Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 3 Jul 2005 21:42:28 +1000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] 2.wp.patch | From | Herbert Xu <> |
| |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 02:00:16PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > +#if 1 > + #define X(a) a ^= > + #define XEND ; > +#else > +/* gcc -O2 (3.4.3) optimizer bug: > +** this will cause excessive spills (~3K stack used) > +** See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21141 */ > + #define X(a) ^ > + #define XEND > +#endif
Well if we're going to work around this at all then let's use the work around code unconditionally. Is it that much worse than the original?
> @@ -979,7 +989,7 @@ static void wp512_process_buffer(struct > wctx->hash[7] ^= state[7] ^ block[7]; > } > > -static void wp512_init (void *ctx) { > +static void wp512_init(void *ctx) { > int i; > struct wp512_ctx *wctx = ctx;
Feel free to fix up white space problems, but do it in a separate patch.
Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |