On 9 March 2018 at 08:07, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. OK, I misremembered: the other occurrences have already been moved to file scope a while ago. I will follow up with a patch that switches to u"" notation, please let me know if I should respin this or not -- 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
