On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:58:26 -0800 "Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr." <jhellrung@ucla.edu> wrote:
Any useful attempt at security will involve more than a single number [...]
Certainly. But forcing anyone who wants even low-level security to write an allocator, when the library itself can handle that much very easily, seems foolish.
I agree with Scott here. Chad, if you feel particularly tied to this "low-level security" feature, perhaps it would be best (if this is possible) to supply an allocator adaptor that does this memory zero'ing upon release of a block.
Perhaps. Maybe I can supply default allocator code with that option, which people could copy and modify if they want to make their own. That would satisfy my ease-of-use concerns. -- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *