Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-10 Thread Alan Modra
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 09:35:03AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > Did you try the patch I posted? /me reads other email. I see you did. Applying. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org htt

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-10 Thread Alan Modra
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:27:26AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > binutils-2.19 _end is what we expect > binutils-2.19.1 _end is what we expect > binutils-2.19.50.0.1 _end is what we expect > binutils-2.19.51.0.1 _end is 1000 > > From the release notes: > > binutils-2.19.50.

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-10 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:11 PM, Alan Modra wrote: Hmm, having said all that, the following linker patch seems reasonable to me and probably won't break anything else (always some risk). Please test it for me. Index: ld/ldlang.c === R

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-10 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 10, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Edmar Wienskoski-RA8797 wrote: I understand your arguments, but there is something inconsistent about this. If I change the script to be: _end3 = .

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-10 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Edmar Wienskoski-RA8797 wrote: I understand your arguments, but there is something inconsistent about this. If I change the script to be: _end3 = . ; . = _end3; . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-09 Thread Alan Modra
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Edmar Wienskoski-RA8797 wrote: > I understand your arguments, but there is something inconsistent about this. > If I change the script to be: >_end3 = . ; >. = _end3; >. = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); >_end = . ; >PROVIDE32 (end

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-09 Thread Alan Modra
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Edmar Wienskoski-RA8797 wrote: > Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:52:59PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: To further verify this if I switch the -me500 to -mspe and build things seem

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-09 Thread Edmar Wienskoski-RA8797
Kumar Gala wrote: On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:52:59PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: To further verify this if I switch the -me500 to -mspe and build things seem to be ok. This further points at some APU section related bug. Like omitting .PPC.EMB.ap

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-09 Thread Dale Farnsworth
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 01:14:28PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Dale Farnsworth wrote: >> We have found the following workaround to be useful. >> Thanks to Andrew Jenner at Code Sourcery. >> >> -Dale >> >> Dale Farnsworth >> MontaVista Software >> >> diff --git a/arch/pow

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-09 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 9, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Dale Farnsworth wrote: On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:41:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: We are seeing an issue w/ld and kernel linking of 32-bit kernels. The ld from fedora 11 (2.19.51.0.2-17.fc11 20090204) ends not providing the proper address for _end. Building s

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-09 Thread Dale Farnsworth
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:41:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > We are seeing an issue w/ld and kernel linking of 32-bit kernels. > > The ld from fedora 11 (2.19.51.0.2-17.fc11 20090204) ends not providing > the proper address for _end. > > Building stock v2.6.30 w/the mpc85xx_defconfig we get: > >

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-09 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:40 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:52:59PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: To further verify this if I switch the -me500 to -mspe and build things seem to be ok. This further points at some APU section related bug. Like omitting .PPC.EMB.apuinfo from your k

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-08 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:52:59PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > To further verify this if I switch the -me500 to -mspe and build things > seem to be ok. This further points at some APU section related bug. Like omitting .PPC.EMB.apuinfo from your kernel link script? See the ld info doc on orphan

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-08 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: On Jul 8, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:41:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: If we modify the linker script: _end2 = .; _end3 = ALIGN(4096); _end4 = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); _end

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-08 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 8, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:41:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: If we modify the linker script: _end2 = .; _end3 = ALIGN(4096); _end4 = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); _end = . ; PROVIDE32 (end = .); and the resu

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-08 Thread Kumar Gala
On Jul 8, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:41:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: If we modify the linker script: _end2 = .; _end3 = ALIGN(4096); _end4 = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); _end = . ; PROVIDE32 (end = .); and the resu

Re: binutils 2.19 issue with kernel link

2009-07-08 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:41:39PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > If we modify the linker script: > > _end2 = .; > _end3 = ALIGN(4096); > _end4 = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); > . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); > _end = . ; > PROVIDE32 (end = .); > > and the result is: > > 1000 A _end