From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] efi: make const array 'apple' static Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 09:31:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20180309083115.mvnrtvukc7sqe2i2@gmail.com> References: <20180308080020.22828-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20180308080020.22828-13-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20180309074719.y33xe4bjkjsjsaa3@gmail.com> <20180309080428.atur6wcbb6vtonhz@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Colin Ian King , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org * Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 9 March 2018 at 08:04, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > >> > Also, would it make sense to rename it to something more descriptive like > >> > "apple_unicode_str[]" or so? > >> > > >> > Plus an unicode string literal initializer would be pretty descriptive as well, > >> > instead of the weird looking character array, i.e. something like: > >> > > >> > static efi_char16_t const apple_unicode_str[] = u"Apple"; > >> > > >> > ... or so? > >> > > >> > >> is u"xxx" the same as L"xxx"? > > > > So "L" literals map to wchar_t, which wide character type is implementation > > specific IIRC, could be 16-bit or 32-bit wide. > > > > u"" literals OTOH are specified by the C11 spec to be char16_t, i.e. 16-bit wide > > characters - which I assume is the EFI type as well? > > > >> In any case, this is for historical reasons: at some point (and I > >> don't remember the exact details) we had a conflict at link time with > >> objects using 4 byte wchar_t, so we started using this notation to be > >> independent of the size of wchar_t. That issue no longer exists so we > >> should be able to get rid of this. > > > > Yes, my guess is that those problems were due to L"xyz" mapping to wchar_t and > > having a different type in the kernel build and the host build side - but u"xyz" > > should solve that. > > > > Excellent! Please double check the generated code though, all of this is from memory. > Do you mind taking this patch as is? I will follow up with a patch > that updates all occurrences of this pattern (we have a few of them), > i.e., use u"" notation and move them to file scope. Sure, done! Thanks, Ingo