On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 11:32 AM Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:14 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 11:09 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 12:04 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > ... > > > > > A couple follow-up changes to the new strends() string helper. This > > > > needs to go through the GPIO tree as this is where the strends() > > > > currently is. > > > > For the > > > strends() I proposed to get rid of strlen() calls by > > > > > > char *p; > > > > > > p = strrchr(str, suffix[0[); > > > if (!p) > > > return false; > > > > > > return strcmp(p, suffix) == 0; > > > > IMO that's a bit less readable. Unless you benchmark it and show it's > > faster than the current version, I'd say: let's keep the current > > implementation. > > For the static suffixes the second strlen() becomes a hardcoded value, > and I expect the benchmark will be closer to the variant I propose. > Otherwise it will be definitely faster as the strrchr() implies > partial strlen() and strcmp() is the same or even faster in my case as > here we don't do the additional calculations with the pointers. Do you > really need a benchmark for this? >
Ok, I don't want to load too much string-related stuff into my tree. I'm adding it to my TODO list for the next release where I already have an item to replace the OF-specific implementation of suffix comparator with strends(). Bart
