On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 07:44 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 March 2018 at 07:43, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 8 March 2018 at 11:05, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 08:00 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > From: Colin Ian King
> > > >
> > > > Don't populate the const read-o
Hi Lukas,
On 9 March 2018 at 08:29, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:47:19AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > From: Colin Ian King
>> >
>> > Don't populate the const read-only array 'buf' on the stack but instead
>> > make it static. Makes the object cod
* Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 March 2018 at 08:04, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Ard Biesheuvel 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 pret
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 08:47:19AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King
> >
> > 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:
> >textdata
On 9 March 2018 at 08:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 March 2018 at 08:04, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>>> > Also, would it make sense to rename it to something more descriptive like
>>> > "apple_unicode_str[]" or so?
>>> >
>>> > Plus an unicode string literal initialize
On 9 March 2018 at 08:04, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ard Biesheuvel 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
* Ard Biesheuvel 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 lik
On 9 March 2018 at 07:47, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
>> From: Colin Ian King
>>
>> 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
* Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> 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 169281
On 9 March 2018 at 07:43, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 8 March 2018 at 11:05, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 08:00 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King
>>>
>>> Don't populate the const read-only array 'buf' on the stack but instead
>>> make it static. Makes the object
On 8 March 2018 at 11:05, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 08:00 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King
>>
>> 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
On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 08:00 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
