Hello,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Jorge Almeida <jjalme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Marc Joliet <mar...@gmx.de> 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 implemented, I found a variety of links
>> that all support this:
>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/a/40162721
>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38322363/when-will-the-safe-string-functions-of-c11-be-part-of-glibc
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/C11Status (which states that Annex K is not
>> implemented)
>>
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1967.htm
>>
> OK, thanks. The last link even suggests that Annex K should be
> deprecated. I suppose this people don't care about security at all.
>
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.
> 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 definition) would tell the compiler to do what the
> programmer says rather than viewing a function as a kind of black box.
>
This would probably be useful. It may be wise to reimplement important
functionality.
Cheers,
R0b0t1
