Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: 'Craig Findlay' <craig@...>, <misc@...>
Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 7:43 pm

Craig Findlay wrote:

A monkey MIGHT sit down to a typewriter and write a novel.
However, that is not the way to bet.

Overlapping parameters on a memory to memory copy:
That turf belongs to non-portable code and bare assembly
where it is the programmer's whim that dictates storage order.

Any "high-level" code that depends on that kind of behavior
has gotta be suicidal.

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments, Jonathan Thornburg, (Tue May 27, 6:53 am)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments, Ted Unangst, (Tue May 27, 12:41 pm)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments , Theo de Raadt, (Tue May 27, 12:52 pm)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments, Craig Findlay, (Tue May 27, 7:09 pm)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments, Ted Unangst, (Tue May 27, 9:07 pm)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments, Pollywog, (Tue May 27, 7:55 pm)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments, Tony Abernethy, (Tue May 27, 7:43 pm)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments, Glenn Becker, (Tue May 27, 8:18 pm)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments, Tony Abernethy, (Tue May 27, 9:13 pm)
Re: strlcat/strlcpy vs overlapping arguments , Theo de Raadt, (Tue May 27, 7:16 pm)