This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Wish for 2002 ...
- From: tb at becket dot net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- To: Felix von Leitner <felix-secaudit at fefe dot de>
- Cc: Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>, Francois Leclerc <leclerc at austin dot sns dot slb dot com>, Security Audit <security-audit at ferret dot lmh dot ox dot ac dot uk>, Andrew Josey <a dot josey at opengroup dot org>, Tiemann <tiemann at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, Robust Open Source <open-source at csl dot sri dot com>
- Date: 11 Jan 2002 10:15:10 -0800
- Subject: Re: Wish for 2002 ...
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0201101914240.31242-100000@ashi.FootPrints.net><87heptmsro.fsf@becket.becket.net><20020111132417.GF21447@codeblau.de>
Felix von Leitner <felix-secaudit@fefe.de> writes:
>
> > 1) These functions exist in BSD libc, which used to be a sufficient
> > argument all by itself for why they should in glibc.
> > 2) These functions are in growing use by many programs.
>
> What, bcopy? In growing use?
No, strlcpy is in growing use. Or can't you keep track of the
argument well enough to know which function is which?
> > So, to summarize:
>
> > 1) We should not add these functions because it will make glibc a tiny
> > bit slower. (Linus)
> > 2) We should not add these functions because we don't really care
> > about tiny improvements in speed. (Kaz)
>
> > Can you pick a single story and keep it straight?
>
> Thomas, we have perfectly good arguments.
> You don't have to invent new ones which look easier to ridicule or
> refute.
Huh? What's the argument? The two immediately quoted above have in
fact been raised, and they are directly contradictory to each other.
Now you've raised another, which is that somehow adding a function
that many people already use will actually *decrease* portability.
That's a new one, but it's also false.