This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Wish for 2002
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch at ns dot caldera dot de>
- To: eggert at twinsun dot com (Paul Eggert)
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, Francois Leclerc <leclerc at austin dot sns dot slb dot com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:36:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: Wish for 2002
In article <200201030059.g030xT301198@shade.twinsun.com> you wrote:
> Portable code must define its own strlcat and strlcpy anyway, as these
> functions are not standardized and have different semantics on
> different hosts.
Please tell me which systems have different semantics than the
strlcat/strlcpy versions described in Tod's USENIX paper?
> So portability is not an unassailable argument for
> adding them to glibc.
> If a standard like POSIX required us to add these functions to glibc,
> then of course we would add them (perhaps with advice not to use them :-).
There's a lot of stuf under __USE_BSD in glibc that's in no standard at
all. strlcpy/strlcat is in ~75% of the currently sold unix versions
which makes it some kind of defacto standard.
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.