Re: avoiding strdup()

On 11/03/2024 17:00, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

On 10/03/2024 18:47, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes:

On 2024-03-10, Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 16:37:19 -0800
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

strdup() and strndup() are being added to the C23 standard.
>

>
What is justification?

>
strdup is required by POSIX already and thus widely implemented.
Many programmers who are not into standards already assume it's in C.
>
For decades, portable programs have been doing things like this:
>
#if HAVE_STRDUP
#define xstrdup(s) strdup(s)
#else
char *xstrdup(const char *); // own definition
#endif
>

What strdup() can do better, for any chosen value of better, than
strlen()+malloc()+memcpy() ?

>
Not take up space in every application for a common library routine.

>
It's a form of lazy programming.  I've seen a lot of open source
code that uses strdup without checking for failure and frequently
"forgetting" to free the result.

>
And it is probably more likely that machine with many gigabytes of RAM

 Actually, your assumptions that:
   1) strdup is the only allocation function used by an application
   2) all strings are "short"
 are both flawed.
 

The bank has many billions. But there is a banking crisis on and it is about to fail. And someone, somewhere, will be that man who tries to withdraw some money and is told "no". But how likely is that man to be you with your 20 pounds at the cashpoint? How likely is it to be another bank making a cash call for a 100 million or so?
And how often do banks fail, actually, and how often does government take action when it's heading that way, but nowhere near failing yet?
--
Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books:
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm