The c11 appendix K string functions
memcpy_s, memmove_s, strcat_s, strcpy_s, strerror_s, strerrorlen_s,
strncat_s, strnlen_s, strtok_s, strncpy_s
trix_juniper.net on Apr 23 2017, 8:02 PM.Authored by
This adds significant portion of the functions from the appendix. So there are two points I have in mind about the stuff:
My position is that the addition is fine, esp. if libext1.a is used.
That sounds reasonable. A couple of random remarks from my side:
I do not have strong opinion there. Probably the argument pro inclusion into the base is the same as for libstdthreads, which was added solely (?) because it is in C standard, and which specification was criticized.
Please see the followup to r316213 on src-svn@, https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2017-March/099157.html , where I explicitly cited the mentioned document. Again, my position is that from the PoV of the system' implementors, if API is useful for some consumers, then there is no reason to obstruct them. Discussion about the merits and flaws of the API is up to the consumers. We are interested in attracting the application programmers, and the cost of having low-maintanance set of functions is negligible. E.g., we were subjected to addition of vastly more stinking APIs to libc, like non-functional shreds of clang block runtime, with almost nobody noticing.
Even if Appendix K is removed from C2x, it cannot be removed from C11. For instance, we keep POSIX interfaces removed from later SUSvN.
The arguements in n1967 come down to 'It's safer but... '
I am moving this work to an external project.
All of original submission should be removed from the base as it will conflict.