Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 22/12/2016 18:42, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 06:32:24PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 22/12/2016 18:30, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 22 December 2016 at 15:59, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> This moves out of libqemustub.a those functions which can be handled >>>>> simply by $(call lnot), like we already do for pci-stub.c or kvm-stub.c. >>>>> libqemustub.a keep the more complex cases where a small part of the >>>>> executables we build needs an implementation of a small subset of an API. >>>> >>>> So why is doing it this way round better? (I don't have a strong >>>> opinion here, but you don't really give a rationale for this change.) >>> >>> I don't really have a strong opinion here either, hence the RFC. >>> However, one advantage is that it keeps things visible to the right >>> maintainer. >> >> Can't we just move the files to subdirectories where they are >> visible to the maintainers, but keep using stub-obj-y/libqemustub >> to build/link them? >> >> I find libqemustub/stub-obj-y much easier to use than manually >> setting obj-$(call lnot ...). > > Yes, that would work too. It's a pity that we cannot just use weak > symbols, as that would work fine with obj-y.
Can you explain again why we can't use weak symbols? [...]
