Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!charon!dik
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: strncat is insufficient
Message-ID: <2010@charon.cwi.nl>
Date: 26 Aug 90 01:21:21 GMT
References: <1990Aug23.132400.3654@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <587@array.UUCP> <620.26d6d0cd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Sender: news@cwi.nl
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 20

In article <620.26d6d0cd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> browns@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems) writes:
 > In article <587@array.UUCP>, colin@array.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes:
 > > char *strlimcat(char *dst, char const *src, int maxlen)
....
 > > 		strncpy(dst+len, src, maxlen-len);
....
I would say that strncat is better here.  Consider when maxlen-len is very large
while strlen(src) is very small.  strncpy will do all that zero-filling!
 > 
 > Caution:  This will not necessarily put a '\0' at the end of the string.
True.
 > 
 > Can Karl, or someone else who knows, explain why strncpy was standardized
 > to copy n characters even at the expense of a zero byte; or why no
 > alternative that always terminates the string was provided.
I would not gripe against strncpy, because it truncates or zero fills,
whatever is needed.  In my opinion the gripe is against strncat.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
dik@cwi.nl