On Wednesday 16 April 2014 19:14:05 you wrote: > Hi Tito ! > > >I've tried to find out if memset is really optimized away in > >this case with some test code that I've compiled with : > > What is wrong with optimization of code, e.g. replacing call to > memset by a quick loop which does same thing even faster than a > function call? ... beside that such optimization needs normally a > bit more of space it is faster and does same thing as original > function call. Try using size optimization (-Os) to avoid > replacing function calls by inline replacements. > > -- > Harald > Hi, my fear is/was that the call to memset is totally optimized away when optimization is turned on and therefore the memory containing the password strings is not zeroed at all. Sadly my understanding of assembler is near to zero so I only can see that memset is not there but not if it is substituted by something else by the compiler in the latter case the patch could still be applied to be cohoerent with other busybox code.
Ciao, Tito _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
