Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:52:04 +0100
On 25/02/2021 16.43, Aaron Ballman via Liaison wrote:
> Our next meeting will be on Fri Mar 5, 2021 at 18:00 UTC
> (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210305T180000&p1=tz_pst&p2=tz_mst&p3=tz_cst&p4=tz_est&p5=1440&p6=tz_cet).
> secure_clear (https://wg21.link/p1315)
> Proposes multiple alternative wording choices for clearing memory in a
> way that cannot be optimized away as a dead store. There will be a
> poll on which wording choice is preferred by the study group.
This functionality is equivalent to memset_s, so the proposal should
discuss why it doesn't simply make memset_s a non-optional part of C,
instead of introducing a new name.
Jens
> Our next meeting will be on Fri Mar 5, 2021 at 18:00 UTC
> (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210305T180000&p1=tz_pst&p2=tz_mst&p3=tz_cst&p4=tz_est&p5=1440&p6=tz_cet).
> secure_clear (https://wg21.link/p1315)
> Proposes multiple alternative wording choices for clearing memory in a
> way that cannot be optimized away as a dead store. There will be a
> poll on which wording choice is preferred by the study group.
This functionality is equivalent to memset_s, so the proposal should
discuss why it doesn't simply make memset_s a non-optional part of C,
instead of introducing a new name.
Jens
Received on 2021-02-25 13:52:09