Felix von Leitner <felix-secauditfefe.de> writes:

>
> > 1) These functions exist in BSD libc, which used to be a sufficient
> > argument all by itself for why they should in glibc.
> > 2) These functions are in growing use by many programs.
>
> What, bcopy? In growing use?

No, strlcpy is in growing use. Or can't you keep track of the
argument well enough to know which function is which?

> > So, to summarize:
>
> > 1) We should not add these functions because it will make glibc a tiny
> > bit slower. (Linus)
> > 2) We should not add these functions because we don't really care
> > about tiny improvements in speed. (Kaz)
>
> > Can you pick a single story and keep it straight?
>
> Thomas, we have perfectly good arguments.
> You don't have to invent new ones which look easier to ridicule or
> refute.

Huh? What's the argument? The two immediately quoted above have in
fact been raised, and they are directly contradictory to each other.

Now you've raised another, which is that somehow adding a function
that many people already use will actually *decrease* portability.
That's a new one, but it's also false.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]