Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Checking for NULL before invocation won't work unless you fix the relocation
> routine not to relocate NULL values. That is what I have been trying to say
> several times now. That fix should be performed regardless so no nasty
> surprises will happen in the future. Perhap
> -Original Message-
> From: Shinya Kuribayashi [mailto:skuri...@ruby.dti.ne.jp]
> Sent: den 24 december 2008 17:55
> To: Joakim Tjernlund
> Cc: 'Shinya Kuribayashi'; 'Graeme Russ'; u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [RFC][PATCH] Code
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Shinya Kuribayashi
wrote:
> Remy Bohmer wrote:
>> Create a default fallback routine that can be used if there is no
>> strong implementation:
>> ---
>> __attribute__((weak)) un
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Shinya Kuribayashi
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(
Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Create a default fallback routine that can be used if there is no
> strong implementation:
> ---
> __attribute__((weak)) unsigned long long printk_clock(void)
> {
> return sched_cloc
Hello All,
All instances have been replaced by empty functions with an alias. e.g.
void __do_something (args) {}
do_something(args) __atttribute__((weak, alias("__do_something")));
> Good to know. This doc also helps:
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-1984/chapter2
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>> - There is no purely weak functions and therfore no longer code like:
>>> if (do_something)
>>> do_somthing();
>>> All instances have been replaced by empty functions with an alias. e.g.
>>> void __do_something (args) {}
>>> do_something(args) __att
>
> > - There is no purely weak functions and therfore no longer code like:
> > if (do_something)
> > do_somthing();
> > All instances have been replaced by empty functions with an alias. e.g.
> > void __do_something (args) {}
> > do_something(args) __atttribute__((weak, alia
Graeme Russ wrote:
> This patch makes all definitions, declarations and usages of weak functions
> consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ
> ---
>
> WARNING: This patch hits a _lot_ of arches - Please
>
> The following patch applies the following rules:
>
> - All functions are defined with
On Monday 22 December 2008 06:20:27 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 22 December 2008 04:16:33 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > On Saturday 13 December 2008 00:26:26 Graeme Russ wrote:
>
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 22 December 2008 04:16:33 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Saturday 13 December 2008 00:26:26 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> >> This patch makes all definitions, declarations and usages o
On Monday 22 December 2008 04:16:33 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 13 December 2008 00:26:26 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> This patch makes all definitions, declarations and usages of weak
> >> functions consistent.
> >
> > a quick glance shows
Mike,
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 13 December 2008 00:26:26 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> This patch makes all definitions, declarations and usages of weak functions
>> consistent.
>
> a quick glance shows that it breaks things (the ELF and Blackfin stuff
> certai
On Saturday 13 December 2008 00:26:26 Graeme Russ wrote:
> This patch makes all definitions, declarations and usages of weak functions
> consistent.
a quick glance shows that it breaks things (the ELF and Blackfin stuff
certainly appears to be wrong). i'm guessing you focused on style for the RF
Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Hello Graeme,
>
> 2008/12/13 Graeme Russ :
>> This patch makes all definitions, declarations and usages of weak functions
>> consistent.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ
>
> Just curious:
> What is the relation of this patch to the problem discussed earlier:
> http://www.mai
Hello Graeme,
2008/12/13 Graeme Russ :
> This patch makes all definitions, declarations and usages of weak functions
> consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ
Just curious:
What is the relation of this patch to the problem discussed earlier:
http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/ms
This patch makes all definitions, declarations and usages of weak functions
consistent.
Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ
---
WARNING: This patch hits a _lot_ of arches - Please
The following patch applies the following rules:
- All functions are defined without __attribute__((weak)) in header files
17 matches
Mail list logo
