In message <20030114171457.E5751@twiddle.net> you write:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:16:57PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > So the semantics you want are that if A declares a weak symbol S, and
> > B exports a (presumably non-weak) symbol S, then A depends on B?
> No. The semantics I need is if A references a weak symbol S
> and *no one* implements it, then S resolves to NULL.
Sorry, I was unclear. I want to know the dependency semantics:
If B exports S, should depmod believe A needs B, or not? Your patch
leaves that semantic (all it does is suppress the errors).
I'm not sure what semantics are "right", since I don't know what
you're trying to do, or what is wrong with get_symbol().
Hope that clarifies?
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:15 EST