Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 00/11] Stubs cleanup

[Markus Armbruster]

Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden> 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?

[...]