If I would use the strncpy function for the strings cat and dog. I don't understand if the \0 character is counted in or not, so I would like to know if the end result will be catdo? or would it be something like cat\0do
strncpy("cat", "dog", 2);
You should not use the strncpy and strncat functions at all.
Their names start with str, but they do not really work with strings. In C, a string is defined as "a character sequence terminated by '\0'". These functions do not guarantee that the resulting character array is always null-terminated.
The better alternatives are strlcpy and strlcat, but these are not available everywhere.
Even better would be a separate string library in which determining the length of a string were a constant-time operation. But that gets distracting.
As torstenvl mentioned, "cat" and "dog" are string literals, so you're not using the function correctly here. The first parameter is the destination, the second parameter is the source, and the third parameter is the number of bytes to copy.
char *strncpy(char *restrict s1, const char *restrict s2, size_t n)
Source: The Open Group Base Specification - strncpy
To answer your specific question: yes; the null terminator is copied to the destination string. n bytes are written, and if your source string s2 is shorter than n bytes, NULL is filled in until n bytes are written.
In your question, it looks like you're trying to append the two strings. To do this in C, you need to first allocate a source string buffer, copy the first string over, then copy the second string, starting from the end of the second string. Depending on where you start the last step, you can end up with either "catdog\0" or "cat\0dog\0". This is another example of the quintessential "off by one" errors.
To start, you have to calculate the length of the two strings you want to append. You can do this using strlen, from string.h. strlen does not count the null-terminator as part of the length, so remember that to get the length of the final string, you'll have to do strlen(s1) + strlen(s2) + 1.
You can then copy the first string over as you normally would. An easy way to do the second copy is to do this:
char* s2start = finalString[strlen(s1) + 1];
You can then do strncpy(s2start, s2, [the size of s2]) and that way you know you're starting right on the s1 null terminator, avoiding the "cat\0dog" error.
Hope this helps, good luck.
When you write out a string like "cat" or "dog" in c, the arrays cannot be changed, if you try it will result in undefined behavior. You can only use these if a function expects const char * input, const is telling you that it cannot/will not be changed in the function. When you write "dog" the data in the character array will look something like this:
{'d','o','g','\0'}
Notice it is NUL terminated.
The function you are using:
char *strncpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t n)
Copies src to dst with a maximum length of n you cannot copy into "cat" as mentioned above, you can see char *dest is not constant but const char * src is constant. So the source could be "cat" or "dog"
If you were to allocate space for the string you are allowed to modify it:
char cat_str[] = "cat";
now the character array cat_str is initialized to "cat" but we can alway change it, note its length will be 4 (one for each letter plus a NUL) because we did not specify the length. So be sure to not change anything past cat_str[3], you can index it by 0 to 3
There is a common misconception from some static analysis tools that strncpy is a safer version of strcpy. It's not, it has a differnt purpose. If we insist on using it to prevent buffer overflows, you need to be cognisent of the fact that for it's signature
char * strncpy ( char * destination, const char * source, size_t num );
No null-character is implicitly appended at the end of destination if source is longer than num. Thus, in this case, destination shall not be considered a null terminated C string (reading it as such would overflow).
So if you know that your source is a null terminated C string, then you can do the following:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
const char* source = "dog";
char destination[4] = "cat";
printf("source is %s\n", source);
printf("destination is %s\n", destination);
/* the strlen+1 accounts for null termination on source */
/* but you need to be sure that source can fit into destination */
/* and still be null terminated - (that's on you the programmer) */
strncpy(destination, source, strlen(source) + 1);
printf("source is still %s\n", source);
printf("destination is now %s\n", destination);
return 0;
}
Related
I encountered the following example of using memset in tutorialspoint:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(){
char src[40];
char dest[100];
memset(dest, '\0', sizeof(dest));
strcpy(src, "This is tutorialspoint.com");
strcpy(dest, src);
printf("Final copied string : %s\n", dest);
return(0);
}
I don't get why the memset line is used, as the compile and result are the same when that line is commented. I would like to ask is that line necessary? or is it a good practice to do so when doing strcpy()? or it is just one random line.
Thanks!
