We know how much to copy, so use memcpy

[thomas3494]

Silence warnings

[sbscholz]

so why did the C compiler complain about the old code? it seems virtually identical?!

[thomas3494]

The behaviour is identical. The warning given was 'strncpy' specified bound depends on the length of the source argument.

The man page says

char *strncpy(char dst[restrict .sz], const char *restrict src,
size_t sz);

so it should be the size of the destination. I think it complains because it is not useful to use strncpy in this case.

[sbscholz]

seems both fine but in case the compiler prefers the latter, so be it :-)