strlcat

The problem is that people have religious wars about strncat vs strlcat, which are both terrible and both equally broken, rather than looking at the big picture.

This is the same sort of argument as strlcat vs strncat, and people can't agree on that one.

That's a real problem, as if you don't understand strlcat's return value, you can't use it safely.

Whether or not you think glibc should include strlcat, this is an important point to understand.

After a few hundred of these, you should begin to understand why strlcpy and strlcat exist.

With the departure of Drepper, things might have changed, but strlcat is still not imported.

If strlcpy/strlcat aren't available on a target platform, I stick them them in a util.h/util.c, wrapped in #ifndefs.

The chances of glibc importing openbsd derived functions are practically nil unfortunately, as we saw with the strlcat saga.

This is why strlcat and strlcpy are not the solution to any and all string handling ever; sometimes you need something smarter, e.g.

I don't really program in pure C anymore, but I liked learning about strlcat and strlcpy, among other things [1].

Why don't you try audit code that uses strlcat & strlcpy?

The branch will still be taken if the string would be too large for the buffer, but your code is broken and strlcat cannot fix it for you.

And to be honest, it doesn't take a whole lot of "design" to use strlcat correctly; it is simple.

I remember one bug that affected ARM that he tried to close because "ARM is not a real arch." He made a lot of very questionable decisions, like leaving out strlcpy and strlcat.