On 05/28/2014 04:30 PM, Gerlando Falauto wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On 05/28/2014 04:14 PM, Woegerer, Paul wrote: >> On 05/28/2014 03:04 PM, Gerlando Falauto wrote: >>> So the hidden symbols are *NOT* weak at all (at least with my buggy >>> compiler). They are just automagically defined by the linker. >> >> I wrote "weak, in the sense that it can be linked without providing a >> definition somewhere". >> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_symbol "... When linking a binary >> executable, a weakly declared symbol does not need a definition. ...." > > I agree with you. My initial understanding of weak symbol was probably > wrong. I was not aware of the optional definition part, where in case > of a missing definition the symbol assumes a value of all-zeroes. > But that was clear to me already when I wrote my previous mail. > > Still, I don't get your point. > In our context, what would be the point of having those symbols as weak?
There is no point. That's why I previously admitted: > It tried your approach of removing __attribute__((weak)) and to my > surprise this really seems to be sufficient. So I do think weak should be removed. We are in alignment here. -- Paul _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
