Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: strlcpy and how CPUs can defy common sense
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 22:40:38 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <v83t16$3iv51$2@dont-email.me>
References: <slrnva7gg6.39g.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain>
	<v81f49$32fuh$1@dont-email.me> <v83jge$3h76j$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 00:40:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3b558a041f0a0aed486aeb8fa027d259";
	logging-data="3767457"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3HmxVLPpxl8Nrhu5IWOIx"
User-Agent: Pan/0.159 (Vovchansk; )
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jCND40atKhs9XSG5H8bes+TJwFg=
Bytes: 2106

On Sat, 27 Jul 2024 19:58:06 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:36:17 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:
>> 
>>> The situation only gets worse for the openbsd version here, not
>>> better.
>> 
>> Not the only time the GNU folks have done something smarter than the
>> BSD folks.
> 
> I do not understand this statement in regards to true(1).
> 
>> <http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html>
> 
> This is interesting
> 
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/10/line_break_ep2/>
> 
> How is GNU's version of true better than OpenBSD's ?
> See page 2 in the articke.

You have to put the two together to realize how hilariously wrong the 
“Register” article is. The OpenBSD version of “true” may seem concise and 
elegant, until you notice that it requires the loading of an entirely new 
shell instance to run each time.

Whereas the GNU version, with its much longer source code entirely in C, 
loads faster and runs in less memory. Which was one of the points made in 
the first article.