Date:	Sun, 12 Jan 2003 07:49:23 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: strlcat, strlcpy, revision 2 [PATCH]
In-Reply-To:	<3E200EAF.48FB3C6@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1030112074837.29737B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Richard Dawe wrote:

> > > > 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.

I checked my references, and they say C89 also required this from strncat 
(but not from strncpy).

- Raw text -