On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 07:00:52PM +0200, Jeroen Hofstee wrote: > Hi, > > Perhaps this is trivial for you all, but it is something I had > not realized before looking into the warnings u-boot generates > with W=1 / clang. The below "program" will compile fine with > MAKEALL (even with pedantic warnings). Since the compiler > never sees the different definition and the linker does not care, > there is no warning at all. > > If a weak prototype ever changes, running MAKEALL gives no > guarantee boards don't crash at runtime. Hence I would propose > that when adding a new __weak, both the weak and non weak > definition actually see the common prototype. And please use > __weak to reduce the noise when compiling with W=1.
Indeed, __weak functions should still be listed in header files, cases that don't are a bug. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
