Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote on 2011/04/25 10:35:25: > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > > In message > <of102cc99d.b86b21b6-onc125787c.007cb439-c125787c.0080f...@transmode.se> you > wrote: > > > > Well, your gcc is different from mine and I know nothing about it as > > you won't say anything about it. > > If in doubt, use ELDK. All examples were compiled with ELDK 4.2 (GCC > 4.2.2) for ppc_8xx.
Have you tried gcc 4.3.x yet? > > > ## 4.4.5 has been patched to support msingle-pic-base > > CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-4.4.5_softfloat-linux-gnu- ./MAKEALL TQM855L TQM860L > > Configuring for TQM855L board... > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 267022 5284 27200 299506 491f2 ./u-boot > > Configuring for TQM860L board... > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 267043 5284 27200 299527 49207 ./u-boot > > I don't have gcc 4.4.x here for testing. > > > So I strongly suspect that as soon as you move your gcc version upwards, it > > will break > > these boards too. > > Yes, but for other reasons. Rather for these reasons too :) > > Recent versions of GCC (gcc 4.5.x) cannot be used to build this code > at all until they get fixed, as -Os is not working, and the code size > explodes completely. See GCC bugs 43810, 48278, and 45053. hmm, can't really make out if these TR:s also applies for gcc 4.4.5? There are some hints but I cannot tell for sure. > > > > I will not apply either of these commits - neither the reverted one, > > > nor this additional one, as both of them grow the memory footprint > > > instead of redusing it as you promised in the commit message. > > > > You should read the commit msg again. It requires a gcc which > > supports -msingle-pic-base. > > As the majority of gcc versions outthere does not support this > feature, we are trading a (slight?) advantage for a very limited group > against disadvantages for a very large group (probably everyone else > but you). That will probably change very soon. Gentoo will have -msingle-pic-base in its next gcc bump of 4.4.x and 4.5.x I think the mistake was to include the use of -fno-jump-tables in that patch too. The -msingle-pic-base part should be a NOP to all gcc's that don't have it. > > > I still don't know why it broke with your gcc but I suspect > > it is due to -fno-jump-tables(which is in the msingle-pic-base patch). > > Seems like that option in your case makes the code bigger. > > Indeed. As I cannot see any advantages, I reject this stuff, at least > for now. Indeed? Does that mean you confirmed that -fno-jump-tables was the cause? I can respin the patch without that part if so. Jocke _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
