On Saturday, November 20, 2010 03:38:44 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > one possible way to fix boards is to stop specifying sub-objects in the
> > linker script and only specify the combined ones. so in
> > board/tqc/tqm8xx/u-boot.lds, drop the split objects like lib/zlib.o in
>
Le 20/11/2010 09:38, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear Mike Frysinger,
>
> In message<201011191908.00162.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>> sizes can be a bit large. if everyone was using -ffunction-sections/-fdata-
>> sections
>
> ? Could you please complete that sentence?
I believe the idea is th
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201011191908.00162.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> the difference is that the linker wont bother looking at the duplicated
> objects in the archives. from the linker's perspective though, we now have
> to
> completely independent objects. the combined one sp
On Friday, November 19, 2010 03:03:54 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Most probably 2); mentioning a file in the linker script either with or
> > without mentioning it on the command line has certainly been done for
> > some time, so I doubt the feature is new; and certainly the do
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message <4ce676a6.10...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
> Have you tried something in the line of:
>
> /* Memory Definitions */
>
> MEMORY
> {
> CODE (rx) : ORIGIN 0x, LENGTH 0x0007E000
> DATA (rw) : ORIGIN 0x4000, LENGTH 0x7A00
> ENET (rw) : ORIGIN 0x
Le 19/11/2010 14:07, Reinhard Meyer a écrit :
> Dear Albert,
>>
>> On 2010-11-19 13:38:00, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>>> Le 19/11/2010 13:33, Sebastien Carlier a écrit :
Is it not possible to tell the linker to place a made-up 32 kB symbol
within the text section at address 0x40008000? I am
Dear Albert,
>
> On 2010-11-19 13:38:00, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Le 19/11/2010 13:33, Sebastien Carlier a écrit :
>>> Is it not possible to tell the linker to place a made-up 32 kB symbol
>>> within the text section at address 0x40008000? I am not familiar enough
>>> with ld to tell whether ther
Dear Albert,
On 2010-11-19 13:38:00, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>
> Le 19/11/2010 13:33, Sebastien Carlier a écrit :
> >
> >Is it not possible to tell the linker to place a made-up 32 kB symbol
> >within the text section at address 0x40008000? I am not familiar enough
> >with ld to tell whether there
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message you
wrote:
>
> Is it not possible to tell the linker to place a made-up 32 kB symbol
> within the text section at address 0x40008000? I am not familiar enough
> with ld to tell whether there are restrictions for setting the absolute
> address of a symbol that
Le 19/11/2010 13:33, Sebastien Carlier a écrit :
> Dear Wolfgang,
>
> On 2010-11-19 12:11:12, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>
>> In message you
>> wrote:
>>>
>> The used flash chips are so-called bootom boot sector types; using two
>> chips in 16 bit config in parallel (to get a 32 bit bus) we see this
>
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-19 12:11:12, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> In message you
> wrote:
> >
> The used flash chips are so-called bootom boot sector types; using two
> chips in 16 bit config in parallel (to get a 32 bit bus) we see this
> flash layout:
>
> Sector Start Addresses:
> 400
Le 19/11/2010 12:48, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
>
> In message<4ce66215.2030...@free.fr> you wrote:
>>
>> There is a variant of this problem with many ARM boards, those based on
>> Marvell SoCs for instance, which have a start address at 0x --
>> that's a 64K block the
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message <4ce66215.2030...@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> There is a variant of this problem with many ARM boards, those based on
> Marvell SoCs for instance, which have a start address at 0x --
> that's a 64K block the usage of which we want to maximize.
Yes, that's bas
Le 19/11/2010 12:11, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear Sebastien Carlier,
>
> In message you
> wrote:
>>
>> I am still not getting why the code needs to be split this way, rather
>> than being a continuous segment followed by an environment sector.
>> Whether the environment sector is in the middle
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message you
wrote:
>
> I am still not getting why the code needs to be split this way, rather
> than being a continuous segment followed by an environment sector.
> Whether the environment sector is in the middle of the binary or
> immediately after the binary does no
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-19 09:08:33, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> In message you
> wrote:
> >
> > It looks like the purpose is to optimally fill a flash sector with
> > definitions, is this accurate? Why is this needed? Beside the obvious
>
> Correct.
>
> > (reset vectors, startup code), is t
On Friday, November 19, 2010 02:50:37 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> It looks like the purpose is to optimally fill a flash sector with
> definitions, is this accurate? Why is this needed? Beside the obvious
> (reset vectors, startup code), is there any reason to prefer any given
> definition to go i
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message you
wrote:
>
> It looks like the purpose is to optimally fill a flash sector with
> definitions, is this accurate? Why is this needed? Beside the obvious
Correct.
> (reset vectors, startup code), is there any reason to prefer any given
> definition to go in
On 2010-11-19 07:36:05, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>
> Le 18/11/2010 23:33, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> >
> > I see two possible reasons: 1) whay you describe is a new feature in
> > binutils 2.20; I'm currently using 2.17.50 (with ELDk 4.2); or 2) the
> > linker does not realize it because it's actually
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message <4ce61ad5.50...@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> Most probably 2); mentioning a file in the linker script either with or
> without mentioning it on the command line has certainly been done for
> some time, so I doubt the feature is new; and certainly the doc is about
> fi
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-18 22:44:48, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately I have not been able to reproduce these errors with the
> > toolchain I am using (gcc 4.4.5 and binutils 2.20.1.20100303, based on
> > emdebian squeeze packages). Can you please point me to the toolchain
> > you ar
Le 18/11/2010 23:33, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
>
> In message<4ce5a3f1.50...@free.fr> you wrote:
>>
>>>58 arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xx/start.o (.text)
>>>59 arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xx/traps.o (.text)
>>>60 common/dlmalloc.o (.t
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message <4ce5a3f1.50...@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> > 58 arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xx/start.o (.text)
> > 59 arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xx/traps.o (.text)
> > 60 common/dlmalloc.o (.text)
> > 61 arch/powerpc/lib/ppcstring.o
Le 18/11/2010 22:44, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
> Dear Sebastien Carlier,
>
> In message<20101117133056.gb23...@safe.home.local> you wrote:
>>
>>> MPC8xx boards break with long lists of multiple definitions of
>>> symbols, like that:
>>>
>>> Configuring for FPS860L board...
