On 8 March 2018 at 11:05, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 08:00 +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
>>
>> Don't populate the const read-only array 'buf' on the stack but instead
>> make it static. Makes the object code smaller by 64 bytes:
>>
>> Before:
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 9264 1 16 9281 2441
>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.o
>>
>> After:
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 9200 1 16 9217 2401
>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.o
>>
>> (gcc version 7.2.0 x86_64)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>> b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>> index 886a9115af62..f2251c1c9853 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
>> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ static void retrieve_apple_device_properties(struct
>> boot_params *boot_params)
>>
>> static void setup_quirks(struct boot_params *boot_params)
>> {
>> - efi_char16_t const apple[] = { 'A', 'p', 'p', 'l', 'e', 0 };
>> + static efi_char16_t const apple[] = { 'A', 'p', 'p', 'l', 'e', 0 };
>
> Perhaps
>
> static const efi_char16_t apple[] ...
>
> is better.
>
Why would that be any better? I have always found the 'const'
placement after the type to be much clearer.
const void *
void const *
void * const
I.e., #2 and #3 are equivalent, and so 'const' associates to the left
not to the right, unless it is at the beginning.
Personally, I don't mind either way, but saying it is 'better' is a stretch imo
