Dead Store Elimination (Still) Considered Harmful http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~klevchen/yjoll-usesec17.pdf …
-
-
Replying to @johnregehr
Are ppl still writing dead stores intended to do something? Why?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @johnregehr
To remove secrets from memory, of course. C gives no good, portable method so you get this.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
C11 memset_s is portable. It’s just not implemented where it should be. Don’t get mad at C because eg glibc devs are slacking.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Read the thread about it. The issue is not slacking but the overall harmfulness of Annex K, which cannot be offered portably even....
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @science_dot and
...because the spec contradicts the only major existing implementation, MSVCRT's.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The whole thread-unsafe, library-unsafe "runtime constraint handler" system also precludes practical use of any of Annex K.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.