> Correct on strcpy_s versus strncpy. Strncpy has the possibility of making a > new bad situation while preventing another. You can easily end up with a > string that is guaranteed to "run wild" if you strcpy it.
I personally have always preferred strlcpy to strncpy or strcpy_s, since strlcpy is basically an "always-safe" copy function that doesn't have the defects of strcpy_s (does nothing if the dest is too small, instead of copying as much as it safely can) or strncpy (doesn't always null-terminate the result; and always touches every byte of the dest area, which can be a massive time-waster for large dest buffers). The only problem with strlcpy is that it's not supported on many platforms, any more than strcpy_s is... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
