On 02/17/12 11:50, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Igor, > > Le 07/02/2012 09:01, Igor Grinberg a écrit : >> Hi Albert, >> >> On 02/07/12 00:56, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >>> Le 09/01/2012 09:30, Nikita Kiryanov a écrit : >>>> On 01/05/2012 04:56 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>>>> Dear Igor Grinberg, >>>>> >>>>> In message<1325764937-7342-1-git-send-email-grinb...@compulab.co.il> >>>>> you wrote: >>>>>> From: Nikita Kiryanov<nik...@compulab.co.il> >>>>>> >>>>>> Add board specific EEPROM handling module, >>>>>> read the serial number from the EEPROM and pass it to Linux. >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>>> * Fix strange linker warning: ".bss section overlaps previous sections" >>>>>> by changing the type of the eeprom_layout static global variable to int >>>>>> (probably this is a compiler bug). >>>>> Probably it is now. Did you inspect the linke rmap? >>>> >>>> u-boot.map shows the bss section aligning perfectly with the start of >>>> rel.dyn. >>>> >>>> The difference between the original "working" version and the version >>>> with the warning >>>> was an additional byte added by uchar eeprom_layout to the size of >>>> libcm_t35.o. >>>> This shouldn't be a problem because the bss section is followed by an >>>> ALIGN(4), but >>>> we decided to try changing eeprom_layout to an int and the problem went >>>> away. >>>> When we tried to define 4 uchars the problem reappeared. >>>> >>>> This suggests that this might be a compiler bug. >>>> >>>> There's been some discussion about this in the following threads: >>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/114646 >>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/90723 >>>> and we're not aware of any fix to the issue. >>> >>> Which prompted me to test --no-check-sections with CS 2009q1. >>> Adding it to LDFLAGS_u-boot does reduce the annoyance from errors to a >>> warning, >>> but there is no way to completely make it disappear. >> >> So the conclusion is still a tool chain bug, right? >> Probably it doesn't hurt besides the annoying warning. > > Sorry for being slow.
This is fine, I was also out for a week or so... > > Yes, it seems to be a toolchain bug and limited to a spurious warning. > However, spurious warnings are always a pain when doing a MAKEALL arm, > because the board is listed among the unclean and failed builds and then one > must go through these individually and remember that this specific warning is > both unimportant and unavoidable. That is exactly the reason why we tried (and succeeded) to workaround the issue... -- Regards, Igor. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
