Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:19:47 +0200
From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: roundf() (and round(), and ...)

Am Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 01:49:09AM +0000 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Stories of compilers doing that abound… IIRC it was the compiler
> recognising the implementation pattern of memcpy and replacing
> that by a call to memcpy… in some libc’s that was not careful to
> use -ffreestanding memcpy implementation.

memcpy() is special, in that GCC reserves the right to create calls to
it (and memmove(), memcmp(), and memset()) even in freestanding mode. It
doesn't do that for any other builtin. Your only options are to write
those functions in assembler, or write them in C and constantly curate
the options needed to compile the functions so that no recursive calls
happen.

> 15:41⎜<Lo-lan-do:#fusionforge> Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)
$ ./hw > /dev/full && echo FAIL || echo PASS

And you wouldn't believe how many implementations fail that.

Ciao,
Markus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.