Bruce Korb wrote: >> This is on the edge... >> I generally prefer to use memcpy when the length is already computed, >> so I propose to do that here. However, this is certainly not >> performance sensitive, and the strcpy invocation is slightly simpler >> and hence a little more readable. Opinions? > > The "slightly" is sufficiently slight that I'd consider it sub-marginal. > Thus I'd give the marginal weight of static analysis tools that object > to "strcpy" more weight than this and apply the patch. :-)
Good point about static analysis tools. Glad I'm not alone.
