Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/01/11/05:44:10
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:57:00 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> >
> > I might be forgetting something, but IIRC, strncat also always
> > nul-terminated the result, didn't it?
>
> Our implementation does, but not all do.
Really? I thought the nul-termination by strncat was mandated by
ANSI C89, wasn't it?
> Again, our implementation could be updated to cope with overlapping buffers.
Doesn't it do that already? If not, what does it do?
> If our implementation were able to cope with overlapping buffers, I guess we
> could add that as a @port-note. But why tell people things like that?
As I explained in another message, I think programmers should know
_exactly_ what does our implementation do in these cases. But that's
just my opinion; I wouldn't object to having the ``undefined
behavior'' text if others think it's appropriate.
- Raw text -