4 ms·
Agreed. It's O(n) inefficient. I guess looping though chars up to `size` would perform better on average. I see this `strlcpy` recommanded everywhere.
by alcover 6y ago
Agreed. It's O(n) inefficient. I guess looping though chars up to `size` would perform better on average.
I see this `strlcpy` recommanded everywhere.
- attractivechaos 6y agoA few days ago people here were discussing the quadratic sscanf() behavior. strlcpy() has the same problem.