From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kMpUv-0007KD-By for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:31:06 +0000 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:31:02 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20200928093102.GA12463@pengutronix.de> References: <20200914095948.16811-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200914095948.16811-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] readkey: shrink table of known escape sequences in size To: Ahmad Fatoum Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:59:48AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Instead of storing pointers to 4-byte strings, we could just store the > characters directly in the struct. Can save us up to 18 pointers worth > of space. Additionally, the nul byte need not be stored explicitly for > 3-byte strings, if we know those are the largest strings we have. > > The latter likely does not save us any space because of the usual > alignment rules, but it will allow us to support sequences one byte > bigger in future at no increase in size. > > Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum > --- > lib/readkey.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/readkey.c b/lib/readkey.c > index c26e9d51aba9..551296de3eb6 100644 > --- a/lib/readkey.c > +++ b/lib/readkey.c > @@ -20,8 +20,10 @@ > #include > #include > > +#define MAX_ESC_LEN 3 > + > struct esc_cmds { > - const char *seq; > + const char seq[MAX_ESC_LEN]; I would have expected that when this array is initialized with a static initializer, the compiler would add a \0 at the end. Apparently this is not the case, initializing this 3 byte array with "[6~" is perfectly fine for the compiler. > @@ -49,7 +51,7 @@ static const struct esc_cmds esccmds[] = { > int read_key(void) > { > unsigned char c; > - unsigned char esc[5]; > + unsigned char esc[MAX_ESC_LEN + 2]; > c = getchar(); > > if (c == 27) { > @@ -67,7 +69,7 @@ int read_key(void) > } > esc[i] = 0; > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(esccmds); i++){ > - if (!strcmp(esc, esccmds[i].seq)) > + if (!strncmp(esc, esccmds[i].seq, MAX_ESC_LEN)) > return esccmds[i].val; Anyway, I don't think we should play tricks with dropping string termination characters just to squeeze some bytes out of the binary. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox