Dear Peter Tyser,
In message <1255009252.9100.1019.ca...@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
>
> > > Jocke, Peter: am I understanding correctly that we now have everything
> > > in the "reloc" branch that we want to include with this upcoming
> > > release, i. e. that we can do the "final" testing
> > Jocke, Peter: am I understanding correctly that we now have everything
> > in the "reloc" branch that we want to include with this upcoming
> > release, i. e. that we can do the "final" testing now before I merge
> > that branch into master?
>
> Yes, I have nothing more ready and I believe ev
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 08/10/2009 14:44:07:
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message 00311...@transmode.se> you wrote:
> >
> > > Could you next time _please_ add this "v3" information to the
> > > Subject:, say as "[PATCH v3] relocation: ..." ?
> >
> > You sure are hard to please :)
>
> Not re
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message
you
wrote:
>
> > Could you next time _please_ add this "v3" information to the
> > Subject:, say as "[PATCH v3] relocation: ..." ?
>
> You sure are hard to please :)
Not really. I consider this a basic requirement to patch submission.
In your case, I receive
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message <1254960231-11441-1-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>
> you wrote:
> > NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
> > After this correction code like:
> > void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
> > printf("weak_fun:%p\n", wea
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message <1254960231-11441-1-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>
you wrote:
> NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
> After this correction code like:
> void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
> printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_fun);
> will sti
Peter Tyser wrote on 08/10/2009 01:49:40:
>
> Hi Jocke,
>
> > v2: included ppc4xx too.
>
> Looks like cpu/74xx_7xx is missing too:(
Yeah, the cpu directory is a mess. Sending
a new version.
>
> > cpu/mpc512x/start.S |6 --
> > cpu/mpc5xx/start.S |6 --
> > cpu/mpc5xxx/start.S |
NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
After this correction code like:
void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_fun);
will still print null after relocation.
Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund
---
v2 - add ppc4xx
v3 - add 74xx_7xx
cpu/74xx_7xx/s
Hi Jocke,
> v2: included ppc4xx too.
Looks like cpu/74xx_7xx is missing too:(
> cpu/mpc512x/start.S |6 --
> cpu/mpc5xx/start.S |6 --
> cpu/mpc5xxx/start.S |6 --
> cpu/mpc8220/start.S |6 --
> cpu/mpc824x/start.S |6 --
> cpu/mpc8260/start.S |6 +++
NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
After this correction code like:
void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_fun);
will still print null after relocation.
Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund
---
So here is the latest version of the patch.
v2: inc
Dear Scott Wood,
In message <20091006171203.ga10...@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>
> > I don't know all flavours of Power machines, but gcc seems to align
> > "double" on 64 bit boundaries. This makes me think it might be needed.
>
> Plus, explicit alignment (cacheline, page, some DMA
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:18:11PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Peter Tyser,
>
> In message <1254773254.24664.657.ca...@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
> >
> > > 32 bit alignment of the BSS segment might not be sufficient. Be
> > > careful!
> >
> > I've tried a few ways to ensure the BSS
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 06/10/2009 10:58:53:
>
> Dear Peter Tyser,
>
> In message <1254784811.24664.968.ca...@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
> >
> > > 1. is just a small fix the the existing asm reloc functions. Pretty much
> > >ready but needs some linker tweeks it seems. No idea if other
>
Dear Peter Tyser,
In message <1254784811.24664.968.ca...@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
>
> > 1. is just a small fix the the existing asm reloc functions. Pretty much
> >ready but needs some linker tweeks it seems. No idea if other
> >boards than 85xx also needs a linker tweak or not.
Hi Jocke,
> > > There are a few change which would further improve relocation that Jocke
> > > and I want to get merged. Whether these improvements occur in this
> > > release or the next is not a big deal to me.
> > > 1. Fix relocation of NULL pointers.
