On Sat. 14 mai 2022 at 03:59, Max Staudt <max@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 15:31:20 +0900
> Vincent Mailhol <vincent.mailhol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri. 13 May 2022 at 11:38, Vincent Mailhol
> > <vincent.mailhol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...]
> > > > + case ELM327_STATE_RECEIVING:
> > > > + /* Find <CR> delimiting feedback lines. */
> > > > + for (len = 0;
> > > > + (len < elm->rxfill) && (elm->rxbuf[len] !=
> > > > '\r');
> > > > + len++) {
> > > > + /* empty loop */
> > >
> > > Question of taste but would prefer a while look with the len++ in
> > > the body (if you prefer to do as above, no need to argue, just keep
> > > it like it is).
> >
> > Actually, what about this?
> >
> > len = strnchr(elm->rxbuf, elm->rxfill, '\r');
>
> Actually I'd use memchr() if anything, but not really here. I do end up
> using the actual index. And since both strchr() and mrmchr() return
> pointers, I'd rather avoid them because I prefer to use indices
> whenever possible.
You are right. strnchr()'s result can not be used as is. I was a bit
careless when writing my response.
But I still think it is possible to do pointer arithmetic.
len = strnchr(elm->rxbuf, elm->rxfill, '\r') - elm->rxbuf;
(I let you check that I did not do an off by one mistake).
The above should also work with memchr(). Although the C standard
doesn't allow pointer arithmetic on void *, GNU C adds an extension
for that: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Pointer-Arith.html
As I said before, your for loop is not fundamentally wrong, this is
just not my prefered approach. You have my suggestion, choose what you
prefer.
