On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 04:05:56PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 02.09.2008, 15:12 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke: > > > current upstream SVN without my patch > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25153 2. Sep 15:02 /boot/grub/core.img > > and with it > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25220 2. Sep 15:10 /boot/grub/core.img > > > > So it seems it's getting 67 bytes bigger in my case :( > > As now even talked on IRC GCC seems to be able to optimize string > constants already better with directly using them instead of using a > `static const char' for them. > Probable because some strings appear in more then one file. > > So in terms of code size better use a macro for this, which would be > then a pure cosmetical change. > > Attached is now my previous patch, changed with a bit Search&Replace, so > you all can easily see how it would actually look like.
I don't think there's any gain in this. Initially, I thought it'd be an improvement size-wise, but now it's only an added level of complexity when reading the code, in it just adds confusion AFAICS. Seeing that size is not an issue, I think the current use scheme of grub_dprintf is fine already. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
