Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!kodak!scotty!jwr
From: jwr@scotty.UUCP (Dier Retlaw Semaj)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gets(3) nonsense
Message-ID: <644@scotty.UUCP>
Date: 21 Nov 88 18:30:58 GMT
References: <867@cernvax.UUCP> <645@quintus.UUCP> <339@igor.Rational.COM> <14447@mimsy.UUCP> <1643@solo11.cs.vu.nl> <1403@unisoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: jwr@scotty.UUCP (Dier Retlaw Semaj)
Organization: Systems Integration, Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY
Lines: 21

In article <1403@unisoft.UUCP> achut@unisoft.UUCP (Achut Reddy) writes:
<In article <1643@solo11.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
<<And now the real point: let's stop complaining about the gets(3) semantics of
<<not checking buffer boundaries; this is precisely what was intended.
<<Does anyone suggest doing away with strcpy() too?
<<Or /bin/rm, being destructive?
<
<No, there is a fundamental difference between gets(3) and all the other
<functions that don't check buffer boundaries.  That difference is that 
<the other functions *can* be used safely if the programmer exercises
<some care.  He has complete control over the arguments he passes to these
>functions, and can ensure that his buffers don't overflow.

What about sprintf() & fprintf()?
The user does not have *complete control* over these functions.

-- 

Dier R. Semaj	{ames,cmcl2,rutgers}!rochester!kodak!fedsys!wally!jwr

--