Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 22:16:57 EST

Next message: MSN Hotmail: "Bonnie Doons Lakeside Leisure Resort"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: [MODULES] fix weak symbol handling"
In reply to: Richard Henderson: "[module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Next in thread: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Reply: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <20030113110457.A936@twiddle.net> you write:
> The pair to the kernel patch posted a moment ago.

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?

I think that's right, given that that is what would happen if A and B
were builtin.

Now, what does Dave think about using weak symbols? Or is this
Alpha-specific?

Applied,
Rusty.

--
  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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: MSN Hotmail: "Bonnie Doons Lakeside Leisure Resort"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: [MODULES] fix weak symbol handling"
In reply to: Richard Henderson: "[module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Next in thread: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Reply: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:48 EST