On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Shinya Kuribayashi
<shinya.kuribaya...@necel.com> wrote:
> Graeme Russ wrote:
>>
[Snip]
>> - All weak functions are declared as __function() in the source file with
>> funtion() __attribute__((weak, alias("function"))); on the line
>> immediately
>> after the closing brace of __function() - for example:
>> void __do_something (args)
>> {
>> ...some code...
>> }
>> do_something(args) __atttribute__((weak, alias("__do_something")));
>
> Why do we need to being consistent? I don't see real/technical benefits
> to doing so. Using alias or not should be each developer's business. I
> completely disagree with forcing alias use here.
>
Consistent code is easier to maintain - If we eliminate inconsistencies
early, it stops them being spread and resulting in spaghetti code
[snip]
>> diff --git a/board/incaip/incaip.c b/board/incaip/incaip.c
>> index 3b30970..3ee3ac9 100644
>> --- a/board/incaip/incaip.c
>> +++ b/board/incaip/incaip.c
>> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
>>
>> extern uint incaip_get_cpuclk(void);
>>
>> -void _machine_restart(void)
>> +void machine_restart(void)
>> {
>> *INCA_IP_WDT_RST_REQ = 0x3f;
>> }
>
> Why change the function name? It's derived from Linux/MIPS, and I'd
> like to keep consistent with with him. Please don't touch it.
For consistency :) - But I 100% agree that if the code is coupled to another
source and meets that sources rules then it is easier and more maintainable
to keep their rules - I have no objection to retaining the original names
[snip]
>
>> diff --git a/cpu/mips/cpu.c b/cpu/mips/cpu.c
>> index b7180b0..84c4730 100644
>> --- a/cpu/mips/cpu.c
>> +++ b/cpu/mips/cpu.c
>> @@ -38,13 +38,13 @@
>> : \
>> : "i" (op), "R" (*(unsigned char *)(addr)))
>>
>> -void __attribute__((weak)) _machine_restart(void)
>> -{
>> -}
>> +void inline __machine_restart(void) {}
>> +void inline machine_restart (void)
>> + __attribute__((weak, alias("__machine_restart")));
>>
>> int do_reset(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *argv[])
>> {
>> - _machine_restart();
>> + machine_restart();
>>
>> fprintf(stderr, "*** reset failed ***\n");
>> return 0;
>
> Why inline? It seems totally wrong to me.
I wasn't aiming to change the semantics of whether functions where inline or
not (only weak / aliased). I agree that inline does not make sense here
[snip]
>>
>> > > Notice that in Linux, the 'alias' construction is not being used
>> > massively. Can it be removed here also, or is it somehow mandatory
>> > here?
>>
>> I don't think it is mandatory but it is in the majority in u-boot.
>
> If it's not mandatory, please drop all aliases. That saves source code
> size (not generated u-boot image size) a little bit. Majority or not
> does not make sense here.
>
I wanted to make the impact of the patch as small as possible - I agree that
this would make the code cleaner, simpler and smaller but would require
more extensive testing across a lot of build-tools to make sure they all
fully support weak functions in this way. I am more than happy to create a
patch, but it will require a _lot_ of regression testing
Regards,
Graeme
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
