On Sat, 14 May 2022 12:14:24 +0900 Vincent Mailhol <vincent.mailhol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yeah, this is the arithmetic that I'd like to avoid here. In my opinion, it is clearer with indices. If I were searching through a UTF-8 string (i.e. with variable width chars), that'd be another matter entirely IMHO, and I'd rely on C library functions that know more about UTF that I do. But it's really just naked ASCII bytes this time. ...unless memchr() may be faster than the loop? Could this happen? Max
