3 ms·
So was Drepper wrong? Did he just get worn down? Or did it not involve him at all?
by wyldfire 3y ago
So was Drepper wrong? Did he just get worn down? Or did it not involve him at all?
- sanxiyn 3y agoI think the fact that it will be added to POSIX was decisive.
- masklinn 3y agoI understand Drepper pretty much considers string.h a lost cause, and I can’t fault him for that. It’s rather that POSIX decided to add the strl functions, so adding them (and verifying their semantics) is a necessity.
- silon42 3y agoA purist would support removing strcpy, etc... but that wouldn't go well, so adding an improvement is acceptable.
- masklinn 3y ago> A purist would support removing strcpy, etc... That is very much Drepper’s position: > Correct string handling means that you always know how long your strings are and therefore you can you memcpy (instead of strcpy). > Beside, those who are using strcat or variants deserved to be punished.
- Gibbon1 3y agoThey should have added a warning for strcpy 20 years ago and shipped the compiler with it default enabled.
- kzrdude 3y agoHe isn't involved anymore, is he?
- fs111 3y agoI think he is doing other things these days https://research.redhat.com/blog/project_member/ulrich-drepper/ https://research.redhat.com/blog/project_member/ulrich-drepp...