From: Nathan I. <rb...@us...> - 2002-10-06 01:58:07
|
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 11:55:57AM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote: > > n/p I personally have a huge beef with "n functions" that don't > guarantee NUL-termination. It's like, what the hell is the point, ya > know? :-) Exactly, which is why I assumed (wrongly), that simply replacing strcpy with strncpy would be fine. If they reduce performance and you don't gain any decent bounds checking, wtf is the point? > BTW, if we're going to be using this a lot, we may want to ask Willem > or someone for an MMX-optimized version. > > Michael > > PS: Apologies if I came across as being harsh. I do that sometimes. no prob, I've been hanging around long enough to know who "tells it like it is". > PPS: I always make it a policy to check the man page of "n functions" > as I use them to verify whether or not they NUL-terminate. Not a bad > habit to get into. :-) Now that I realize the back-asswards behavior of some of the functions, I'll probably follow that advice. RbdPngn -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Nathan Ingersoll \\ Computer Systems & Network Coordinator | | http://atmos.org/~ningerso/ \\ Minnesota Center for Rural Health | | mailto: nin...@ru... \\ http://www.ruralcenter.org | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |