why does while(*s++ == *t++) not work to compare two strings - c

Question

I'm implementing strcmp(char *s, char *t) which returns <0 if s<t, 0 if s==t, and >0 if s>t by comparing the fist value that is different between the two strings.
implementing by separating the postfix increment and relational equals operators works:
for (; *s==*t; s++, t++)
if (*s=='\0')
return 0;
return *s - *t;
however, grouping the postfix increment and relational equals operators doesn't work (like so):
while (*s++ == *t++)
if (*s=='\0')
return 0;
return *s - *t;
The latter always returns 0. I thought this could be because we're incrementing the pointers too soon, but even with a difference in the two string occurring at index 5 out of 10 still produces the same result.
Example input:
strcomp("hello world", "hello xorld");
return value:
0
My hunch is this is because of operator precedence but I'm not positive and if so, I cannot exactly pinpoint why.
Thank you for your time!

Answer 1

Because in the for loop, the increment (s++, t++ in your case) is not called if the condition (*s==*t in your case) is false. But in your while loop, the increment is called in that case too, so for strcomp("hello world", "hello xorld"), both pointers end up pointing at os in the strings.

Answer 2

Since you always increment s and t in the test, you should refer to s[-1] for the termination in case of equal strings and s[-1] and t[-1] in case they differ.
Also note that the order is determined by the comparison as unsigned char.
Here is a modified version:
int strcmp(const char *s, const char *t) {
while (*s++ == *t++) {
if (s[-1] == '\0')
return 0;
}
return (unsigned char)s[-1] - (unsigned char)t[-1];
}
Following the comments from LL chux, here is a fully conforming implementation for perverse architectures with non two's complement representation and/or CHAR_MAX > INT_MAX:
int strcmp(const char *s0, const char *t0) {
const unsigned char *s = (const unsigned char *)s0;
const unsigned char *t = (const unsigned char *)t0;
while (*s++ == *t++) {
if (s[-1] == '\0')
return 0;
}
return (s[-1] > t[-1]) - (s[-1] < t[-1]);
}

Answer 3

Everyone is giving the right advice, but are still hardwired to inlining those increment operators within the comparison expression and doing weird off by 1 stuff.
The following just feels simpler and easier to read. No pointer is ever incremented or decremented to an invalid address.
while ((*s == *t) && *s)
{
s++;
t++;
}
return *s - *t;

Answer 4

For completeness in addition to what was already well answered about the wrong offset during subtraction:
*s - *t; is incorrect when *s, *t is negative.
The standard C library specifies that string functions compare as if char was unsigned char. Thus code that subtracts via a char * gives the wrong answer when the characters are negative.
For all functions in this subclause, each character shall be interpreted as if it had the type unsigned char (and therefore every possible object representation is valid and has a different value).
C17dr § 7.24.1 3
int strcmp(const char *s, const char *t) {
const unsigned char *us = (const unsigned char *) s;
const unsigned char *ut = (const unsigned char *) t;
while (*us == *ut && *us) {
us++;
ut++;
}
return (*us > *ut) - (*us < *ut);
}
This code also addresses obscure concerns of non-2's complement access of -0 and char range exceeding int.