Florin Iucha writes:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-01/msg00085.html
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2003-09/1648.html

Could you explain your point here?  Linus' posts seem to be more or less
orthogonal to mine.  My point is that the FreeBSD libc provides the same
things that glibc does, yet it is an order of magnitude smaller when
statically linked with a basically empty program.

Incidentally, that first thread is amusing.  Anyone that knows anything
about secure programming in C should recognize that strlcpy() and strlcat()
are FAR superior to strncpy() and strncat().  If you are going to write C
and use C strings, it is almost stupid not to use the strl routines.  Many
of the posts in that thread are idiotic.  Any API that makes it easier to
write secure code is clearly a good thing.  Not to mention the huge
performance increase that getting rid of strncpy() can bring.

Even though glibc is bloated, I think it should include the strl routines.
They are already supported in FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris and Mac OS
X.

-- 
David Phillips <david at acz.org>
http://david.acz.org/


_______________________________________________
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org
https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list