| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm having trouble finding the article again, but these functions look |
| 7 |
> very similar to Microsoft's extensions to the C standard. There is a |
| 8 |
> good case to be made that they are counterproductive. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yes, it looks like it. No wonder, if it's MS inspired. But what I care |
| 11 |
about is the fact that it's not optimized away, not the boundaries |
| 12 |
checking stuff. It's hard to believe that it is practically impossible |
| 13 |
to clean up a buffer, unless one is willing to forego all |
| 14 |
optimizations: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2014-09-04-how-to-zero-a-buffer.html |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> Of course, what would really solve the optimize-into-oblivion problem |
| 20 |
>> is a pragma that when invoked on a particular block of code (maybe |
| 21 |
>> only a function definition) would tell the compiler to do what the |
| 22 |
>> programmer says rather than viewing a function as a kind of black box. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> This would probably be useful. It may be wise to reimplement important |
| 26 |
> functionality. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
No idea how difficult it would be to implement, of course. There might |
| 29 |
even exist a C keyword for that. After all, the C standard states the |
| 30 |
"as-if" rule, it might as well establish such an exception. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Cheers |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Jorge |
Archives