Bug 178 – Please add strlcpy and strlcat (attached)

Bug 178 - Please add strlcpy and strlcat (attached)


Summary:	Please add strlcpy and strlcat (attached)

Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX

Product:	glibc
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	libc
Version:	unspecified

Importance:	P2 enhancement
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	GOTO Masanori

URL:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2004-05-24 20:19 UTC by rmh
Modified:	2004-05-25 18:50 UTC (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Last reconfirmed:

Attachments
strlcat implementation (2.26 KB, text/plain) 2004-05-24 20:21 UTC, rmh	Details
strlcpy implementation (2.16 KB, text/plain) 2004-05-24 20:22 UTC, rmh	Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description rmh 2004-05-24 20:19:29 UTC

I'm attaching the strlcpy.c and strlcat.c files, not the patch to integrate them
as I don't know the glibc-makefile magic for this.

Comment 1 rmh 2004-05-24 20:21:47 UTC

Created attachment 91 [details]
strlcat implementation

This is extracted from FreeBSD CVS. I assume the license is acceptable since it
is GPL/LGPL compatible.

Comment 2 rmh 2004-05-24 20:22:28 UTC

Created attachment 92 [details]
strlcpy implementation

This is extracted from FreeBSD CVS. I assume the license is acceptable since it
is GPL/LGPL compatible.

Comment 3 Roland McGrath 2004-05-25 18:50:49 UTC

This report contains no claims of justification for adding these interfaces.
These have been suggested before and discussed on the mailing list.
We don't consider them worthwhile.  Please locate that old discussion for details.

Comment 4 zeratul2@wanadoo.es 2004-05-25 19:51:21 UTC

Subject: Re:  Please add strlcpy and strlcat (attached)

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:50:51PM -0000, roland at gnu dot org wrote:
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From roland at gnu dot org  2004-05-25 18:50 -------
> This report contains no claims of justification for adding these interfaces.
> These have been suggested before and discussed on the mailing list.
> We don't consider them worthwhile.  Please locate that old discussion for details.

Oh, I see this was discussed already. Sorry for the oversight.