strlcpy

Their maximum size is usually known and all called functions take a size argument (snprintf(), strftime(), strlcpy(), etc.).

Or just to add an implementation of strlcpy in a util module in your codebase.

I usually use strncpy and enforce null at end, that virtually is the same that does a strlcpy.

I'm not a C programmer, but even I knew that strlcpy() and snprintf() would come up in this discussion.

Because, much like reallocarray, strlcpy is not part of the C standard library.

OpenBSD have managed to move people to strlcpy(), but that's about it.

It's a shame that strncpy doesn't have the semantics of OpenBSD's strlcpy, which I think behaves as everyone would expect.

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

I am curious why strlcpy() was not modified to check the length going in and out to check for truncation?

Can't do that -- strlcpy already has a defined return value.

Meanwhile, strlcpy() returns the length of the source.

If you did, it wouldn't be strlcpy() anymore.

It seems unlikely that ISO would also add strlcpy() at this point, given that one set of "safe" functions is already (sort of) in the standard.

I presume this link was posted here as a result of my recent comment on the "Don't Learn C the Wrong Way" article, which recommends strncpy() and strlcpy() as safer alternatives to strcpy().