2010.07.08 16:25 "[Tiff] strlcpy vs strncpy", by Bob Friesenhahn

2010.07.10 13:50 "Re: [Tiff] strlcpy vs strncpy", by Bob Friesenhahn

I tend to agree regarding the use of standard implementations rather than rolling your own whenever possible. However, Bob F. is well versed in portability issues because of his support for GraphicsMagick on multiple platforms. If he thinks there are enough compilers in widespread use that don't support strlcpy to justify rolling his own, then he may be right. Bob is also a very good programmer, so I suspect that his implementation would be quite good, and in any event it would be available for subsequent review, verification, and correction/optimization if necessary. But, couldn't this kind of thing (roll-your-own vs. standard implmentation) be handled by autoconf or something like that?

Thanks for the kind words. My implementation has been in use for a number of years now, but only gets exercised in the case where the platform does not already offer strlcat/strlcpy. It is not particulary optimized at all, but is written efficiently.

Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/