Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A wholesale replacement of strncpy() calls is probably worth doing --
> replacing them with strlcpy() if the source string is NUL-terminated,
> and I suppose memcpy() otherwise.
What I'd like to do immediately is put in strlcpy() and hit the two or
three places I think are performance-relevant. I agree with trying to
get rid of StrNCpy/strncpy calls over the long run, but it's just code
beautification and probably not appropriate for beta.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
