On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:52 PM Jens Maurer via Liaison
<liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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.

FWIW, it's similar to memset_s but not quite equivalent in that
memset_s can trigger a runtime constraint violation handler. See C17
K.3.1.4 for gory details. That said, I agree that capturing that
information clearly in the paper is a good idea.

~Aaron

>
> Jens
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2021/02/0365.php