On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:42 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2014-09-04-how-to-zero-a-buffer.html
>>>
>>>
> Of course, what would really solve the optim
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
>
>> http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2014-09-04-how-to-zero-a-buffer.html
>>
>>
Of course, what would really solve the optimize-into-oblivion problem
is a pragma that when inv
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2014-09-04-how-to-zero-a-buffer.html
>
>
>>> Of course, what would really solve the optimize-into-oblivion problem
>>> is a pragma that when invoked on a particular block of code (maybe
>>> only a function de
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> On L, 2017-11-11 at 00:10 +, Jorge Almeida wrote:
>> Well, most programmers probably won't care about this stuff anyway,
>> and people who deal with cryptography tend to be more cautious than
>> average. But I'm not really making a case f
On L, 2017-11-11 at 00:10 +, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> Well, most programmers probably won't care about this stuff anyway,
> and people who deal with cryptography tend to be more cautious than
> average. But I'm not really making a case for safe versions of known
> functions. After all, the usual
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:19 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2014-09-04-how-to-zero-a-buffer.html
>>
>
> I really think there is a deeper issue here then, which is
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>
>>
>> I'm having trouble finding the article again, but these functions look
>> very similar to Microsoft's extensions to the C standard. There is a
>> good case to be made that t
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I'm having trouble finding the article again, but these functions look
> very similar to Microsoft's extensions to the C standard. There is a
> good case to be made that they are counterproductive.
Yes, it looks like it. No wonder, if
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:25 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Jorge Almeida
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Marc Joliet wrote:
> >> Am Freitag, 10. November 2017, 10:54:53 CET schrieb Jorge Almeida:
> >>> I'm trying to use memset_s() but the system
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Marc Joliet wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 10. November 2017, 10:54:53 CET schrieb Jorge Almeida:
>>> I'm trying to use memset_s() but the system (glibc?) doesn't know
>>> about it. I also tried to compile ag
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Marc Joliet wrote:
> Am Freitag, 10. November 2017, 10:54:53 CET schrieb Jorge Almeida:
>> I'm trying to use memset_s() but the system (glibc?) doesn't know
>> about it. I also tried to compile against musl, same result.
>>
> It seems as though it is simply not
Am Freitag, 10. November 2017, 10:54:53 CET schrieb Jorge Almeida:
> I'm trying to use memset_s() but the system (glibc?) doesn't know
> about it. I also tried to compile against musl, same result.
>
> There's precious little info about memset_s in the net. Does it exist
> at all? No man page.
>
I'm trying to use memset_s() but the system (glibc?) doesn't know
about it. I also tried to compile against musl, same result.
There's precious little info about memset_s in the net. Does it exist
at all? No man page.
(https://www.cs.helsinki.fi/group/boi2016/doc/cppreference/reference/en.cpprefe
13 matches
Mail list logo
