At 06:03 PM 1/5/2002 +0000, Jim Winstead wrote: >Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you need to use something like strncat()/strncpy() you should use > > strlcpy()/strlcat(). We changed to these functions a couple of years ago. > >in the case of wordwrap(), it is only copying part of the source string, >so strlcat() wouldn't do the job. i figured it'd be more confusing to >mix calls to strncat() and strlcat() in the same function than to just >use strncat() consistently. the destination buffer is verifiably large >enough to handle all of the strncat() calls.
You're missing the point. In order to minimize the amount of API misuse of the str*cat() family of functions we decided only to use the ones I mentioned, everywhere. I am sure that you're code is correct but all places should use strlcat()/strlcpy() if they are using the str* family of functions. >(now, i did think of keeping track of the current position in the >destination buffer and using memcpy(), but it seemed like overkill. the >size of the new buffer could be calculated more intelligently, too, by >taking into account the requested line length and size of the original >text to figure out the maximum number of breaks that will be inserted. >but that's all optimization. i was mainly out to fix the segfault.) memcpy() is always better but it sometimes isn't worth the gain like possibly in your case I didn't mean for you to rewrite it with memcpy() because I know it can be a bitch and isn't always worth it but I'd like to keep PHP consistent with the mentioned functions. Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
