Re: Undefined symbols in 2.6.11-rc5-mm1

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 12:09:29AM -0500, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> > > [...] So ld looks into the lib .a archive, determines that none of 
> > > the symbols in that object file are needed to resolve a reference and 
> > > drops the entire .o file.
> 
> > Silly question:
> > What's the advantage of lib-y compared to obj-y?
> 
> Basically exactly what I quoted above -- unused object files don't get
> linked into the kernel image and don't take up (wasted) space. On the
> other hand, files in obj-y get linked into the kernel unconditionally.

And this can break as soon as the "unused" object files contains 
EXPORT_SYMBOL's.

Is it really worth it doing it in this non-intuitive way?
I'd prefer an explicite dependency on a variable if you want to 
compile library functions conditionally.

> --Kai

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/