| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
"fast AND correct strncpy" not working by itself?"fast AND correct strncpy" not working by itself?Posted Aug 28, 2003 15:44 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216)In reply to: "fast AND correct strncpy" not working by itself? by IkeTo Parent article: [PATCH] fast AND correct strncpy Exactly right. strncpy _must_, by spec, \0 out the rest of the string. Which means that, in most code, you don't really want strncpy(); it wastes time zero'ing out bytes you probably don't care about. If you want limited-length string operations, I suggest using the strlcpy() / strlcat() functions, which aren't in the official C standard but ARE widely available.
(Log in to post comments)
"fast AND correct strncpy" not working by itself? Posted Aug 28, 2003 20:09 UTC (Thu) by akukula (guest, #3862) [Link] Thanks for suggestions. Indeed, I found a table comparing performance of different 'str*cpy()'. Worth noting!http://www.courtesan.com/todd/papers/strlcpy.html > it wastes time zero'ing out bytes you probably don't care about. Maybe someone then explain why the heck it is in kernel which I presume should use the most efficient algorithms?
|
|||||||||||