> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:25:10 +1000 > From: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 03:09:55PM +0300, Pauli Nieminen wrote: > > Source and destination have well defined size so use memcpy instead of > > strncpy. strncpy tryes to add NULL to end of destination but it is not > ^ "tries" > > possible if source doesn't have NULL. > > my strncpy man page claims that if there is "no null byte among the first n > bytes of src, the string placed in dest will not be null terminated." That's > counter to what the message above says.
That's correct. It's why strlcpy(3) was invented in the non-Linux world; strlcpy(3) guarantees that the copied string is null-terminated. So I agree with Peter that this change doesn't make a lot of sense. Potentially strncpy(3) will be faster than memcpy(3) since it will stop copying after a null character. _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
