Refine string optimization option

[xiaoxiang781216]

Summary

• libc: Rename LIBC_STRING_OPTIMIZE to LIBC_NEWLIB_OPTSPEED
• libc: Add LIBC_ prefix to MEMCPY_VIK and MEMSET_OPTSPEED

Impact

Kconfig option

Testing

ci

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

No. This PR description lacks crucial information required by the NuttX guidelines.

Here's why and what's missing:

• Insufficient Summary: Simply renaming Kconfig options requires a more detailed explanation. Why are these options being renamed? What problem does this solve? What are the benefits? How do these options relate to string optimization or memcpy/memset speed optimizations?

• Incomplete Impact: Stating "Kconfig option" is not enough. While it acknowledges a build system change, it lacks specifics. Does this change the default configuration? Will existing user configurations break? Will any rebuild be required? All "Impact" sections should explicitly answer YES/NO then provide details if YES. For example:

  • Impact on user: YES. Users will need to reconfigure their build if they were using the old LIBC_STRING_OPTIMIZE option. The new LIBC_NEWLIB_OPTSPEED option replaces it.
  • Impact on build: YES. Kconfig files are modified.
  • Impact on documentation: Likely YES. Documentation needs to be updated to reflect the new option names.

• Unacceptable Testing: "ci" is not sufficient. The PR description must include actual test logs demonstrating the change's behavior before and after. What functionality was tested? What were the results? Simply relying on CI tests without providing any context in the PR description is insufficient. The reviewer needs to see evidence within the PR itself. Provide details about the build host and target as requested.

In short: This PR description needs significant expansion to be considered acceptable. It needs to clearly explain the motivation, the detailed impact, and provide concrete testing evidence.