[U-Boot] [RFC][PATCH] Code Clean-up (weak functions)

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Monday 22 December 2008 06:20:27 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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 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 RFC part rather than the result actually being correct ...
> >> > -mike
> >>
> >> Thanks for having a look at this. Would it be possible for you to be a
> >> bit more specific about 'wrong' if for nothing other that me gaining a
> >> better understanding of how it works, and how it breaks
> >
> > you set the aliases to functions that do not exist
>
> Ack  - I can see that for the ELF - the main function needs to be renamed
> __do_bootelf_exec ()
>
> I cannot see the problem with Blackfin - I will freely admit that Blackfin
> has been fundamentally changed (any therefore needs thorough testing), but
> unless the Blackfin toolchain treats weak function linking differently, it
> _should_ "just still work"(tm)
>
> Maybe I am not seeing the obvious?

sorry, you're right, you added the new function.  that said, i dont think 
marking those functions as "inline" is correct or makes sense.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20081222/ad5fe178/attachment.pgp