Return to Question

I wrote my own version of endswith just like in high-level programming languages in C which I would like reviews on.

There are 2 versions. One is my own and the other is from ccan. For some reason, I feel that ccan's version is better than mine until proven wrong.

ccan/str's version:

static inline bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    if (strlen(str) < strlen(postfix))
        return false;

    return strcmp(str + strlen(str) - strlen(postfix), postfix) == 0;
}

My version:

bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    register const char *end = str + strlen(str) - 1;
    register const char *epostfix = postfix + strlen(postfix) - 1;

    while (end > str && epostfix > postfix)
        if (*end-- != *epostfix--)
            return false;
    return true;
}

I wonder which one is better and why (in terms of readability, performance and so on). Please be specific and provide your research if possible.

Thanks in advance.

I wrote my own version of endswith just like in high-level programming languages in C which I would like reviews on.

There are 2 versions. One is my own and the other is from ccan. For some reason, I feel that ccan's version is better than mine until proven wrong.

ccan/str's version:

static inline bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    if (strlen(str) < strlen(postfix))
        return false;

    return strcmp(str + strlen(str) - strlen(postfix), postfix) == 0;
}

My version:

bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    register const char *end = str + strlen(str) - 1;
    register const char *epostfix = postfix + strlen(postfix) - 1;

    while (end > str && epostfix > postfix)
        if (*end-- != *epostfix--)
            return false;
    return true;
}

Update This is the newer version of mine:

bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
        register const char *end = str + strlen(str) - strlen(postfix);
        if (strlen(str) < strlen(postfix))
                return false;

        while (*end)
                if (*end++ != *postfix++)
                        return false;
        return true;
}

I wonder which one is better and why (in terms of readability, performance and so on). Please be specific and provide your research if possible.

Thanks in advance.

I wrote my own version of endswith just like in high-level programming languages in C which I would like reviews on.

There are 2 versions. One is my own and the other is from ccan. For some reason, I feel that ccan's version is better than mine until proven wrong.

ccan/str's version:

static inline bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    if (strlen(str) < strlen(postfix))
        return false;

    return strcmp(str + strlen(str) - strlen(postfix), postfix) == 0;
}

My version:

bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    register const char *end = str + strlen(str) - 1;
    register const char *epostfix = postfix + strlen(postfix) - 1;

    while (end > str && postfix > epostfix)
        if (*end-- != *epostfix--)
            return false;
    return true;
}

I wonder which one is better and why (in terms of readability, performance and so on). Please be specific and provide your research if possible.

Thanks in advance.

I wrote my own version of endswith just like in high-level programming languages in C which I would like reviews on.

There are 2 versions. One is my own and the other is from ccan. For some reason, I feel that ccan's version is better than mine until proven wrong.

ccan/str's version:

static inline bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    if (strlen(str) < strlen(postfix))
        return false;

    return strcmp(str + strlen(str) - strlen(postfix), postfix) == 0;
}

My version:

bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    register const char *end = str + strlen(str) - 1;
    register const char *epostfix = postfix + strlen(postfix) - 1;

    while (end > str && epostfix > postfix)
        if (*end-- != *epostfix--)
            return false;
    return true;
}

I wonder which one is better and why (in terms of readability, performance and so on). Please be specific and provide your research if possible.

Thanks in advance.

I wrote my own version of endswith just like in high-level programming languages in C which I would like reviews on.

There are 2 versions. One is my own and the other is from ccan. For some reason, I feel that ccan's version is better than mine until proven wrong.

ccan/str's version:

static inline bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    if (strlen(str) < strlen(postfix))
        return false;

    return strcmp(str + strlen(str) - strlen(postfix), postfix) == 0;
}

My version:

bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    register const char *end = str + strlen(str) - 1;
    register const char *epostfix = postfix + strlen(postfix) - 1;

    while (end > str && end < epostfix)
        if (*end-- != *epostfix--)
            return false;
    return true;
}

I wonder which one is better and why (in terms of readability, performance and so on). Please be specific and provide your research if possible.

Thanks in advance.

I wrote my own version of endswith just like in high-level programming languages in C which I would like reviews on.

There are 2 versions. One is my own and the other is from ccan. For some reason, I feel that ccan's version is better than mine until proven wrong.

ccan/str's version:

static inline bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    if (strlen(str) < strlen(postfix))
        return false;

    return strcmp(str + strlen(str) - strlen(postfix), postfix) == 0;
}

My version:

bool strends(const char *str, const char *postfix)
{
    register const char *end = str + strlen(str) - 1;
    register const char *epostfix = postfix + strlen(postfix) - 1;

    while (end > str && postfix > epostfix)
        if (*end-- != *epostfix--)
            return false;
    return true;
}

I wonder which one is better and why (in terms of readability, performance and so on). Please be specific and provide your research if possible.

Thanks in advance.