Batch of Patches from Joel

[Joel Sherrill]

On October 14, 2014 1:29:50 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>On 13/10/14 17:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>> NOTE: For defaults for weak symbols, I am just adding
>>>> a prototype to the C file.
>>> How do you then ensure that a non-weak implementation has the same
>>> signature?
>>>
>> Don't ask me. I didn't add any of these weak symbol options to any
>BSP.
>> I am only fixing warnings on existing code. :)
>
>Adding a prototype for a global function to the C file doesn't fix the
>warning. 
>  It just silences the warning and obscures things.

Every case I have seen so far is for bsp_start() to have a weak default version. There is a prototype for that in BSP/bootcard.h and the default version can be static. 

I have started making the week default static. I will sweep to ensure they all are but if someone beats me to it, I won't complain.

>>
>> On a more serious note, I would assume that only the linker can
>ensure
>> this. In ELF, I think it can match the signature. I have no idea if
>it
>> does or
>> not. Create a test case and if it doesn't do check the signature,
>post it
>> as a question to binutils.
>>
>> I don't think we have anyway to ensure the match inside our space.
>>
>
>Weak implementations are nothing special.  We need a declaration in a
>header 
>file (without the weak attribute).