Re: strncpy clarify result may not be null terminated

Paul Eggert
2023-11-10T18:00:47Z

On 2023-11-10 03:05, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hopefully, it won't be so bad in terms of performance.

It's significantly slower than strncpy for typical use (smallish
fixed-size destination buffers). So just use strncpy for that. It may be
bad, but it's better than the alternatives you've mentioned. You can
package strncpy inside a [[nodiscard]] inline wrapper if you like.

More importantly, the manual should not push strlcpy as being superior
or being in any way a "fix" for strncpy's problems. strlcpy is worse
than strncpy in important ways and besides - as mentioned in the glibc
manual - neither function is a good choice for string processing.