On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:47:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/24/2012 10:30:48 AM, Peter Tyser wrote: > >Hi Scott, > > > >On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 19:01 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> This was introduced by commit > >244615197469dd6fe75ae082f38424b97c79aeaf, but it > >> fails in a minimal SPL build where the only thing in > >arch/powerpc/lib is > >> cache.c, which apparently doesn't generate any fixup records. > >> > >> If this check is really still needed, it should be moved > >somewhere more > >> appropriate, but given that it's been three years and no other > >> architecture does a test like this, I think we can remove it. > >It would > >> have been nice if the original commit said how old the problematic > >> toolchains were. > > > >There was a discussion about it a long while back that has some > >version > >information: > >http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg21415.html > > > >Based on my testing I only could reproduce the issue with 3.x > >versions, > >which are 7+ years old. > > So do you think we still need this check (moved to someplace we can > be sure will generate fixups), or is it time to remove it?
On ARM, when we build in THUMB mode we make sure to have a new enough gcc to produce a working binary. Maybe given the age of the broken toolchains adding something like the checkthumb rule in Makefile and arch/arm/config.mk and failing on too old would be right? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
