On 18 August 2015 at 22:03, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 18 August 2015 at 19:35, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 17:52 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> On 18 August 2015 at 17:19, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> wrote: >>> > Last time I checked, GCC44 ~ GCC49 all produced images roughly in the >>> > same ball park size-wise. UNIXGCC produced much larger images because >>> > it could not strip unused functions/data. >>> >>> Yeah, that is still true, unfortunately. >> >> Is it really still true? >> >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11539#c14 >> >> If the patch that Nick committed to fix this *isn't* working, please >> add a comment telling him that :) >> > > I did a quick test with the gdb-7.10-branch of binutils-gdb, and while > it does make some difference, it is still not sufficient > > Building OvmfX64 in RELEASE mode gives me > > Before: > the required fv image size 0xd67c0 exceeds the set fv image size 0xcc000 > > After: > the required fv image size 0xd2a18 exceeds the set fv image size 0xcc000 > > where GCC/ELF obviously produces something < 0xcc000 >
I had mistakenly omitted the -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections switches, but adding those makes it even worse the required fv image size 0xdbf98 exceeds the set fv image size 0xcc000 so there is definitely something dodgy going on here. I may not have the bandwidth to investigate this in depth, though. -- Ard. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
