4 ms·

strlcpy() is a nice alternative, it's from OpenBSD from 1996. Was later added to the other BSDs, Solaris and macOS. But, last I checked, Linux never added the

• ncmncm 7y ago
  strlcpy is a terrible alternative. I have never seen it used correctly. It takes more and uglier code to use it correctly than to use strlen and strcpy. People who use it don't bother. Finding use of strlcpy in a program is a red warning of sloppy code. There are good reasons it was kept out of glibc for so long.
  • jandrese 7y ago
    I agree that strlcpy is braindamaged, but why in God's Green Earth isn't there a sensible replacement in stdlib in 2019? This shouldn't be that hard, yet the best alternative is I think snprintf, which is just so ugly. For a long time it wasn't used because compiler support was spotty, but it's been 20 years now so that shouldn't be a major issue anymore.
    • ncmncm 7y ago
      The (more-or-less) sensible replacement is std::string. Adoption has been spotty, for practical, ideological, and fetishistic reasons. The first step is to compile the C program with a C++ compiler. Next, start making improvements. If you skip the first step, the ceiling on improvements is limited.
      • saagarjha 7y ago
        C++≠C, and making the jump isn't always feasible.
        • ncmncm 7y ago
          As I said. And when it's not, the ceiling on improvements is limited.
    • baot 7y ago
      There is, it's strncpy_s and it was added in C11. And I know, nobody uses C11: that's a security failure.
      • saagarjha 7y ago
        strncpy_s performs a lot of checks that might not be useful, though.