From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@au1.ibm.com>,
shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Millton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>, David Gibson <dwg@au1.ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:54:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4250.1274867681@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100526065129.GA3746@in.ibm.com>
K.Prasad <prasad@linux.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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-26 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20100525083055.342788418@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2010-05-25 9:13 ` [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration K.Prasad
2010-05-25 11:39 ` Millton Miller
2010-05-26 6:51 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 9:54 ` David Howells [this message]
2010-05-26 15:13 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-26 17:17 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-26 17:31 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-26 17:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-26 17:28 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25 9:14 ` [Patch 2/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Implement hw-breakpoints for PowerPC BookIII S K.Prasad
2010-05-27 6:19 ` Paul Mackerras
2010-05-28 7:39 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25 9:14 ` [Patch 3/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Handle concurrent alignment interrupts K.Prasad
2010-05-27 6:20 ` Paul Mackerras
2010-05-28 7:41 ` K.Prasad
2010-05-25 9:15 ` [Patch 4/4] PPC64-HWBKPT: Enable hw-breakpoints while handling intervening signals K.Prasad
2010-05-27 6:32 ` Paul Mackerras
[not found] <20100524102614.040177456@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2010-05-24 10:32 ` [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration K.Prasad
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4250.1274867681@redhat.com \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=dwg@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=miltonm@bga.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).