Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- From: Ulrich Spörlein <uqs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:35:28 +0200
On Fri, 11.06.2010 at 21:37:29 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Ulrich Spörlein <uqs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
optimizing compilers have a tendency to remove assignments that have
no side effects. The code in sys/crypto/sha2/sha2.c is doing a lot of
zeroing variables, which is however optimized away. [...] Is there a
canonical way to zero those variables and should we use them (memset
perhaps? what are the performance implications?)
If you stick these variables in a struct, you can memset the struct to
zero them; if there are many of them, it may be faster than zeroing them
individually.
Alternatively, you can use something like this:
#define FORCE_ASSIGN(type, var, value) \
*(volatile type *)&(var) = (value)
Interesting trick, thanks. I'll try this ...
Uli
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- From: Bernd Walter
- Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- References:
- Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- From: Ulrich Spörlein
- Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- From: Dag-Erling Smørgrav
- Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- Prev by Date: Re: How to disable CLANG & co build in buildworld?
- Next by Date: Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- Previous by thread: Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- Next by thread: Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|