[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180309080428.atur6wcbb6vtonhz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 09:04:28 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] efi: make const array 'apple' static
* Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> 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.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists