-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 19.02.2012 20:06, "Tóth Attila" wrote:
> The email I replied to was originally posted by "Hinnerk van
> Bruinehsen".
> 
> Let's see my question in details, that might clarify it. Here is
> the part of the ebuild I'm asking questions about:
> 
> " if [[ $(gcc-major-version) -lt 4 ]]; then append-cxxflags
> -fno-stack-protector elif [[ $(gcc-major-version) -gt 4 ||
> $(gcc-minor-version) -gt 3 ]]; then if use amd64 || use x86; then 
> append-flags -mno-avx fi fi "
> 
> Break it down:
> 
> " if [[ $(gcc-major-version) -lt 4 ]]; then append-cxxflags
> -fno-stack-protector " The first part is a historical remnant from
> times before Zorry. We used gcc-3.4.6 for a long time. It used a
> different implementation for SSP.
> 
> " elif [[ $(gcc-major-version) -gt 4 || $(gcc-minor-version) -gt 3 
> ]]; then if use amd64 || use x86; then append-flags -mno-avx fi fi 
> "
> 
> The second part disables avx optimisations if the gcc version is
> newer than 4.3. However avx support isn't around so long and it's
> not mature. Avx is an instruction set extension, that is getting
> some attention lately. I'm lucky to have a system, with a capable
> processor. The block disabling the optimisations resides right
> besides the stack-protector statement. That's why I thought some
> hardened floks put it there. And I'm curious about the reason.
> 
> Of course it might be simply there, because enabling avx
> optimizations can actually decrease performance. Like you can see
> it here: 
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_avx_gcc&num=1
>
>  Security is more important for me compared to speed. That's why
> I'm interested in any security effect of a compiler option (like
> creating textrels or so). If it's a security problem, I won't use
> corei7-avx, but rather go for simple corei7.
> 
> Regards: Dw.

Update: according to [1] it's not security related, but a bug with
mozilla and the avx-extensions. It simply doesn't work together. Since
I have no Sandy Bridge CPU I'm not able to test anythin else...




[1] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-893300-start-0.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPQXFVAAoJEJwwOFaNFkYclboIAI4QIEs8IM8jQ8VU7b625qE8
q+G8kMyJR20V/0Etywv2uM54/gUuwNR/mP0YgEW9Bj7yuvAbpXKQPp1R7kXjFzyq
xNWRYNm6vMlByuakFoYzoB6w7CqqTFVG3dbnujdiVZJVG/+fDM0y/y0MWXIwl6VM
Ng5R5kfzTll/yyp4nYPuAoUinLEAgZy20UOgQJqU33y+AoDdoG4YwqFIrO9FkBFe
ewRLfrwuKpr/+KCm6hvEqavfv32bg5NJMPSAusYIfFSlftNzqoxoxSvVnzanp509
pde3CaSrMjUux5u6kR/IjJlnKP0lgwVr5kntkErSG3edV8YFXRRfFVrIF6chlvM=
=o5MX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to