[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4250.1274867681@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:54:41 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Millton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>,
shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Gibson <dwg@....ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@...abs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration
K.Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C
> > file than their call sites to work on some toolchains.
> >
>
> Atleast, there are quite a few precedents inside the Linux kernel for
> __weak functions being invoked from the file in which they are defined
> (arch_hwblk_init, arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin and hw_perf_disable to
> name a few).
> Moreover the online GCC docs haven't any such constraints mentioned.
I've seen problems in this area. gcc sometimes inlines a weak function that's
in the same file as the call point.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists