On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:12:57PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:55:12PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:53:34PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > >>I've been happy when I can use gcc-6.x for all the free cost savings but > > > >>current Debian tools (and current Fedora, and current any other big > > > >>distro) toolchains matter too. You can also see the size growth (but > > > >>not to fatal proportions) on CHIP or warp7 or MSI_Primo73 > > > > > > > >OK thanks for the pointers. I will take a look. I spent quite a bit of > > > >time on this (it was pretty awful at the start!) but obviously I > > > >haven't quite nailed it. > > > > > > So I've run some quick tests on F-24 which is at gcc-6 (and it is unlikely > > > u-boot v2015.07 will be coming to older Fedora versions) and I got the > > > following u-boot-spl.bin increase for Cubietruck: > > > > > > v2015.05: 19696 > > > master: 19932 > > > > > > So if others are seeing some more extreme increase then that is probably > > > the good old tool-chain problem with not eliminating unused strings. > > > > > > The way to work around this is look at the linker.map, find out which > > > object files have grown considerably on master, and check if the patches > > > in one of those files perhaps has caused us to use some const string > > > in there, where before we were not using any. The problem with the > > > toolchain > > > bug is that using a single const string in a .o file will make it link > > > in ALL const strings in the .o file, even the 99 other unused ones. > > > > > > In the past I've hacked around that in e.g. the malloc code, but TBH, > > > now that the upstream toolchain is fixed I'm not sure if we should > > > bother with kludging around this. > > > > I am a fan of gcc-6.x (as it saves us space on so many platforms), but > > with your sunxi hat on, rather than Fedora guy hat on, do you think > > telling people to just grab gcc-6.x is an OK solution for users? > > If I may chime in with my Debian hat on: > > Debian/unstable has gcc-6.1.1, so for the Debian developers and > "bleeding edge" users there is no problem. For users of > Debian/stable things don't look that good as there probably won't > be a backport of gcc-6 for Debian/stable and the other "usual" > source for a comparatively current crosscompiler - crosstool-ng - > also doesn't provide support for gcc-6 builds (not even in git > head). > > With Ubuntu the situation is similar: the current (and just > freshly released) Ubuntu 16.04 doesn't ship gcc-6; the first > Ubuntu release to ship gcc-6 will be 16.10. > > So the question is: does u-boot mainly address active developers > or shall it also be easily buildable for end-users. For the > former, requiring gcc-6 wouldn't be a problem, but for the > latter, it most probably would be as things are now.
So, I think we agree then that yes, we need to care about gcc-5.x, thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
