This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Wish for 2002 ...
- From: tb at becket dot net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- To: Felix von Leitner <felix-secaudit at fefe dot de>
- Cc: Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>, Francois Leclerc <leclerc at austin dot sns dot slb dot com>, Security Audit <security-audit at ferret dot lmh dot ox dot ac dot uk>, Andrew Josey <a dot josey at opengroup dot org>, Tiemann <tiemann at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, Robust Open Source <open-source at csl dot sri dot com>
- Date: 11 Jan 2002 10:15:10 -0800
- Subject: Re: Wish for 2002 ...
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201101914240.31242-100000@ashi.FootPrints.net><email@example.com><20020111132417.GF21447@codeblau.de>
Felix von Leitner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 1) These functions exist in BSD libc, which used to be a sufficient
> > argument all by itself for why they should in glibc.
> > 2) These functions are in growing use by many programs.
> What, bcopy? In growing use?
No, strlcpy is in growing use. Or can't you keep track of the
argument well enough to know which function is which?
> > So, to summarize:
> > 1) We should not add these functions because it will make glibc a tiny
> > bit slower. (Linus)
> > 2) We should not add these functions because we don't really care
> > about tiny improvements in speed. (Kaz)
> > Can you pick a single story and keep it straight?
> Thomas, we have perfectly good arguments.
> You don't have to invent new ones which look easier to ridicule or
Huh? What's the argument? The two immediately quoted above have in
fact been raised, and they are directly contradictory to each other.
Now you've raised another, which is that somehow adding a function
that many people already use will actually *decrease* portability.
That's a new one, but it's also false.