From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 11 04:17:26 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41665D2E; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:17:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail109.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail109.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.80]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE4226B5; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c122-106-156-23.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c122-106-156-23.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.156.23]) by mail109.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92DBED63D75; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:21:57 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:21:56 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Andreas Tobler Subject: Re: WEAK_REFERENCE? In-Reply-To: <527EB428.6070104@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20131111141824.H944@besplex.bde.org> References: <527EB428.6070104@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Optus-CM-Score: 0 X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=bpB1Wiqi c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=ebeQFi2P/qHVC0Yw9JDJ4g==:117 a=PO7r1zJSAAAA:8 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=JzwRw_2MAAAA:8 a=-YheC53aFHcA:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=rmbFQbMWqEFq1J6Obm8A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:25:47 +0000 Cc: Current , brde@optusnet.com.au X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:17:26 -0000 On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, Andreas Tobler wrote: > anyone interested in this patch to remove the WEAK_ALIAS and introduce > the WEAK_REFERENCE? > > http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref.amd64.diff > > I have this running since months on amd64 and I have no issues with. > > I remember having had a communication with bde@ that he is in favour in > doing that but I lacked the time to complete. > A similar thing is pending for i386 and sparc64. The ppc stuff is > already committed since a longer time. > > If no one is interested, I'm happy to clean up my tree and skip this. I have only minor interest in it. I might have looked at it before. This version formats the backslashes in macro definitions very badly by putting them in random columns between about 96 and 120 instead of in column 72. Bruce