On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 04:18:29PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 01:55:33PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > +const char __attribute__ ((weak)) *objname;
> > +
> > +int missing_check(const char *_objname, bool orc)
> > +{
> > + return 127;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __attribute__ ((weak, alias("missing_check"))) check(const char
> > *_objname, bool orc);
> > +
> > +int missing_orc_dump(const char *_objname)
> > +{
> > + return 127;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __attribute__ ((weak, alias("missing_orc_dump"))) orc_dump(const char
> > *_objname);
> > +
> > +int __attribute__ ((weak)) create_orc(struct objtool_file *file)
> > +{
> > + return 127;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __attribute__ ((weak)) create_orc_sections(struct objtool_file *file)
> > +{
> > + return 127;
> > +}
>
> I think the aliased "missing_" functions are no longer needed, right?
> i.e. can we just have weak versions of check() and orc_dump()?
Oops, Yeah, we can remove those aliases. I can fix and resend this one if you
like.
> Otherwise everything looks good to me.
Excellent. I'm thinking I'll get the relocs patches posted as an RFC next...
Cheers,
-Matt
