Dear Wolfgang,
I have implemented this solution:
On 11/05/2010 01:14 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> I think stop using a library archives and do what Linux does
> instead is the way to go.
>
You will find the patch here:
http://io.oiioiio.com/~sebc/0001-Use-partial-linking-instead-of-buil
Dear Wolfgang,
On 11/05/2010 01:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Sebastien Carlier,
>
> In message<4cd3f58f.8090...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
>> It does seem like weak symbols were designed with other uses in mind,
>> such as C++ class members defined within a class declaration, or to weak
>>
Dear Wolfgang,
On 11/05/2010 01:14 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> 1.1) Stop using weak symbols; use pre-initialized function pointers
>>instead (possibly grouped in a struct, for cleanliness).
>>This has the benefit of offering a clear interface and being
>>independent of tool
Dear Sebastien,
>>> Are there better options? Which one would you prefer to see
>>> implemented?
>>>
>> Yes. The old-fashioned #define CONFIG_BOARD_INIT_F and friends
>> method. I would prefer that one. Its not beautiful but still
>> widely used and bullet-proof.
>>
>
> Could you please
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message <4cd3f58f.8090...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> It does seem like weak symbols were designed with other uses in mind,
> such as C++ class members defined within a class declaration, or to weak
> the dependencies between libraries... but not really to allow
> over
Dear Reinhard,
On 11/05/2010 12:16 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
>> 1.2) Use regular (non-weak) extern declarations for overridable stuff;
>>collect all default weak symbols into a separate library archive,
>>to be supplied last to the linker.
>>
> Not very practical, that would
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message <4cd3defc.7010...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> 1.1) Stop using weak symbols; use pre-initialized function pointers
> instead (possibly grouped in a struct, for cleanliness).
> This has the benefit of offering a clear interface and being
> independ
>
> Dear Sebastien Carlier,
>
> Am 05.11.2010 11:39, schrieb Sebastien Carlier:
> > Hello all,
>
> > So, U-boot needs to be fixed. I can see the following ways forward:
> >
> > 1.1) Stop using weak symbols; use pre-initialized function pointers
> > instead (possibly grouped in a struct, for
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
Am 05.11.2010 11:39, schrieb Sebastien Carlier:
> Hello all,
> So, U-boot needs to be fixed. I can see the following ways forward:
>
> 1.1) Stop using weak symbols; use pre-initialized function pointers
> instead (possibly grouped in a struct, for cleanliness).
>
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
> Some context: u-boot uses weak symbols in several places to provide
> default definitions intended to be overriden in individual boards;
> this feature is broken with recent toolchains (at least gcc 4.4.4,
> binutils 2.20.1), and as a result only the default definitions ar
Sebastien,
[snip]
> So, U-boot needs to be fixed. I can see the following ways forward:
>
> 1.1) Stop using weak symbols; use pre-initialized function pointers
>instead (possibly grouped in a struct, for cleanliness).
>This has the benefit of offering a clear interface and being
>
Hello all,
I am looking for comments on the use of weak symbols in u-boot.
Some context: u-boot uses weak symbols in several places to provide
default definitions intended to be overriden in individual boards;
this feature is broken with recent toolchains (at least gcc 4.4.4,
binutils 2.20.1), an
12 matches
Mail list logo
