On 10/14/2014 3:30 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 14/10/2014 11:24 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>> On October 14, 2014 1:29:50 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber >>> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >>>> On 13/10/14 17:48, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>>>>>> NOTE: For defaults for weak symbols, I am just adding >>>>>>> a prototype to the C file. >>>>>> How do you then ensure that a non-weak implementation has the same >>>>>> signature? >>>>>> >>>>> Don't ask me. I didn't add any of these weak symbol options to any >>>> BSP. >>>>> I am only fixing warnings on existing code. :) >>>> Adding a prototype for a global function to the C file doesn't fix the >>>> warning. >>>> It just silences the warning and obscures things. >>> Every case I have seen so far is for bsp_start() to have a weak default >>> version. There is a prototype for that in BSP/bootcard.h and the default >>> version can be static. >>> >>> I have started making the week default static. I will sweep to ensure they >>> all are but if someone beats me to it, I won't complain. >>> >> Weak and static ? If so it does not make any sense to me. > The public "proper" name has to be not-static but the default can be > static.
I think this indicates it works. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00009.html >> Chris -- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
