On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 08:48:53PM +0000, Dave Zhu (yanbzhu) wrote: > Hey Willy > > On 12/7/15, 3:11 PM, "Willy Tarreau" <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > > > >Yep, thanks for the pointer. So indeed gcc's inline version of strncpy > >*is* > >bogus. strncpy() has no right to guess the destination size. > > > >I suspect that if you just do this it would work (prefix the array with > >'&' > >and use [0] : > > > > strncpy((char *)&s_kt->name.key[0], trash.str, i); > > > >Thanks, > >Willy > > You would be correct in this guess :) > > So what¹s the preference? Should I change it to use this weird version of > strcpy, or change it to memcpy?
I'd prefer the memcpy() anyway. Please keep your comment and add the link to gcc's bugzilla so that nobody is tempted to change this later for any reason, and please mention that it's the inlined version of strncpy() which refuses to write into a char[0]. You have my full support if you want to add some dirty words there to express your feelings about the compiler which dies on valid C code... Thanks, Willy
