James Carlson wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> It would be interesting to know how this interface change could make it
>>> into
>>> POSIX as the intention of the POSIX standard is not to invalidate existing
>>> interfaces.....
>> Was there ever a formal definition guaranteeing strcpy() worked for
>> overlapping
>> strings or was that just an accident of the common implementation? The
>> 1989 C
>> standard says it was undefined, and POSIX would build on that, not override
>> it.
>>
>
> It's almost certainly just an accident, but does that matter? On the
> one hand, we have "optimization" of a function that's rarely used to
> copy more than a handful of bytes, while on the other we have silent
> data corruption in existing binary applications.
>
> How do those two square up to favor the current behavior?
I wasn't arguing against fixing the simple case, just against the claim
that POSIX changed this from "guaranteed to work" to "undefined".
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [email protected]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
