Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> I think that's why strlcpy was invented, to deal with the issues with
> strncpy.
> http://www.gratisoft.us/todd/papers/strlcpy.html
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.
> Do you really think it's worth making a macro rather than just a normal
> function?
Only in that a macro in c.h is less work than a configure test plus a
replacement file in src/port. But if we want to consider this a
standard function that just doesn't happen to exist everywhere, I
suppose we should use configure.
regards, tom lane