From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_Bie=DFmann?= <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:21:19 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] Weak symbols: request for comments
In-Reply-To: <4CD3DEFC.7010104@gmail.com>
References: <4CD3DEFC.7010104@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CD3E8AF.2010808@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Sebastien Carlier,

Am 05.11.2010 11:39, schrieb Sebastien Carlier:
> Hello all,

> So, U-boot needs to be fixed.  I can see the following ways forward:
> 
> 1.1) Stop using weak symbols; use pre-initialized function pointers
>       instead (possibly grouped in a struct, for cleanliness).
>       This has the benefit of offering a clear interface and being
>       independent of toolchain details.

sounds good to me despite of grouping. Isn't grouping tough due to
different weak functions for each architecture?

> 1.2) Use regular (non-weak) extern declarations for overridable stuff;
>       collect all default weak symbols into a separate library archive,
>       to be supplied last to the linker.

sounds messy to me. How about different weak symbols for different
architectures?

regards

Andreas Bie?mann