On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Tom Russo wrote:
I'm not sure why xastir_snprintf is preferrable to strncpy for such a string copy,
Consistency. If we get used to using xastir_snprintf() then we can isolate ourselves from string operations that are not safe. We can also change the underlying string operations later if we come up with something better/safer/faster, without having to change hundreds of lines in Xastir. That's about it I think. Not the strongest argument but still worth it I think.
but doing it with a %s will definitely clear the warning from later GCC, and will preserve the meaning of the code so long as only the xastir_snprintf(destination,length,string_variable) instances are the ones that are replaced with xastir_snprintf(destination,length,"%s",string_variable)
Thanks Tom. -- Curt, WE7U. <http://www.eskimo.com/~archer> APRS: Where it's at! <http://www.xastir.org> Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math. - unknown Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates. - WE7U. The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!" _______________________________________________ Xastir-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