It's not needed in this case, in the sense that it has no effect on the output. It might be needed in some similar cases.
char dest[100];
This defines dest as a local array of 100 chars. Its initial value is garbage. It could have been written as:
char dest[100] = "";
or
char dest[100] = { 0 };
but none of those are necessary because dest is assigned a value before it's used.
strcpy(src, "This is tutorialspoint.com");
strcpy(dest, src);
This copies the string contained in src into the array dest. It copies the 26 characters of "This is tutorialspoint.com" plus 1 additional character, the terminating '\0; that marks the end of the string. The previous contents of the dest array are ignored. (If we were using strcat(), it would matter, because strcat() has to find a '\0' in the destination before it can start copying.)
Without the memset() call, the remaining 73 bytes of dest would be garbage -- but that wouldn't matter, because we never look at anything past the '\0' at dest[26].
If, for some reason, we decided to add something like:
printf("dest[99] = '%c'\n", dest[99]);
to the program, then the memset() would matter. But since the purpose of dest is to hold a string (which is by definition terminated by a '\0' null character), that wouldn't be a sensible thing to do. Perfectly legal, but not sensible.
the posted code could skip the initialization via memset().
A time it really becomes useful is when debugging and you use the debugger to display the contents of the variable.
Another time to use memset() is when allocating something like an array of pointers, which might not all be set to point to something specific, like more allocated memory.
Then when passing those pointers to 'free()the unused pointers are set to NULL, so will not cause a crash when passed tofree()`
My question should be rather simple.
I need to give a function a char array of a pre-defined length, but I have a character pointer with variable length, but not longer than the length of my array.
Here the code:
#define SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME 50
char person[SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME];
char* currentPerson = "John";
now how would I get John into the person array but also setting the rest of the array to 0 (/NUL) ?
so that I would have
BINARY DATA: "John/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL/NUL....."
in my memory?
sorry if this is overly stupid, but I can't seem to find a solution right now.
First, zero-initialize the fixed-size array :
// Using memset here because I don't know if the whole copy operation can or will be used
// multiple times. We want to be sure that the array is properly zero-initialized if the next
// string to copy is shorter than the previous.
memset(person, '\0', SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME);
Then, copy the variable-size string into it :
strcpy(person, currentPerson);
If you are not certain that currentPerson will fit into person :
strncpy(person, currentPerson, SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME - 1);
Note that strncpy also zero-initialize the remaining bytes of the array if
strlen(currentPerson) < SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME - 1
So you basically have these two options :
memset(person, '\0', SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME);
strcpy(person, currentPerson);
Or :
strncpy(person, currentPerson, SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME - 1);
person[SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME - 1] = '\0';
After this answer was posted the question was retagged from C++ to C.
Use a std::string, like this:
// "using namespace std;" or "using std::string;", then:
string const person = currentPerson;
old_c_function( person.c_str() );
To do things at the C level, which I recommend that you don't, first replace the unnecessary #define with a typed constant:
int const max_person_name_size = 50;
Then zero-initialize your array:
char person[max_person_name_size] = {};
(Note: no silly memset here.)
(Also note: this zeroing is only a preventive measure. You wanted it. But it's not really necessary since strcpy will ensure a trailing zero-byte.)
Then just copy in the string:
assert( strlen( current_person ) < max_person_name_size );
strcpy( person, current_person );
But don't do this. Use std::string instead.
Update: doing other things for some minutes made me realize that this answer, as all the others so far, is completely off the mark. The OP states in a comment elsewhere that
” I've got a function in the library which only takes a character array. Not a character pointer.
Thus, apparently it's all about a misconception.
The only way this can make sense is if the array is modified by the function, and then std::string::c_str() is not a solution. But a std::string can still be used, if its length is set to something sufficient for the C function. Can go like this:
person.resize( max_person_name_size );
foo( &person[0] ); // Assuming foo modifies the array.
person.resize( strlen( person.c_str() ) );
With literal, you may do:
char person[SIZE_MAX_PERSON_NAME] = "John";
if c-string is not a literal, you have to do the copy with strcpy
strcpy(person, currentPerson);
This is the one and only reason for the existence of strncpy:
Putting a string (up to the 0-terminator or buffer end) into a fixed-length array and zeroing out the rest.
This does not ensure 0-termination, thus avoid it for anything else.
