I was unclear, sorry: I didn't mean to say that the extra braces make it uglier, I meant to point out that something that was described as beautiful was actually flawed.
The flaw was minor in this case because the identifier names and lack of body make the intention clear, but my point is that there are a lot of minor things in C that can come and bite you at any time.
Edit: You are right, I don't see a way this could have been implemented more readable without sacrificing some performance.
I've added a couple of examples trying to find a more readable version, which actually isn't trivial. Sorry for the 'post-edit' :)
As for performance: I don't think such details matter much, first, compilers are pretty good to turn "readable but inefficient" code into the same optimal output (aka "zero cost abstraction").
And a really performance-oriented strcpy() wouldn't simply copy byte by byte anyway, but try to move data in bigger chunks (like 64-bit or even SIMD registers). Whether this is then actually faster also depends on the CPU though.
The flaw was minor in this case because the identifier names and lack of body make the intention clear, but my point is that there are a lot of minor things in C that can come and bite you at any time.
Edit: You are right, I don't see a way this could have been implemented more readable without sacrificing some performance.
First thing I thought of was:
But that does not reduce to the original case.