> > > eg the following code would print th
Dear Peter Tyser,
In message <1254773254.24664.657.ca...@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
>
> > 32 bit alignment of the BSS segment might not be sufficient. Be
> > careful!
>
> I've tried a few ways to ensure the BSS isn't at address 0x0, and they
> all seem to have their shortcomings. I'm cur
Hi Wolfgang,
> > My "fix" to the linker script was to change:
> > __bss_start = .;
> > into:
> > __bss_start = . | 4;
> >
> > ie, a big hack, but it did work:) I'll take a peek at a more proper
> > link script workaround.
>
> 32 bit alignment of the BSS segment might not be sufficient. Be
> car
Dear Jocke,
In message
you
wrote:
>
> > I tend to get all of this (as far as it's available and considered to
> > be ready) into this release, so we have it all in one big block.
>
> 3. isn't ready and won't be for a while more
OK...
> 1. is just a small fix the the existing asm reloc functi
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 03/10/2009 16:28:23:
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> In message <1254577553.23101.14.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
> >
> > > So how should we proceed? My plan was to merge the "reloc" branch by
> > > the end of next week. Is this still realistic?
> >
> > That plan is realistic. The e
Dear Peter,
In message <1254577553.23101.14.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
>
> > So how should we proceed? My plan was to merge the "reloc" branch by
> > the end of next week. Is this still realistic?
>
> That plan is realistic. The executive summary is:
> The current "reloc" branch works, and
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 14:13 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems discussion stopped here. Is it correct forme to assume that
> > > there is no patch available yet that is considered ripe to be added
> > > (to the "reloc" branch)
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 03/10/2009 14:13:57:
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message 00341...@transmode.se> you wrote:
> >
> > > It seems discussion stopped here. Is it correct forme to assume that
> > > there is no patch available yet that is considered ripe to be added
> > > (to the "reloc" br
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message
you
wrote:
>
> > It seems discussion stopped here. Is it correct forme to assume that
> > there is no patch available yet that is considered ripe to be added
> > (to the "reloc" branch) ?
>
> That is correct. Some boards(85xx) seem to have bss_start at 0 some
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 03/10/2009 10:13:45:
>
> Dear Jocke & Peter,
>
> In message 0055d...@transmode.se> you wrote:
> >
> > > ehh, that is strange. Did you run a make clean in between?
> > > Do you see any "bl _global_offset_tab...@local-4" if you generate
> > > assembler(-S)?
> > > Maybe you
Dear Jocke & Peter,
In message
you
wrote:
>
> > ehh, that is strange. Did you run a make clean in between?
> > Do you see any "bl _global_offset_tab...@local-4" if you generate
> > assembler(-S)?
> > Maybe you had both -fPIC and -fpie defined?
>
> Seems like I was in a hurry, -fpie and -mreloc
>
> Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 17:08:58:
> > >
> > > Peter, I just discovered that my gcc 3.4.6 allows me to use -mrelocatable
> > > with -fpie
> > > -fpie is about the same as -fpic and -fPIE is similar to -fPIC
> > > -fpie generates smaller code so one could consider using -fpie and
> > >
Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 17:08:58:
> >
> > Peter, I just discovered that my gcc 3.4.6 allows me to use -mrelocatable
> > with -fpie
> > -fpie is about the same as -fpic and -fPIE is similar to -fPIC
> > -fpie generates smaller code so one could consider using -fpie and
> > -mrelocatable
>
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 16:41 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 14:45:46:
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 09:34 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 06:31:28:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:15 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 16:29:15:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anyhow, I have also been thinking/working on making U-boot
> > > > > > fully PIC and reached a important conclusion. The GOT holds absolute
> > > > > > ptr values and there is not much one can do about it sans modifying
> > > > > >
Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 14:45:46:
>
> On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 09:34 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 06:31:28:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:15 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
> > > > >
> > > > > De
> > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, I have also been thinking/working on making U-boot
> > > > > fully PIC and reached a important conclusion. The GOT holds absolute
> > > > > ptr values and there is not much one can do about it sans modifying
> > > > > gcc.
