On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:16:30PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> As Michael pointed out -- its tough, in fact I am not sure how to do this with
> static inlines. Advice on how to do this is welcomed. I have no clue.
>
In this case, where a header will be providing a static inline, and you
need to provide a stub function, and you're unable to test on a typedef,
you'll have to use a weak function.
kyle@phobos ~ $ cat foo.c
#include "bar.h"
#include "compat.h"
int main(void) {
int a = 0;
a = foo(a);
return a;
}
kyle@phobos ~ $ cat compat.h
int __attribute__((weak)) foo(int x);
kyle@phobos ~ $ cat bar.h
static inline int foo(int a) {
return a;
}
kyle@phobos ~ $ cat compat.c
int __attribute__((weak)) foo(int a)
{
return a+1;
}
kyle@phobos ~ $ gcc -Wall -O2 -o foo foo.c compat.c
kyle@phobos ~ $ ./foo
kyle@phobos ~ $ echo $?
0
Seems to work ok and not whinge about the double definition.
> > > BTW are you saying the above practice of adding new stuff to headers
> > > is OK too? I wish it wasn't...
> >
> > Sure it's ok, distros can do whatever they want in their kernels, are
> > you telling them that they are now not allowed to do that? :)
>
> Heh they can do what they want, but I think it can create issues and I personally
> frown upon it. So I will at least bitch about it and maybe I'll create a bug report
> to see if it gets washed away.
>
*sigh* I don't know, and don't really want to argue about it. ;-) People
with backports are pretty much always going to get screwed. What's the
use case for wireless-testing backports? bugfixes or new features? Could
we improve the stable process to help wireless stuff get into 2.6.$(x-1)
more easily so this won't happen in the future?
regards, Kyle
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
