Re: how to avoid a memset() optimization

"Arthur Chance" <usenet-1ugeabe@qeng-ho.org> writes:
> I'm not a language lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, and am loathe to
> disagree with our esteemed moderator, but looking at my copy of the
> ANSI C spec I find section 5.1.2.3, third paragraph, second sentence:


Murphy's Law struck here. John was right and I misinterpreted the
standard. I realised my mistake 30 seconds after posting but John
obviously didn't see my mail asking him to ignore my erroneous
article.


> [I went back and looked at 5.1.2.3. From the context it's clear that
> the sentence means that calls to functions that modify storage and
> accesses to volatile storage are examples of side effects that require
> that an expression containing them to be evaluated. Hence a
> conformant compiler couldn't optimize away the memset() in the first
> place. As others have noted, there's lots of other places the key
> could be hanging around that no amount of buffer erasing would
> handle. -John]
[I didn't see the second message. Oh, well. -John]

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.