Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3E200EAF.48FB3C6@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:31:43 +0000
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: strlcat, strlcpy, revision 2 [PATCH]
References:	<E18WkK2-00014U-00 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <4634-Fri10Jan2003223842+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E1FEA6C DOT 71BB41E7 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <1659-Sat11Jan2003124106+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > 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?

It's mandated by C99. I don't have a copy of C89 to check.
 
> > Again, our implementation could be updated to cope with overlapping
> > buffers.
> 
> Doesn't it do that already?  If not, what does it do?

No. It uses strcpy and memcpy, which don't cope with overlaps.

> > 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.

OK.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -