Dear Peter Tyser,
In message <1254843932.24664.2083.ca...@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
>
> I personally like the current implementation of putting the bss after
> the entire U-Boot image. It keeps U-Boot's code, malloc pool, stack,
> bss, etc all in the same general area which is nice, and has the side
> benefit that the bootpg won't be overwritten.
OK, if you think so...
> I know ORing in 0x10 is a bit ugly, but what's the real downside of
> doing it?
Nothing. I just hate to allocate the bss at 0x0, because this is
actually incorrect - it's the result of an address overflow /
truncation, and pretty much misleading to someone trying to read and
understand the code. For the linked image, it does not _look_ as if
the bss was located _after_ the U-Boot image, it looks detached and
allocated in low RAM.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
We have phasers, I vote we blast 'em!
-- Bailey, "The Corbomite Maneuver", stardate 1514.2
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
