On Thursday 31 December 2009 20:39:10 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote on 31/12/2009 19:44:40:
> > On Wednesday 30 December 2009 10:08:30 Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > --- a/common/cmd_nvedit.c
> > > +++ b/common/cmd_nvedit.c
> > > @@ -512,6 +512,7 @@ char *getenv (char *name)
> > > {
> > > int i, nxt;
> > >
> > > + name = LINK_OFF(name);
> > > WATCHDOG_RESET();
> > >
> > > for (i=0; env_get_char(i) != '\0'; i=nxt+1) {
> > > @@ -534,6 +535,7 @@ int getenv_r (char *name, char *buf, unsigned len)
> > > {
> > > int i, nxt;
> > >
> > > + name = LINK_OFF(name);
> > > for (i=0; env_get_char(i) != '\0'; i=nxt+1) {
> > > int val, n;
> >
> > you have no guarantee that getenv() is called with a const string which
> > is in the .rodata section. there's code that generates the env name in a
> > buffer on the stack and gives that to getenv(). does LINK_OFF() still
> > work then ?
>
> True. LINK_OFF will not work iff link addr != load addr and name isn't a
> const string. Basically if you want to use the LINK_OFF feature you have
> to use a const string.
some of the other functions in these patch sets fall into the same issue ...
like the output functions
> > > --- a/common/console.c
> > > +++ b/common/console.c
> > > @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ void putc(const char c)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > -void puts(const char *s)
> > > +static void printf_puts(const char *s)
> > > {
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SILENT_CONSOLE
> > > if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_SILENT)
> > > @@ -367,12 +367,18 @@ void puts(const char *s)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void puts(const char *s)
> > > +{
> > > + printf_puts(LINK_OFF(s));
> > > +}
> >
> > and if CONFIG_LINK_OFF isnt defined, does gcc correctly inline this ? if
> > not, i think there needs to be #ifdef CONFIG_LINK_OFF handling here.
>
> Possibly, however LINK_OFF is is a NOP if CONFIG_LINK_OFF isn't defined.
yes, but that doesnt mean gcc takes care of inlining all of printf_puts() into
the puts() and all the new call sites go to puts()
> > > --- a/lib_generic/crc32.c
> > > +++ b/lib_generic/crc32.c
> > > @@ -156,6 +156,11 @@
> > > */ uint32_t ZEXPORT crc32 (uint32_t crc, const Bytef *buf, uInt len) {
> > > +#ifdef LINK_OFF
> > > + const uint32_t *crc_tab = LINK_OFF(crc_table);
> > > +#else
> > > + const uint32_t *crc_tab = crc_table;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > the patch 1/4 you posted always defines LINK_OFF. it's CONFIG_LINK_OFF
> > which is dynamic.
>
> Yes, but LINK_OFF will work too. I can change this though, it looks better.
my point is that it should either be checking CONFIG_LINK_OFF or always using
LINK_OFF (since it nops when the config is off as you point out)
> The bigger question is if the LINN_OFF changes in general are acceptable to
> u-boot. Any board/arch that doesn't want this functionality should not
> notice I think.
i dont have any plans on wanting this, and it seems pretty invasive ... and
easy to introduce new code that breaks PIC people but no one else really
notices ...
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
