Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:33:46 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r272673 - in head: include lib/libc/string sys/conf sys/libkern sys/sys Message-ID: <86lhos72qt.fsf@nine.des.no> In-Reply-To: <201410070454.s974sB9a036605@svn.freebsd.org> (Xin LI's message of "Tue, 7 Oct 2014 04:54:11 %2B0000 (UTC)") References: <201410070454.s974sB9a036605@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.org> writes: > Log: > Add explicit_bzero(3) and its kernel counterpart. I would much prefer that we add memset_s(3) from C11, which predates explicit_bzero(3) by either three or five years (depending on whether you count from the publication date or the proposal date). In the longer term, we should also consider adding the rest of annex K. Here's a patch for NetBSD (which was never accepted): https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2012/02/24/msg006125.html I realize that these extensions are controversial, but I still believe that having them is better than not having them. As the WG points out, the intention with gets_s(3) and scanf_s(3) is not to encourage the use of those interfaces, but to make it easier to retrofit code that uses gets(3) and scanf(3). DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86lhos72qt.fsf>