Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] remove use of weak functions from libraries

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 04:13:53PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
>    Hello,
>    On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:45 PM Bruce Richardson
>    <[1]bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>      Weak functions don't work well with static library builds as the
>      linker
>      always picks the first version of a function irrespective of whether
>      it is
>      weak or not. The solution to this is to use the "whole-archive" flag
>      when
>      linking, but this has the nasty side-effect that it causes the
>      resulting
>      binary to be larger than it needs to be.
>      A further problem with this approach of using "whole-archive" is
>      that one
>      either needs to link all libraries with this flag or track what
>      libraries
>      need it or not - the latter being especially a problem for apps not
>      using
>      the DPDK build system itself (i.e. most apps not shipped with DPDK
>      itself).
>      For meson builds this information needs to make its way all the way
>      through
>      to the pkgconfig file generated - not a trivial undertaking.
>      Thankfully, though, the use of weak functions is limited to use for
>      multiple functions within a single library, meaning that when the
>      lib is
>      being built, the build system itself can know whether the "weak"
>      function
>      is needed or not. This allows us to change the weak function to a
>      conditionally compiled regular function used in fallback case. This
>      makes
>      the need for "whole-archive" flag, and any special linking measures
>      for the
>      library, go away.
>      [This set does not touch the drivers, only the libraries, since
>      there are
>      other special linker flags needed for drivers in general, making the
>      problem less severe for driver .a files.]
> 
>    Was there something preventing this patchset from getting merged ?
>    --
>    David Marchand
> 
I believe Aaron Conole had some changes in the same area and was looking to
roll these changes into a bigger patchset of his. Aaron, can you please
confirm?

/Bruce