On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:27:19PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:25 PM Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yeah I saw that but this patch is not their in 2018.01 release that > > > > > > TI > > > > > fork > > > > > > is based on regardless I backported this patch to this version it > > > > > > did not > > > > > > bring the size below mark > > > > > > I think it’s because we are using hardened toolchain and that > > > > > > enalbles > > > > > > extra options to enable pie and ssp since these options get added > > > > > > to CC > > > > > > they get passed into uboot straight > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should just disable security flags for u boot in OE and > > > > > > may be > > > > > > uboot make system should append fno-pie fno-stack-protector to > > > > > > nullify > > > > > > these options > > > > > > > > > > OK, do you want to submit a patch for that or should I do one and just > > > > > Suggested-by you? Thanks! > > > > > > > >Yes, that's right. > > > > This would not be acceptable change since it changes how we build gcc > > > > itself secondly it does not happen for master uboot > > > > > > > > However if this works then we need to understand why it increas e the > > > > size > > > > > > Even if this change is not acceptable upstream, I would prefer it locally > > > in > > > meta-ti recipe, instead of disabling more features to free up 5-6KB in > > > SPL. > > > > this is a distro level change. meta-ti is not appropriate place to decide > > that > > Are we talking about passing fno-pie and fno-stack-protector to U-boot build > that you suggested above? That is what I'm referring here. It can be BBB > specific patch. That is until we figure out why it grows code so much... > oh I confused it with GCCPIE
> -- > Denys -- _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
