Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:00:55 +0100 From: Andreas Tobler <andreast@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, brde@optusnet.com.au Subject: Re: WEAK_REFERENCE? Message-ID: <528A8E17.5090307@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20131114060026.GH59496@kib.kiev.ua> References: <527EB428.6070104@FreeBSD.org> <20131111074706.GK59496@kib.kiev.ua> <5283ECA3.4080502@FreeBSD.org> <20131114060026.GH59496@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14.11.13 07:00, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:18:27PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: >> On 11.11.13 08:47, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 11:16:08PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> 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 am not sure why do you include the changes to END() in the same patch. >>> Did you looked over the all END() usages on amd64, is it always paired >>> with ENTRY() ? The CNAME() for ELF is the pedantism anyway. >>> >>> Other than the somewhat questionable inclusion of the END() change, which >>> should be committed separately, if ever, I think the change is fine. >> >> Am I correct, without this line in sys/amd64/include/asm.h? >> >> #define END(name) .size CNAME(name), . - CNAME(name) > Yes. If committing it, please make separate commit. Ok, thanks! >> If so, I just need a usable dot.emacs file to match the formatting >> expectations from bde. Sounds easy, but I didn't succeed so far. > Nah, cannot be. Emacs source code has too many inconsistencies, the > code does not follow its own style. I doubt Bruce would use it. :) I asked and learned, (n)vi(m).... it is much simpler than I thought. Keep it simple.... I prepared two patches, see below. The amd64 one is reviewed by bde@ and the i386 is compile tested by me (runtime is theoretically also done, but I'm not sure since I do not have 32-bit apps on my amd64). The amd64 is compile and runtime tested. The tools, nm, shows that we have the weak_references as before. If you agree I'd like to commit both within a few days to -CURRENT. If someone steps up and confirms that the i386 part also runs, would be great, but I expect it to work. If I'm correct, there is some similar work to be done on arm, mips and sparc64, I'm happy to do this if the people like to have it done. But I do not own either of them to test in native config. Except sparc64..... Here I have blech ;) Here the two patches amd64: http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_amd64.diff i386: http://people.freebsd.org/~andreast/weak_ref_i386.diff Thanks for feedback. Andreas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?528A8E17.5090307>