From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Mueller Subject: Re: #pragma GCC warnings (was: Re: [PATCH] crypto: drbg - use pragmas for disabling optimization) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:01:14 +0200 Message-ID: <33380936.3jDOACMRCz@tachyon.chronox.de> References: <20150623092106.GA18791@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150623092106.GA18791@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Guenter Roeck , Peter Zijlstra , Andy Shevchenko , Jim Davis , Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "David S. Miller" , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Waiman Long , Ingo Molnar , x86 List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, 23. Juni 2015, 17:21:06 schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:17:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > I get that too with m68k-linux-gcc-4.6.3 and m68k-linux-gcc-4.9.0. > > > > With m68k-linux-gnu-gcc-4.1, which is still my default cross-compiler due > > to the good unused warning reporting, I get: > > > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:235: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC push_options > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:236: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC optimize > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:266: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC pop_options > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:295: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC push_options > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:296: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC optimize > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:336: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC pop_options > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:385: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC push_options > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:386: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC optimize > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:416: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC pop_options > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:517: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC push_options > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:518: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC optimize > > crypto/jitterentropy.c:580: warning: ignoring #pragma GCC pop_options > > Stephan, could you look into moving the relevant functions into > its own file which can then be compiled with -O0? Obviously any > dependency on kernel header files would have to be hidden using > functions outside of this file. I have separated all so far. However, there are two items left where I am not sure about: - asm/types.h: I need __u64 - linux/bitops.h: I need rol64 Can I safely include both header files or do I have to hide them too. If yes, how would I do that in a way that is satisfactory? Thanks. -- Ciao Stephan