Extract WStrUnits to sys_common::wstr

[Ayush1325]

This commit extracts WStrUnits from sys::windows::args to sys_common::wstr. This allows using the same structure for other targets which use wtf8 (example UEFI).

This was originally a part of #100316

Signed-off-by: Ayush Singh [email protected]

[rustbot]

r? @m-ou-se

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[Ayush1325]

I'm not sure why it is showing canceled tests as unsuccessful since I only changed the commit message.

[bjorn3]

GitHub Actions has encountered an internal error when running your job.

I restarted all CI jobs.

[Ayush1325]

@m-ou-se Just sending a ping since it has been open for a while.

[m-ou-se]

Can you point to any documentation that shows that on uefi the exact same argument parsing algorithm should be used as on windows, even wrt quotes and spaces etc.? In your commit message you talk about "wtf8 argument parsing", but the way quotes and spaces are handled and arguments are split is entirely unrelated to wtf8.

[Ayush1325]

Can you point to any documentation that shows that on uefi the exact same argument parsing algorithm should be used as on windows, even wrt quotes and spaces etc.? In your commit message you talk about "wtf8 argument parsing", but the way quotes and spaces are handled and arguments are split is entirely unrelated to wtf8.

The UEFI specification itself does not specify anything for arguments. They are just an array of bytes (See OptionalData in Section 3.1.3).

However, UEFI Shell specification does specify some stuff about arguments (See Section 3.4), and that does differ a bit from Windows parsing. So I should probably write a new implementation for UEFI.

I would still like to move the WStrUnits part out from the Windows module, so I will modify this PR accordingly for that.

[Ayush1325]

@rustbot ready

[Ayush1325]

@m-ou-se Ping

[m-ou-se]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 348a058 has been approved by m-ou-se

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 348a058 with merge 5a64193a8fc0c021b24e31f846e6762ea70fa7ca...

[bors]

💥 Test timed out

[rust-log-analyzer]

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

[Ayush1325]

@m-ou-se @bjorn3 I'm not quite sure what happened here. Can someone take a look to see if it is a problem in CI or do I need to do something?

[m-ou-se]

Looks like a spurious failure.

@bors retry

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 348a058 with merge 1dcf6ad...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: m-ou-se
Pushing 1dcf6ad to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (1dcf6ad): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.6%	[2.6%, 2.6%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.7%	[-2.3%, -1.2%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.