7.24.2.4 The strncpy function
#include <string.h>
char *strncpy(char * restrict s1, const char * restrict s2, size_t n);
2 The strncpy function copies not more than n characters (characters that follow a null
character are not copied) from the array pointed to by s2 to the array pointed to by s1.308) If copying takes place between objects that overlap, the behavior is undefined.
3 If the array pointed to by s2 is a string that is shorter than n characters, null characters are appended to the copy in the array pointed to by s1, until n characters in all have been written.
4 The strncpy function returns the value of s1.
I'm trying to remove the file extension from a file so I can rename the file with the substring "opt.s". I do this with following simple example program:
char in[5] = "hel.s";
char test[40];
strncpy(test,in,strlen(in)-2);
char result[50];
strcpy(result,strcat(test,"opt.s"));
printf(" %s ",result);
The output i get differs but usually looks something like the following:
helþ(opt.s
So basically random numbers appear in between "hel" and "opt.s". What is the cause of this? Did I use strcpy wrong or is strcat causing the problem?
This is incorrect:
char in[5] = "hel.s";
The string takes six, not five, characters (the sixths one is for null terminator). Without it the string is unterminated, causing strlen, strcat, and other functions that work on terminated strings to fail with undefined behavior.
To fix, remove 5 from the declaration, and let the compiler decide on the length for you:
char in[] = "hel.s";
In addition, your use of strncpy is invalid: it does not implicitly append null terminators
No null-character is implicitly appended at the end of destination if source is longer than num. Thus, in this case, destination shall not be considered a null terminated C string (reading it as such would overflow).
This line
strncpy(test,in,strlen(in)-2);
always produces an unterminated string, causing subsequent call of strcat to fail. To fix this, you need to add a terminator yourself:
size_t len = strlen(in)-2;
memcpy(test, in, len); // Do not use strncpy
test[len] = '\0';
char in[5] = "hel.s";
in is NOT a string: it does not have a terminating '\0' char. You cannot use in with string functions.
strncpy(test, in, strlen(in) - 2); // invalid use of strlen
However, strncpy() is not a string function (it doesn't need a terminating NUL in the src array; it doesn't necessarily write terminating NUL in the dst array).
If it worked as I think you expected, the resulting test array is also NOT a string ... and you cannot use it with string functions.
strcpy(result, strcat(test, "opt.s")); // invalid use of strcat
I have the following piece of code in C:
char a[55] = "hello";
size_t length = strlen(a);
char b[length];
strncpy(b,a,length);
size_t length2 = strlen(b);
printf("%d\n", length); // output = 5
printf("%d\n", length2); // output = 8
Why is this the case?
it has to be 'b [length +1]'
strlen does not include the null character in the end of c strings.
You never initialized b to anything. Therefore it's contents are undefined. The call to strlen(b) could read beyond the size of b and cause undefined behavior (such as a crash).
b is not initialized: it contains whatever is in your RAM when the program is run.
For the first string a, the length is 5 as it should be "hello" has 5 characters.
For the second string, b you declare it as a string of 5 characters, but you don't initialise it, so it counts the characters until it finds a byte containing the 0 terminator.
UPDATE: the following line was added after I wrote the original answer.
strncpy(b,a,length);
after this addition, the problem is that you declared b of size length, while it should be length + 1 to provision space for the string terminator.
Others have already pointed out that you need to allocate strlen(a)+1 characters for b to be able to hold the whole string.
They've given you a set of parameters to use for strncpy that will (attempt to) cover up the fact that it's not really suitable for the job at hand (or almost any other, truth be told). What you really want is to just use strcpy instead. Also note, however, that as you've allocated it, b is also a local (auto storage class) variable. It's rarely useful to copy a string into a local variable.
Most of the time, if you're copying a string, you need to copy it to dynamically allocated storage -- otherwise, you might as well use the original and skip doing a copy at all. Copying a string into dynamically allocated storage is sufficiently common that many libraries already include a function (typically named strdup) for the purpose. If you're library doesn't have that, it's fairly easy to write one of your own:
char *dupstr(char const *input) {
char *ret = malloc(strlen(input)+1);
if (ret)
strcpy(ret, input);
return ret;
}
[Edit: I've named this dupstr because strdup (along with anything else starting with str is reserved for the implementation.]
