Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:00:35 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: ticso@cicely.de, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations Message-ID: <20100613160035.GD87112@cicely7.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <86k4q33pk2.fsf@ds4.des.no> 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> <86k4q33pk2.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 05:44:29PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> writes: > > Amazing - this is one of the things which can get nasty if you try some > > kind of microtuning. > > Only if you break the rules. Bad code is always bad, even if it > sometimes works by accident. To expect that function calls are replaced with other functions isn't a very obvious rule. -- 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?20100613160035.GD87112>