| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| Date: | 2006-09-26 21:03:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1159304630.1462.15.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 16:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> strlcpy does more than we need (note that none of the existing uses care
> about counting the overflowed bytes). Not sure if it's worth adopting
> those semantics when they're not really standard, but if you think a lot
> of people would be familiar with strlcpy, maybe we should.
I think we should -- while strlcpy() is not standardized, it is widely
used (in libc on all the BSDs, Solaris and OS X, as well as private
copies in Linux, glib, etc.).
A wholesale replacement of strncpy() calls is probably worth doing --
replacing them with strlcpy() if the source string is NUL-terminated,
and I suppose memcpy() otherwise.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-26 21:04:14 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-26 20:53:59 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-26 21:04:14 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-26 20:53:59 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |