Why should you use strncpy instead of strcpy?

Edit: I've added the source for the example.

I came across this example:

char source[MAX] = "123456789";
char source1[MAX] = "123456789";
char destination[MAX] = "abcdefg";
char destination1[MAX] = "abcdefg";
char *return_string;
int index = 5;

/* This is how strcpy works */
printf("destination is originally = '%s'\n", destination);
return_string = strcpy(destination, source);
printf("after strcpy, dest becomes '%s'\n\n", destination);

/* This is how strncpy works */
printf( "destination1 is originally = '%s'\n", destination1 );
return_string = strncpy( destination1, source1, index );
printf( "After strncpy, destination1 becomes '%s'\n", destination1 );

Which produced this output:

destination is originally = 'abcdefg'
After strcpy, destination becomes '123456789'

destination1 is originally = 'abcdefg'
After strncpy, destination1 becomes '12345fg'

Which makes me wonder why anyone would want this effect. It looks like it would be confusing. This program makes me think you could basically copy over someone's name (eg. Tom Brokaw) with Tom Bro763.

What are the advantages of using strncpy() over strcpy()?

The strncpy() function was designed with a very particular problem in mind: manipulating strings stored in the manner of original UNIX directory entries. These used a fixed sized array, and a nul-terminator was only used if the filename was shorter than the array.

That's what's behind the two oddities of strncpy():

It doesn't put a nul-terminator on the destination if it is completely filled; and
It always completely fills the destination, with nuls if necessary.

For a "safer strcpy()", you are better off using strncat() like so:

if (dest_size > 0)
{
    dest[0] = '\0';
    strncat(dest, source, dest_size - 1);
}

That will always nul-terminate the result, and won't copy more than necessary.

strncpy combats buffer overflow by requiring you to put a length in it. strcpy depends on a trailing \0, which may not always occur.

Secondly, why you chose to only copy 5 characters on 7 character string is beyond me, but it's producing expected behavior. It's only copying over the first n characters, where n is the third argument.

The n functions are all used as defensive coding against buffer overflows. Please use them in lieu of older functions, such as strcpy.

While I know the intent behind strncpy, it is not really a good function. Avoid both. Raymond Chen explains.

Personally, my conclusion is simply to avoid strncpy and all its friends if you are dealing with null-terminated strings. Despite the "str" in the name, these functions do not produce null-terminated strings. They convert a null-terminated string into a raw character buffer. Using them where a null-terminated string is expected as the second buffer is plain wrong. Not only do you fail to get proper null termination if the source is too long, but if the source is short you get unnecessary null padding.

Why should you use strncpy instead of strcpy?

Related

Recent Posts