On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:56:53PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > > I think it may make more sense to only define optional functions as > weak and let the compiler do the screaming for the required ones. Only > discovering that functions are missing at runtime could be annoying if > you're cross-compiling and running on a separate host with a different > architecture. > Ah, indeed, no reason to push the lack of required arch functions to runtime detection, compile time is much better. And, in those cases, the _arch_ naming will also provide a nice hint that one must implement it in arch specific code. Thanks, drew
