On 2018-08-20 21:59, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 20.08.2018 21:48, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 08/20/2018 12:16 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Maybe really set it to zero (memset) before using the g_strlcpy? I am >>>> not a fan of disabling warnings, but if you think this is >>>> easier/cleaner, let's go for that. >> >> I'm not a fan of strlcpy in general (by the time you've properly set it >> up to detect/report/avoid truncation errors, you've added more >> boilerplate code than you would have by just doing memcpy() yourself). >> >>> >>> FWIW, that new warning from GCC is IMHO just annoying. I had the same >>> problem in the SLOF sources, too: >>> >>> https://github.com/aik/SLOF/commit/d8a9354c2a35136 >>> >>> The code with strncpy was perfectly valid before, but to get rid of the >>> warning, I replaced it with a more cumbersome memcpy instead (and mad >>> sure that the memory is already cleared earlier in that function). Now >>> seeing that the problem with strncpy pops up here, too, I think it would >>> maybe be better to shut up the warning of GCC, since it's clearly GCC >>> who's wrong here. >> >> gcc is not necessarily wrong, as it CAN catch real erroneous uses of >> strncpy(). It's just that 99% of the time, strncpy() is the WRONG >> function to use, and so the remaining few cases where it actually does >> what you want are so rare that you have to consult the manual anyways. >> If nothing else, the gcc warning is making people avoid strncpy() even >> where it is safe (which is not a bad thing, in my opinion, because the >> contract of strncpy() is so counter-intuitive). >> > > I am wondering if we should simply add a helper for these special cases > that zeroes the buffer and uses g_strlcpy(), instead of > ignoring/disabling the warning.
Yes, a helper function with a proper comment about its purpose is likely the best way to go. Thomas
