Re: [Nmh-workers] strncpy(3), die, die, die.

[Paul Vixie]

Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Paul Vixie <address@hidden> wrote:
>  |...
> 
> I think the former and latter of the above have the problem that
> they return useless information: the size that would be necessary
> to store the result in a non-truncated form.  If that information
> would be collected regulary using the above functions i would
> think that this is really wasteful software that gives a s..t on
> the necessity of, e.g., atomic plants etc.  I think it is this
> kind of mental direction that brings us all down.
> 
> ...

i can't tell whether you're arguing for truncation. if so, i'm the
downer your parents warned you about. truncation is by definition
undefined, and a program should not continue once its state is undefined.

we could meet somewhere near the middle by replacing strcpy with a macro
that called strlcpy, looked at the returned result, and either
overwrites the target buffer with a '\0' or calls abort, depending on
the setting of an environment variable.

-- 
P Vixie