<div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks for the insight and discussion. I will open a bug. <br><br></div>Thanks,<br><br>Jason<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Renato Golin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:renato.golin@linaro.org" target="_blank">renato.golin@linaro.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 18 November 2014 22:59, Jan-Simon Moeller <<a href="mailto:dl9pf@gmx.de">dl9pf@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<br>
> we have seen strange behaviour with __weak already (look how module_init and<br>
> module_exit work for modules and for built-in code). This caused confusion<br>
> when compiling the kernel with clang already.<br>
<br>
</span>The implementation of weak symbols is undefined, so each compiler<br>
pretty much does what it think is best. Of course, not for all<br>
cases...<br>
<br>
The _etext and _edata symbols seem to be implemented in many variants<br>
of Unix, though I'm not sure that's in the ELF standard. It may just<br>
be that Clang never had to deal with that before because it's only now<br>
that we're compiling the kernel... :)<br>
<br>
If that's the case, I think we should just support the symbols for<br>
what they mean, doesn't look all that complicated. Can you open a bug<br>
on <a href="http://llvm.org/bugs/" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/bugs/</a> please?<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
--renato<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Jason Gionta<br>Cyber Defense Lab<br>North Carolina State University<br><a href="mailto:jjgionta@ncsu.edu">jjgionta@ncsu.edu</a></div>
</div>