> > > > > So before u-boot is relocated to RAM
Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 14:45:46:
>
> On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 09:34 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 06:31:28:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:15 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
> > > > >
> > > > > De
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 09:34 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 06:31:28:
> >
> > On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:15 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Peter Tyser,
> > > >
> > > > In message <1253710639.3968
Peter Tyser wrote on 28/09/2009 06:31:28:
>
> On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:15 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
> > >
> > > Dear Peter Tyser,
> > >
> > > In message <1253710639.3968.19.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My "fix" to the linker
Graeme Russ wrote on 28/09/2009 01:23:36:
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> wrote:
> > Graeme Russ wrote on 27/09/2009 15:52:38:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
> >> wrote:
> >> > Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dea
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:15 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
> >
> > Dear Peter Tyser,
> >
> > In message <1253710639.3968.19.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
> > >
> > > My "fix" to the linker script was to change:
> > > __bss_start = .;
> > > into:
> >
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
> Graeme Russ wrote on 27/09/2009 15:52:38:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
>> wrote:
>> > Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Peter Tyser,
>> >>
>> >> In message <1253710639.3968.19.ca...
Graeme Russ wrote on 27/09/2009 15:52:38:
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
> wrote:
> > Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
> >>
> >> Dear Peter Tyser,
> >>
> >> In message <1253710639.3968.19.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
> >> >
>
> >>
> >> > Nice! It'd be great
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
>>
>> Dear Peter Tyser,
>>
>> In message <1253710639.3968.19.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > Nice! It'd be great to have the magical 20 lines of assembly put into
>> > some semi-
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 23/09/2009 20:23:14:
>
> Dear Peter Tyser,
>
> In message <1253710639.3968.19.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
> >
> > My "fix" to the linker script was to change:
> > __bss_start = .;
> > into:
> > __bss_start = . | 4;
> >
> > ie, a big hack, but it did work:) I'll take a p
Dear Peter Tyser,
In message <1253710639.3968.19.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote:
>
> My "fix" to the linker script was to change:
> __bss_start = .;
> into:
> __bss_start = . | 4;
>
> ie, a big hack, but it did work:) I'll take a peek at a more proper
> link script workaround.
32 bit alignment
Peter Tyser wrote on 23/09/2009 14:57:19:
>
>
> > > I made the same changes recently, but ran into an "issue" that prevented
> > > me from sending the change upstream. Some boards/arches have the bss at
> > > address 0 and later relocate it, unlike every other NULL pointer. If
> > > you don't fi
> > I made the same changes recently, but ran into an "issue" that prevented
> > me from sending the change upstream. Some boards/arches have the bss at
> > address 0 and later relocate it, unlike every other NULL pointer. If
> > you don't fix up the bss address, the board will not function. I
Peter Tyser wrote on 23/09/2009 14:17:51:
>
> On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 13:51 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
> > After this correction code like:
> > void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
> > printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_fun);
> > will
Stefan Roese wrote on 23/09/2009 14:24:34:
>
> On Wednesday 23 September 2009 13:51:46 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
> > After this correction code like:
> > void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
> > printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_fun);
> >
On Wednesday 23 September 2009 14:17:51 Peter Tyser wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 13:51 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
> > After this correction code like:
> > void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
> > printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_f
On Wednesday 23 September 2009 13:51:46 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
> After this correction code like:
> void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
> printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_fun);
> will still print null after relocation.
>
> Signed-off-b
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 13:51 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
> After this correction code like:
> void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
> printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_fun);
> will still print null after relocation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jo
NULL is an absolute value and should not be relocated.
After this correction code like:
void weak_fun(void) __attribute__((weak));
printf("weak_fun:%p\n", weak_fun);
will still print null after relocation.
Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund
---
I have only tested this on 83xx and on a somewhat ol
49 matches
Mail list logo
