Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 14.11.2008 19:06, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 14.11.2008 18:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rminnich
New Revision: 1026
/home/rminnich/coreboot-v3/build/coreboot.initram_partiallylinked.o: section
.data.rel.ro.local: dual_channel_slew_group_lookup.3242
single_channel_slew_group_lookup.3243
Basic rule: If you want to have arrays of pointers in initram, you lose.
Pointers are not relocatable by definition. const is not going to help
you there.
Hm. This is bad. 'nother regression in v3 that wasn't in v2.
it's not acceptable as a rule. We have to fix it one way or another.
Why gcc is marking it as writeable is a puzzle but points to a bug
somewhere.
We could try and use indices instead of pointers. That's the easiest
rewrite i can think of to get the problem done without wasting the code.
This is clearly a gcc weakness. This stuff should not happen when
compiling PIC. That's what PIC is for.
We're missing one crucial piece which is necessary to get PIC to work:
The linker. PIC code must be linked _after_ its location is known. That
means a linker would have to pass over the final LAR archive. Right now,
we circumvent that requirement by using early linker tricks and by
prohibiting the use of arrays of pointers.
If we insist on using arrays of pointers, we must either run a linker
over the final LAR archive or abandon LAR completely and go for v2
linker magic.
Fully agreed. If we run a linker over the final LAR archive, then we
will need a way to run the linker every single time the LAR has changed
(including, mind you, on target, if we are going to go for the "replace
stages on the fly" thing). Does not sound appetizing at all. I also
don't like abandoning LAR - it is useful for payloads and such. But I
don't think thats what you meant - I think you meant to say that we
should "abandon the stages concept". And you know what - with all due
respect to Ron, I tend to be in favor of that option. Stages continue
to be rather painful. Just one guy's opinion.
Jordan
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
