This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v3] Implement strlcpy [BZ #178]
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: Tolga Dalman <tolga dot dalman at googlemail dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:42:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Implement strlcpy [BZ #178]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56326B79 dot 8070804 at redhat dot com> <20151105211104 dot D10932C3B22 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20151106040125 dot GY8645 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <563C9871 dot 9090700 at linaro dot org> <563E9BE6 dot 40508 at googlemail dot com> <20151108010732 dot GH3818 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1511091256260 dot 26853 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 11/09/2015 07:59 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
>
>> Anyway, in general, if adding a function to glibc is a bad idea,
>> adding it in its own separate .so file shipped with glibc is an even
>> worse idea. There are no advantages and lots of disadvantages.
>
> While it's trivially true that "adding a function to glibc is a bad idea"
> means it's bad to add it to any library in glibc, existing or new, there
> may well be cases where the conclusion is "it's a good idea to add this
> function to glibc, but in a new library (which might be might not be
> linked in automatically via AS_NEEDED in a .so linker script)". Cf.
> libmvec or the libinux-syscalls.so.1 discussion. It's just that I don't
> see strlcpy, strlcat or explicit_bzero as such cases - I see them as cases
> that belong in libc.
I agree.
Cheers,
Carlos.