On 9 March 2018 at 08:04, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> 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! 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
