Hi Heiko, On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:17:02 +0200, Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote:
> Hello Albert, > > on 09.04.2013 14:42, wrote Albert ARIBAUD: > > Hi Heiko, > > > > On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:11:38 +0200, Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote: > > > >>> Let us assume I keep 12K. Here is a current build of cam_enc_4xx: > >>> > >>> text data bss dec hex filename > >>> 439526 13148 311092 763766 ba776 ./u-boot > >>> 9073 840 500 10413 28ad ./spl/u-boot-spl > [...] > >>> Would that be ok? > >> > >> Yes, that seems good to me, but I could not test it ... > > > > I can do a diff of the binaries with and without the patch -- > > normally, they should be the same except for the U-Boot version > > identification. Would that do? > > Yes. I did this too, and see only a diff for the version string. Thanks -- I've staged the 10K+2K change for V2. > (But not forget to commit your change first, else the "-dirty" > in the version string will insert an offset ;-) I actually keep a 'fake_build' branch with a single nifty commit on it that makes almost all version information sources constant (only mkimage resists as it collects the current date and time programmatically, but that's ok, I don't aim for 100% faking. So, whenever I need to do bulk comparisons, I add this commit above the two branches to be compared, and two batch builds later, I can compare the .bins, even if different commit ID and/or local changes are involved. :) > bye, > Heiko Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
