Philip Guenther wrote: > Loganaden Velvindron wrote: > > Michael McConville wrote: > >> These seem like they were definitely meant to be explicit zeroings. > > > > I'm not entirely sure about this. Since the variable (data) is used > > before return, it would not be optimized away by the compiler. > > > > [...] > > > > Or maybe I'm wrong here ?
> It might not be necessary from the optimization danger *right now*, > but it may in the future, and serves as documentation of why you > bothered to memset it (as opposed to doing so for some other reason, > like so it can be reused, or to avoid double free of a pointer in it, > etc). Thanks, this is exactly how I was thinking of it. Anecdotally, I dumped the binary and it seems that (at least with the system compiler) memset was being called.
