Keno Fischer <k...@juliacomputing.com> writes: >> Suggest return strchrnul("Hello World", 'W') != 6, to avoid worries >> about a sufficiently smart compilers optimizing out a call that would >> otherwise fail to link, say because headers don't match libraries. > > I'm happy to do that, but then again, a sufficiently smart compiler might > constant fold this call entirely, so to be completely safe maybe we need > > extern char *haystack; > extern char needle; > int main(void) { return strchrnul(haystack, needle) != 6; } > > Though frankly if you're in a position for this to be a problem, you've > got bigger problems. Happy to change this though.
Yes, please. You even get to pick your favorite number for the right hand side of the comparison ;) >> Should this be named HAVE_STRCHRNUL? It's how it would be named with >> Autoconf... > > Ok, I will rename this. > >>> +const char *qemu_strchrnul(const char *s, int c) >>> +{ >>> + const char *e = strchr(s, c); >>> + if (!e) { >>> + e = s + strlen(s); >>> + } >>> + return e; >> >> Stupidest solution that could possibly work. Okay :) > > Well, it's the pattern that was used everywhere in place of this function, > so certainly from a commit factoring this seemed like the most sensible > thing to do. > >> How did you find the spots to convert to strchrnul()? > > I audited uses of `strchr` and checked for whether they were really doing > `strchrnul` (plus the one use case in code that used to only ever be compiled > on Linux). Sounds good. Thanks!