Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] objtool: Enable compilation of objtool for all architectures

[Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>]

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > > Since the stuff under arch/missing is only weak symbols to make up for
> > > missing subcmd implementations, can we put everything in a file
> > > subcmd_defaults.c (name up for debate!) that would be always be compiled an
> > > linked. And some SUBCMD_XXX is set to "y", the corresponding object file
> > > gets compiled and overrides the weak symbols from subcmd_defaults.c .
> > 
> > Hmm, I like keeping them separated along similar lines to the other
> > code because it makes it easier to see the intended correspondence and
> > likely will keep the files more readable / smaller. I could
> > just move them out of arch/missing and into missing_check.c and so forth.
> > 
> > What do you think of that?
> > 
> 
> I do prefer that to the introduction of an arch/missing.
> 
> Still, I'm not sure I see much benefit in splitting those small
> implementations in separate files, but it's not a problem either. This seems
> more a matter of taste rather than one approach working better than the
> other. So it's more up to what the maintainer prefer! :)

For now I'd prefer getting rid of the 'missing' arch and just having a
single top-level weak.c which has all the weak functions in it.  Keeps
the clutter down :-)

Down the road, if the number of weak functions got out of hand then we
could look at splitting them up into multiple files.

-- 
Josh