On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > Since the stuff under arch/missing is only weak symbols to make up for > > > missing subcmd implementations, can we put everything in a file > > > subcmd_defaults.c (name up for debate!) that would be always be compiled > > > an > > > linked. And some SUBCMD_XXX is set to "y", the corresponding object file > > > gets compiled and overrides the weak symbols from subcmd_defaults.c . > > > > Hmm, I like keeping them separated along similar lines to the other > > code because it makes it easier to see the intended correspondence and > > likely will keep the files more readable / smaller. I could > > just move them out of arch/missing and into missing_check.c and so forth. > > > > What do you think of that? > > > > I do prefer that to the introduction of an arch/missing. > > Still, I'm not sure I see much benefit in splitting those small > implementations in separate files, but it's not a problem either. This seems > more a matter of taste rather than one approach working better than the > other. So it's more up to what the maintainer prefer! :)
For now I'd prefer getting rid of the 'missing' arch and just having a single top-level weak.c which has all the weak functions in it. Keeps the clutter down :-) Down the road, if the number of weak functions got out of hand then we could look at splitting them up into multiple files. -- Josh
