On 08/10/14 03:15, Sandy Harris wrote: > As I see it, though, and wrote in one thread: > > " A real fix would make memset() do the right thing reliably; if the > " programmer puts in memset( x, 0, nbytes) then the memory should > " be cleared, no ifs or buts. I do not know or care if that means > " changes in the compiler or in the library code or even both, but > " the fix should make the standard library code work right, not > " require adding a new function and expecting everyone to use it. > > It seemed worth tossing this out for comment here. That's not going to happen, given that memset_s() is a standard idiom for this operation. As it stands, even a call to memset_s() isn't sufficient: another thread may not observe the memset_s() until a barrier has been executed (and maybe not even then!) but I suppose it's better than nothing. Andrew.
