> > It seems like a clean solution. Adding a bss-aware fixup routine or > > putting the bss after the U-Boot image both seem good to me. The > > bss-aware fixup routine has a clearer readelf output and slightly more > > complicated code while the bss-after-uboot change has a misleading > > readelf output and simpler code. In any case I'd give a thumbs up to > > either of them. > > My vote is for the first, because otherwise we will run into > situations again and again where users and/or the linker get confused > about overlapping sections and/or sections wrapping around the > physical end of address space.
Are you proposing adding this new bss fixup code to this release, or rolling it into the next release along with Jocke's addition of relocation code written in C-code? Logically it'd be much easier to add this new bss fixup logic to Jocke's 1 C-code function instead of 15 assembly files, but then we'd have to have a temporary 85xx workaround just for this release (which is fine by me). Best, Peter _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
