On 10/17/2016 06:08 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

quoted

quoted

* Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing
  will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer
  and corresponding two characters?

It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the resulting code
(ie assembler output).

How do you think about to discuss concrete generated code any further?

Sure. Show me the generated code and point out where the benefits are.

quoted

We can discuss all we like, if the compiler decides to throw in
an optimisation none of the arguments even apply.

Would it make sense to clarify assembler output with optimisation switched off?

Do you eventually care for code from non-optimising compilers?

No. This is the linux kernel. There is a very, _very_ limited benefit of 
trying to use a non-standard compiler.

quoted

quoted

* Will it occasionally be useful to avoid the storage for another string literal?

Occasionally: yes.
In this particular case: hardly.

I am curious when such a software design aspect can become more relevant.
Would it be nice to get rid of three questionable string terminators (null bytes)
for example?

Again, all this does it trying to out-guess what the compiler might be 
doing during compilation. For which the easiest method is checking.
So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output 
where the benefits are.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)