Sun\, 20 May 2007 02\:31\:27 -0400") Message-ID: <86k5v3h6zm.fsf@dwp.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: OpenSSL problems after GCC 4.2 upgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:04:01 -0000 Alexander Kabaev writes: > there were several reports of OpenSSL being broken when compiled with > GCC 4.2. It turns out OpenSSL uses function casting feature that was > aggressively de-supported by GCC 4.2 and GCC goes as far as inserting > invalid instructions ON PURPOSE to discourage the practice. Is there a web page somewhere (or an archived mailing list discussion, or whatever) which discusses the issue and explains the rationale for intentionally generating incorrect code? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no