> -----Original Message----- > From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.arib...@free.fr] > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:30 PM > To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > Cc: Premi, Sanjeev; Wolfgang Denk > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARMv7: Fix linker errors across > toolchain versions > > Le 01/12/2010 22:39, Albert ARIBAUD a écrit : > > This one is a conundrum. > > > > Using 2010q1, building omap3_evm causes a linker warning > > "arm-none-linux-gnueabi-ld: u-boot: section .bss vma > 0x8003e8f0 overlaps > > previous sections" while building omap3_beagle does not > cause any linker > > warning. > > > > Both boards use the same armv7 u-boot.lds and have a .bss > which is way > > bigger than the .rel.dyn plus .dynsym sections that it does overlay. > > IOW, they have a similar layout for .rel.dyn, .dynsym and > .bss, but one > > gets the warning and one does not. > > > > The one difference a readelf shows is that for beagle, > there is only one > > segment: > > > > 00 .text .rodata .hash .data .got.plt .u_boot_cmd .rel.dyn .dynsym > > > > While for evm there is > > > > 00 .text .rodata .hash .data .got.plt .u_boot_cmd .rel.dyn .bss > > 01 .dynsym > > > > Note that .bss has appeared in segment 00 for evm, whereas > it was absent > > for beagle, and that .dynsym was rejected to a second > segment -- why? I > > don't know. > > > > Note: I've tried with putting input sections .rel.dyn and > .dynsym into a > > single output section .rel.dyn: this makes the second > segment disappear, > > but for evm the warning remains and .bss remains in the segment. > > I have a tiny clue. > > Starting with the fact that the linker issue is only for one board, > omap3_evm, I looked up the board-specific code. First thing that I > noticed was > > static u8 omap3_evm_version; > > I changed this to > > static u8 omap3_evm_version = 1; > > so that the static was moved out of BSS and the linker warning > disappeared (reminder: v2010.12-rc2, omap3_evm, arm-2010q1). > > Now this is not the first static BSS variable we use in > U-Boot, and the > others did not cause linker warnings (not *all* the others, > at least), > so the real cause is yet unknown to me. But that's at least a lead we > can follow. > > If this BSS variable is used before relocation (I haven't > checked this), > then anyway it'll have to move; in that case I'll keep an eye on this > linker warning and try to sort it out if I get time.
I did explain yesterday that variable is not used in relocation. If you notice the code snippet I sent yesterday, I had removed every assignment to the variable. And 2009q1 was still not happy! > > Amicalement, > -- > Albert. > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot