On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 16:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> strlcpy does more than we need (note that none of the existing uses care
> about counting the overflowed bytes). Not sure if it's worth adopting
> those semantics when they're not really standard, but if you think a lot
> of people would be familiar with strlcpy, maybe we should.
I think we should -- while strlcpy() is not standardized, it is widely
used (in libc on all the BSDs, Solaris and OS X, as well as private
copies in Linux, glib, etc.).
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.
-Neil