Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "memcmp_s".
Did you mean:
memcmp_gs
2012 Sep 27
0
[LLVMdev] Handling of unsafe functions
On 09/21/2012 05:52 AM, Martinez, Javier E wrote:
> The proposal comments have largely centered on the string functions. Do
> people feel the same way about memcpy_s? What about those of you
> building LLVM on Windows with Visual Studio?
Is memcmp_s (or a variant thereof) a win in practice? It covers the
case pretty well where you try to copy a dynamically sized buffer to the
start of a statically sized one. I don't want to say that it doesn't
happen, but it seems to be rather rare, and I expect most calls to
memcpy_s would use t...
2012 Oct 03
1
[LLVMdev] Handling of unsafe functions
...: Re: [LLVMdev] Handling of unsafe functions
On 09/21/2012 05:52 AM, Martinez, Javier E wrote:
> The proposal comments have largely centered on the string functions.
> Do people feel the same way about memcpy_s? What about those of you
> building LLVM on Windows with Visual Studio?
Is memcmp_s (or a variant thereof) a win in practice? It covers the case pretty well where you try to copy a dynamically sized buffer to the start of a statically sized one. I don't want to say that it doesn't happen, but it seems to be rather rare, and I expect most calls to memcpy_s would use the s...
2012 Sep 21
5
[LLVMdev] Handling of unsafe functions
>From the responses it's pretty clear that the preference is to avoid using C string functions altogether. I've attached at list of calls in Clang/LLVM. The EASY/MEDIUM/DIFFICULT tag is an estimate of the effort to replace the call based on the location of the source buffer. If there are no objections I'll prepare a patch that replaces the string manipulation functions an