On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 02:34:25PM -0300, Marcelo Moreira wrote: > Given that the original `strncpy()` is safe and correctly implemented > for this context, and understanding that `memcpy()` would be the > correct replacement if a change were deemed necessary for > non-NUL-terminated raw data, I have a question: > > Do you still think a replacement is necessary here, or would you > prefer to keep the existing `strncpy()` given its correct and safe > usage in this context? If a replacement is preferred, I will resubmit > a V2 using `memcpy()` instead. IMO: if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it. Hence I -personally- wouldn't change it. However, modernisation and cleaning up of the code base to be consistent is a useful endeavour. So from this perspective replacing strncpy with memcpy() would be something I'd consider an acceptible change. Largely it is up to the maintainer to decide..... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
