Re: [PATCH 2/5] 2.wp.patch

[Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>]

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