----- Original Message ----- > From: "Markus Armbruster" <arm...@redhat.com> > To: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonz...@redhat.com> > Cc: "Eduardo Habkost" <ehabk...@redhat.com>, "Peter Maydell" > <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>, "Fam Zheng" > <f...@redhat.com>, "QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 10:02:33 AM > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 00/11] Stubs cleanup > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On 22/12/2016 18:42, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 06:32:24PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 22/12/2016 18:30, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>>> On 22 December 2016 at 15:59, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> This moves out of libqemustub.a those functions which can be handled > >>>>> simply by $(call lnot), like we already do for pci-stub.c or > >>>>> kvm-stub.c. > >>>>> libqemustub.a keep the more complex cases where a small part of the > >>>>> executables we build needs an implementation of a small subset of an > >>>>> API. > >>>> > >>>> So why is doing it this way round better? (I don't have a strong > >>>> opinion here, but you don't really give a rationale for this change.) > >>> > >>> I don't really have a strong opinion here either, hence the RFC. > >>> However, one advantage is that it keeps things visible to the right > >>> maintainer. > >> > >> Can't we just move the files to subdirectories where they are > >> visible to the maintainers, but keep using stub-obj-y/libqemustub > >> to build/link them? > >> > >> I find libqemustub/stub-obj-y much easier to use than manually > >> setting obj-$(call lnot ...). > > > > Yes, that would work too. It's a pity that we cannot just use weak > > symbols, as that would work fine with obj-y. > > Can you explain again why we can't use weak symbols?
Because Windows and OS X don't have full support for weak symbols. At least as I understand it, OS X only supports "weak import" of a symbol from a library, where if a symbol is missing _in the library_ it resolves to NULL in the program. It doesn't support replacing a weak definition of a function with a strong definition of the same, and that's why we use a static library. Paolo
