[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CRYPTO]: Miscompiling sha256.c by gcc 3.2.3 and arch pentium3,4

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> What didn't you like about Jakob's patch which avoids the 64 byte size
> penalty?

What size penalty?

The data has to be allocated somewhere, and on the stack is simply not
acceptable. So there can be no size penalty.

Yes, the text size of the binary is slightly bigger, because a "static
const" ends up in the ro-section, but that's _purely_ an accounting thing.
It has to be somewhere, be it .text, .data or .bss. Who would ever care
where it is?

Having it in .ro means that there are no initialization issues, and a
compressed kernel compresses the zero bytes better than having init-time
code to initialize the array (or, worse, doing it over and over at

So where does this size penalty idea come from?

In short: "static const" is correct.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.044 / U:32.704 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site