>>> lib/libgeneric.o: In f
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message <20101117133056.gb23...@safe.home.local> you wrote:
>
> > MPC8xx boards break with long lists of multiple definitions of
> > symbols, like that:
> >
> > Configuring for FPS860L board...
> > lib/libgeneric.o: In function `vsprintf':
> > /home/wd/git/u-boot/work/
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 14:53:33 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> On 2010-11-17 13:06:49, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 08:30:56 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> > > The size increase you noted seems to completely go away when adding
> > > --gc-sections to LDFLAGS, but this
Dear Mike,
On 2010-11-17 13:06:49, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 08:30:56 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> > On 2010-11-15 11:54:07, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > I notice that the patch affects the size of the resulting U-Boot
> > > images.
> >
> > The size increase you noted se
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 08:30:56 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> On 2010-11-15 11:54:07, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > I notice that the patch affects the size of the resulting U-Boot
> > images.
>
> The size increase you noted seems to completely go away when adding
> --gc-sections to LDFLAGS, but
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message <20101117133056.gb23...@safe.home.local> you wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I have not been able to reproduce these errors with the
> toolchain I am using (gcc 4.4.5 and binutils 2.20.1.20100303, based on
> emdebian squeeze packages). Can you please point me to the t
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-15 11:54:07, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> I notice that the patch affects the size of the resulting U-Boot
> images.
The size increase you noted seems to completely go away when adding
--gc-sections to LDFLAGS, but this option apparently brings its own
issues when the linke
On Monday, November 15, 2010 03:09:50 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> On 2010-11-15 08:51:29, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > In message <20101110080708.ga8...@safe.home.local> you wrote:
> > > Good suggestion, done in v3:
> > I have to admit that I lost a bit of overview of the current state of
> > this work.
On Monday, November 15, 2010 07:38:28 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> some of this is simply due to change in linking order and the implicit
> padding in between each symbol for alignment requirements
>
> you can check how much this adds with the attached script:
this version fixes handling with defined
On Monday, November 15, 2010 07:38:28 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> replace the '$7 == "3"' check with whatever section number you want to
> check. in my case, 3 is ".text".
err, ignore this outdated comment
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Monday, November 15, 2010 06:33:40 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2010 05:54:07 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> > > I just uploaded the revised patch here:
> > > http://www.denx.de/wiki/pub/U-Boot/TooBigPatches/0001-Switch-from-
arch
> > > iv e-libraries-
On Monday, November 15, 2010 05:54:07 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> > I just uploaded the revised patch here:
> > http://www.denx.de/wiki/pub/U-Boot/TooBigPatches/0001-Switch-from-archiv
> > e-libraries-to-partial-linking-v4.patch
> >
> > Version 4:
> > Bring in Linux
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message <20101115080950.ga26...@safe.home.local> you wrote:
>
> I just uploaded the revised patch here:
>
>
> http://www.denx.de/wiki/pub/U-Boot/TooBigPatches/0001-Switch-from-archive-libraries-to-partial-linking-v4.patch
>
> Version 4:
> Bring in Linux comme
Dear Wolfgang,
On 2010-11-15 08:51:29, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> In message <20101110080708.ga8...@safe.home.local> you wrote:
>
> > Good suggestion, done in v3:
>
> I have to admit that I lost a bit of overview of the current state of
> this work. My understanding is that you are preparing a n
Dear Sebastien Carlier,
In message <20101110080708.ga8...@safe.home.local> you wrote:
> Good suggestion, done in v3:
I have to admit that I lost a bit of overview of the current state of
this work. My understanding is that you are preparing a new version
(V4 ?) of this patch?
If yes, do you ha
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 07:24:51 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> I was wondering whether config.mk is the right place for this function;
> would it be better in rules.mk instead? Both config.mk and rules.mk end
> up being included in all Makefile's.
for now, keep it with the other compiler tar
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 03:07:08 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> On 2010-11-10 01:57:30, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the config.mk looks weird:
> > +cmd_link_o_target = $(if $(strip $1),\
> > + $(LD) -r -o $@ $1 ,\
> > + rm -f $@; $(AR) rcs $@ )
> >
> > w
On 2010-11-10 03:55:21, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 03:07:08 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> > On 2010-11-10 01:57:30, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > the config.mk looks weird:
> > > +cmd_link_o_target = $(if $(strip $1),\
> > > + $(LD) -r -o $@ $1 ,\
> > >
Dear Mike,
On 2010-11-10 01:57:30, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> On Monday, November 08, 2010 17:04:32 Sebastien Carlier wrote:
> > This commit changes all Makefiles to use partial linking (ld -r) instead of
> > creating library archives, which forces all symbols to participate in
> > linking, allowi
42 matches
Mail list logo
