Re: explicit_bzero vs. alternatives

2020-08-11 Thread Philipp Klaus Krause
>> >> WG14 has reserved some identifiers for future extensions of the >> standard. E.g. those starting with mem_. Naturally, others then choose >> identifiers that do not conflict with this, such as explicit_bzero. But >> if that name is then used in the standard unchanged, it would mean that >>

Re: explicit_bzero vs. alternatives

2020-08-11 Thread Philipp Klaus Krause
Am 11.08.20 um 02:52 schrieb Theo de Raadt: > > But no, WG14 are the lords and masters in the high castle, and now 6 > years after the ship sailed something Must Be Done, it must look like > They Solved The Problem, and so they'll create an incompatible API. > > Will they be heroes? No, not

Re: explicit_bzero vs. alternatives

2020-08-10 Thread Philipp Klaus Krause
Am 10.08.20 um 17:00 schrieb Theo de Raadt: > Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > >> OpenBSD has the explicit_bzero function to reliably (i.e. even if not >> observable in the C abstract machine) overwrite memory with zeroes. >> >> WG14 is currently considering addin

explicit_bzero vs. alternatives

2020-08-10 Thread Philipp Klaus Krause
OpenBSD has the explicit_bzero function to reliably (i.e. even if not observable in the C abstract machine) overwrite memory with zeroes. WG14 is currently considering adding similar functionality to C2X. Considered options include: * A function like explicit_bzero or memset_explicit, that

Any plans to support newer Loongson-based systems?

2020-05-10 Thread Philipp Klaus Krause
According to https://www.openbsd.org/loongson.html only some old Loongson-based systems are supported. Are there any plans to support the more recent Loongson 3A3000- or the current 3A4000-based systems? I do not know where OpenBSD MIPS developers are located. Apparently the Loongson-based