[...] > > > - *(.__end) > > > - } >.sram > > > - > > > + _end = .; > > > > Does this have any kind of consequence in terms of checking the offset of > > .end vs > > the SRAM size ? (.sram) > > The value of _end does grow by 16b on the SPL for the kria boards, but > it doesn't seem to cause issues. > I can only find a single assert on those checks in > arch/microblaze/cpu/u-boot-spl.lds. Anything else you spotted? > > Keeping in mind that the code used to be like that before that linker > bug -- defining a linker symbol instead of a section, I don't think > anything will blow up
Also if you compile with -O2 instead of -Os the final binary and the _end memory address remain unchanged. So I assume the changes in the _end offset is due to compiler optimizations since the .end section is removed Cheers /Ilias > > /Ilias > > > > > > _image_binary_end = .; > > > > > > .bss : > >
