From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:52:57 -0500
From: William Josephson <nospmjkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization
Message-ID: <20021114015257.GB84613@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <ee9f15e6a1b55cba64f2d9d4b07a6a17@plan9.bell-labs.com> <20021114044645.B11748@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20021114044645.B11748@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e26acfe-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 04:46:45AM +0300, Roman V. Shaposhnick wrote:
>   Because dropping volatile creates more problems in subsequent code.
>   Inexperienced maintainer might add some new code and end it with
>   a call to memset() [ he is inexperienced and doesn't know about
>   secmemset yet ] and he will trip over without buffer being volatile.
>
>   For me this is worse.

If it is old code, then he'll see the secmemset call and
go read up on it.  If it is new code and doesn't know about
secmemset, what is the chance he will know to use volatile?