Actually char array is not terminated by '\0' so strlen has no way to know where it sh'd stop calculating lenght of string as as
its syntax is int strlen(char *s)-> it returns no. of chars in string till '\0'(NULL char)
so to avoid this this we have to append NULL char (b[length]='\0')
otherwise strlen count char in string passed till NULL counter is encountered
Some static code analyzer tools are suggesting that all strcat usage should be replaced with strncat for safety purpose?
In a program, if we know clearly the size of the target buffer and source buffers, is it still recommended to go for strncat?
Also, given the suggestions by static tools, should strcat be used ever?
Concatenate two strings into a single string.
Prototypes
#include <string.h>
char * strcat(char *restrict s1, const char *restrict s2);
char * strncat(char *restrict s1, const char *restrict s2, size_t n);
DESCRIPTION
The strcat() and strncat() functions append a copy of the null-terminated
string s2 to the end of the null-terminated string s1, then add a terminating \0'. The string s1 must have sufficient space to hold the
result.
The strncat() function appends not more than n characters from s2, and
then adds a terminating \0'.
The source and destination strings should not overlap, as the behavior is
undefined.
RETURN VALUES
The `strcat()` and `strncat()` functions return the pointer s1.
SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
The strcat() function is easily misused in a manner which enables malicious users to arbitrarily change a running program's functionality
through a buffer overflow attack.
Avoid using strcat(). Instead, use strncat() or strlcat() and ensure
that no more characters are copied to the destination buffer than it can
hold.
Note that strncat() can also be problematic. It may be a security concern for a string to be truncated at all. Since the truncated string
will not be as long as the original, it may refer to a completely different resource and usage of the truncated resource could result in very
incorrect behavior. Example:
void
foo(const char *arbitrary_string)
{
char onstack[8] = "";
#if defined(BAD)
/*
* This first strcat is bad behavior. Do not use strcat!
*/
(void)strcat(onstack, arbitrary_string); /* BAD! */
#elif defined(BETTER)
/*
* The following two lines demonstrate better use of
* strncat().
*/
(void)strncat(onstack, arbitrary_string,
sizeof(onstack) - strlen(onstack) - 1);
#elif defined(BEST)
/*
* These lines are even more robust due to testing for
* truncation.
*/
if (strlen(arbitrary_string) + 1 >
sizeof(onstack) - strlen(onstack))
err(1, "onstack would be truncated");
(void)strncat(onstack, arbitrary_string,
sizeof(onstack) - strlen(onstack) - 1);
#endif
}
Example
char dest[20] = "Hello";
char *src = ", World!";
char numbers[] = "12345678";
printf("dest before strcat: \"%s\"\n", dest); // "Hello"
strcat(dest, src);
printf("dest after strcat: \"%s\"\n", dest); // "Hello, World!"
strncat(dest, numbers, 3); // strcat first 3 chars of numbers
printf("dest after strncat: \"%s\"\n", dest); // "Hello, World!123"
If you are absolutely sure about source buffer's size and that the source buffer contains a NULL-character terminating the string, then you can safely use strcat when the destination buffer is large enough.
I still recommend using strncat and give it the size of the destination buffer - length of the destination string - 1
Note: I edited this since comments noted that my previous answer was horribly wrong.
They don't do the same thing so they can't be substituted for one another. Both have different data models.
A string for strcat is a null
terminated string for which you (as the programmer) guarantee that it has enough space.
A string for strncat is a sequence
of char that is either terminated
at the length you are indicating or
by a null termination if it is
supposed to be shorter than that
length.
So the use of these functions just depends on the assumptions that you may (or want to) do about your data.
Static tools are generally poor at understanding the circumstances around the use of a function. I bet most of them just warn for every strcat encountered instead of actually looking whether the data passed to the function is deterministic or not. As already mentioned, if you have control over your input data neither function is unsafe.
Though note that strncat() is slightly slower, as it has to check against '\0' termination and a counter, and also explicitly add it to the end. strcat() on the other hand just checks for '\0', and it adds the trailing '\0' to the new string by copying the terminator from the second string along with all the data.
It's very simple strcat is used to concatenate two strings , for example
String a= data
String b = structures
If use perform strcat
Strcat(a, b)
then
a= data structures
But if you want to concatenate specific numer of word r elements then you can use strncat
Example if you want to concatenate only the first two alphabet lts of b into a then you have to write
Strncat(a,b,2)
(It means that you just cancatenate the fist two alphabets of b into a , and a becomes
a = data st