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
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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).