Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002 ...

[tb at becket dot net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

"Martin v. Loewis" <martin@v.loewis.de> writes:

> After reading the paper, I find that the border cases of overlapping
> strings for strlcat is not specified. 

This does not worry me, as long as the implementation guarantees not
to overrun the buffer.

> Furthermore, the exact meaning of the return value *is* troubling. The
> paper did not consider the case that dst is not null-terminated within
> siz; the current BSD implementation does (but changes the meaning of
> the return value). The case that src is not null-terminated is not
> considered at all.

Well, it seems reasonable in implementing "common use" functions to
pick whatever seems most commonly used.  I would guess that's the BSD
semantic, but I wouldn't know for sure.

Neither of these seem to be serious problems in implementing the
function.